The Casual Skeleton in the Hardcore Closet
A recent post on Raph Koster’s blog describes a tectonic shift in the games industry—particularly the console segment—towards a repositioning of target audiences to the casual crowd… or at least more casual than in previous generations. “Away from the core gamers” is the salient detail, at any rate. Core gamers, it seems, are upset by this. Some seem to feel that the niche markets are being abandoned, and the games they grew up on will become fewer and more scarce in a steady downward spiral until they virtually cease to exist by any mainstream consideration.
But as Raph points out, many so-called “core” gamers have been enthralled by casual-esque titles for years, and many exhibit behavior that questions the definition of “core gamer” in the first place. The reality is, core gamers have closets full of casual skeletons. Many of the most popular titles in the hardcore echelon are now played in casual ways, making many of the people who play them “gamers who play casual games to a hardcore extent.” If you can think of a catchy moniker for that, I’m all ears 
I refer you to Raph’s follow-up post, which comes to a similar conclusion.
But consider my point: take a few core PC titles from my high school years: Starcraft, Half-Life and Counterstrike, Unreal Tournament, Age of Empires 2. With the exception of the last title, all these games have multiple modes of play, from single-player campaigns lasting many hours to multiplayer skirmish/deathmatch modes that can be played, yes, casually, which is to say quickly, easily, and with immediate reward. Granted, to play at any kind of competitive level (particularly on Battle.net) you needed to invest a considerable amount of time honing and polishing your skills. But once the core gamers did that, they shifted their attention to those play modes that fit a casual model and became, in effect, just casual gamers who play all the time. At my LAN parties, a game of SC would last, on average, fifteen to twenty minutes. Games of UT lasted maybe ten. The original CStrike, far and away the most popular and common title at our LAN, has rounds that last, at maximum, four minutes! That’s a casual game. Get in, get out, get your fix. Come and go as you please.
[EDIT for clarification] However, that’s not to say that core play does not exist at the advanced levels of these core games—far from it. As A. Ortiz pointed out in a comment below, some core players find a new definition of core: the semi-pro, tournament ring. That’s core on a level that makes what we call core seem casual. But for many core players like myself, that’s not desirable. Once we’ve exhausted the core play—the campaigns and story modes that take hours and hours and require real mastery—virtually all the value that remains in the game is in the multiplayer modes. I’d argue that the majority of people good enough to play on Battle.net do so in a casual fashion—in multiple short, self-contained, somewhat formulaic “instance” games.
So when core gamers bemoan the decline of the “core game,” what are they really afraid to lose? And are they actually going to lose it? The industry is growing across the board, and even if the majority of the audience—and with it the definition of “mainstream”—is swinging towards casuals, core games will not get lost to history. Raph argues that as the mainstream turns more casual and “core” moves towards the niche, these titles may get more isolated but they’ll never disappear. The very definition of “niche” is a market that always exists for rare but passionate devotees to specific type of product. They may indeed get more expensive, but with the industry running towards digital distribution, and with the advent of business models including episodic content (here’s looking at you, Valve) and microtransactions, fringe games are going to get easier and cheaper to make—including the niche titles. And of course, lets not forget the surging indie community—the cross-section of core and niche gamers in that field is well above the industry mean, and we can already see trends emerging that reveal the deep and energetic love of the core and niche from indie developers. Core games will remain, and remain strong. So relax, core gamers. I’m one of you, and I don’t see anything to fear from the casual future.
While I agree with you on some points, I have to disagree with you on others. For one, I would abhor a future where casual games were the only game type found. I don’t hate casual games–I love games like Rock Band and Peggle. I enjoy them. But recently Scott John Siegel said games should be succinct, like listening to a music album.
Because I am such a bigot.
http://www.numberless.net/blog/2008/01/14/video-games-should-be-more-like-albums/
I, however, believe that that’s much more a casual approach to games. Listening to an album takes you about half an hour or so. Reading a work of literature takes you the greater part of four, five–up to ten hours. What happens when you want to make a game that equates to a work of literature? A “casual” attitude would never be able to put that large scope into concise, come -and-go gameplay. You need a bit of hardcore thinking in there.
