Are casual gamers people too?
 

I read Emily Morganti's opening line of her review of 'The Witch's Yarn', and I laughed a little. I'm sure that was her intent. Yet the words have hung with me, and I feel a need to comment about them.

I think everyone should be mindful about raising barriers while communicating. This isn't about being 'politically correct', it's just a basic respect. In one sentence the author has raised the specter of 'one group is not like the others'. What is this, the third grade? I'm sorry, but I have to call 'silly' on that.

In that light, I'll quote the author's closing line, and just let the readers here think about it:

'...hey, this trend toward casual "almost adventure" games could be something we're all going to have to get used to.'

I'm afraid I don't follow. The whole point of the article - in fact, the whole point of the game is that "one group is not like the others". The developer references that continually, and the gameplay designed accordingly. The article isn't raising barriers; just acknowledging the ones that exist.

I could even argue that the wording was an attempt to overcome those barriers, but it's probably just easier to say that the first line was indeed a joke that couldn't possibly be taken seriously (or literally).

To me, the opening line read not so much as a dig at casual gamers but more a self-mocking reference to serious gamers for dismissing people who just want to pay a little. I'd say that most people signed up to a forum like this one would be dedicated gamers (emily included). It's thus very easy for us to look down on people who won't devote the time needed to appreciate such gems as GK3.

The fact is (as many of us so often discover ourselves) there are other things to do besides gaming. Much as some of us might like to, we can't spend 24 hours playing. So, if people prefer a quick game just to wind down after a hard day at work then that's a choice we should respect.

I must say, I liked emily's review. I was waiting until I'd had a chance to look at the demo (which I managed today) and I think it's a fair judgement. She doesn't dismiss it becuase it's a casual game but because it's presentation has flaws. I think it's always good to have bad reviews (that's reviews of things that are bad not poorly done reviews. :D ) because it's as important to be warned something doesn't live up to expectations as to be notified of things you might otherwise miss.

Thanks emily and keep up the good work.

Of course, there's an irony inherent in this particular group I'm speaking for. Most of them would never call themselves gamers, nor would they even recognize the label 'casual'. The term is a complete artifice created by industry people.

Btw, my comments have nothing to do with the body or contents of the review. I'm just talking about the bookends she chose.

I felt that Emily was just using a term that's been bandied about recently. The casual gamer, as referenced by Jane Jensen in her comments about Betrapped, point toward a huge audience of people who like to play the browser games, and who just might, with the right exposure toward puzzle type or mini-adv games, be drawn into the adventure gaming fold. They are not a "lesser" group, but simply not yet savvy about adv games. The more we can draw in, through whatever the means, the more adv games that are sold, the more money is available to make good adv games with. Works for me!

FGM

Couldn't have said it better myself. :) I honestly don't understand what the problem is. Especially when the developer himself makes such a big point of emphasizing that this game was created for casual gamers. This focus significantly influenced the gameplay, and people have a right to know that before they buy the game.

The simple fact is, adventure gamers don't see themselves as casual gamers, and the people this game is aimed at (whether they call themselves "casual gamers" or not) don't consider themselves adventure gamers. There are differences between the groups, whether they're labeled or not. How does pointing out those differences equal immaturity? (And if we're terrible people for thinking this way... fine then, let's head back to the third grade. ;))

These types of distinctions are made all over the industry, in all genres. Any time players verbalize what types of games they like, whether those are adventures or RPGs or FPSes, categories are established. Whether or not casual gamers consider themselves gamers isn't the point. The point is that categorization exists, and lately it's been shoved down adventure gamers throats as if we have no choice but to accept it and play those games simply because the developer insists we'll like them. Sorry, but a game that isn't created with an adventure gamer's likes and dislikes in mind, while it may be entertaining in its own right, isn't an adventure game, no matter how you try to spin it.

-emily

It's only natural that people will interpret an author in many ways, especially a phrase intended to be harmless fun. My original comments had nothing to do with spin but perspective.

I probably need to give a better sense of how I read it and why it troubled me. What if we changed it slightly...


Repeat after me: "Canadians are people too."
Okay, now that I got that out of my system…

...and...

...hey, this trend toward Canadians could be something we're all going to have to get used to.


If I were Canadian, I certainly might wonder if there was some doubt to my people-ness and if I would have to gotten use to.

People? Are they even mammals?

BTW, your example isn't valid. The article first comments on casual gamers and then casual *gaming*. Your example comments on Canadians and Canadians. It's not comparable.

(with a wink) So are you trying to say Canadians aren't casual gamers, or are you saying casual gamers aren't Canadians? (wink off)

I think he's saying that Canadians are not Canadi-ing.








:crazy:

You know, a friend of mine once told me that old French Canadian Asian women are the worst drivers in the world.

So I told him: "Repeat after me, Andrew: old French Canadian Asian women are people too."