Imagine no longer seeing games like the original Half-Life. I love multiplayer games. But I would be devastated if extensive, profound single-player campaigns ceased to exist the way we know them.
I also disagree with the idea that games like Starcraft and Counter-Strike are casual games. You can play them casually, of course. In that, there is no doubt–they receive that out of virtue of being multiplayer games. That’s why the public servers on Source are filled with 24/7DUST2 rooms. But what about people who play seriously, for competitions like CAL-I? They play scrimmages and matches, working together as a team, growing and learning in their skill set to become masters of the game and perfect, symbiotic squads. That doesn’t fit a “casual” approach at all–on the contrary, I’d think that would be a very core approach to multiplayer.
Games like Halo, where it’s really not all that clear what’s based on skill and what’s based on finding the best way to exploit everyone on the map at the same time, I can consider causal. I don’t think I really improve much when playing Halo. I can, if I play through all the modes of the game–Easy to Legendary. But it’s not as focused as something like Counter-Strike, where teamwork, reflexes and practice are of the essence to plant or prevent the bomb. Anyone can jump into a Halo CTF and capture the flag and run off with it. Anyone can enter a CS:S match and plant the bomb. But up against those masters of the craft who take the game to heat–to hard core–nobody “casual” will stand a chance.
At least, that’s my view. I think that kind of dedicated hardcore gameplay element is needed in the games industry. I don’t mind implementing casual play–I’d love to be able to combine both types of play in one game and attempt to find something everyone can be excited about. But you can’t abandon what we once were just to try to appeal to more people. Know your roots. NES Controller.
I point you to my own article on casual versus hardcore
http://itmayevenbe.com/2008/01/13/how-casual-are-hardcore-games/
Excellent argument! I can see where you’re coming from, and I believe I need to clarify some things about my post. When I said that the shift in the industry was towards casual, I didn’t mean to imply that core games would one day be a memory. I can see how that reference to “the mainstream” would lead to that conclusion. What I meant was, the industry will one day view the casual crowd as the majority audience, and the majority of games will have casual or casual-like gameplay (keep in mind that, when I say majority, I mean all games produced everywhere for every platform, including the web and mobile devices). BUT! That doesn’t mean core games won’t exist. They will simply be much closer to niche than to mainstream. I fully expect and anticipate many excellent core games to come, from big firms but also from the indie space. I, like you, would be very upset to see the long campaign disappear! So let me assure you: I don’t believe that will ever happen.
Regarding your comment on casual play in core games, here again I feel I was unclear: I meant to say only that casual play exists at advanced stages of core play. Not all advanced play is casual, obviously, as no casual player enters or succeeds in the kind of semi-pro, tournament setting you described. But for many core gamers like myself, casual-style play is virtually all that remains interesting in many of the old core games. Sure, I could go a beat the campaign in SC again, but much of the value is lost once you know the secrets. But Battle.net play still remains vibrant and challenging, and for the majority of core players (i.e. those who are advanced enough to hack it online but not crazy enough to go pro) that’s a casual-esque existence. So I see the casual and the core co-existing quite harmoniously in core games—indeed, that was the main point I sought to make in the post. Perhaps I should go rewrite it a bit and avoid future confusion
Incidentally, in response to the line: “you can’t abandon what we once were just to try to appeal to more people:”
But that’s another topic for another time. I’m with you, anyway 
Actually, we—sorry, Americans—love doing just that. We do it all the time
Awesome
And I agree with your clarifications, and am glad you’d also feel mortified at the disappearance of the core scene altogether.
As for abandoning what you are to try to appeal to more people–well, I can see cases in which it would be a good thing. But usually it would be when what you are is harmful or distasteful to people. Otherwise, I would be offended if I were asked to do that–change my game so it appeals to more people. The nerve.
Then again, I’m not from the U.S.
Fair enough—it’s an odious tradition that has seen the demise of many beautiful and irreplaceable things in this country. Of course, it also produces a tremendous amount of wealth and a culture driven by innovation and…. ahhh, it’s a heady debate. Suffice to say, I’d be upset if the core games I love got rubbed out
Especially since there doesn’t seem to be any reason why we can’t have it all—the old and the new—to everyone’s satisfaction.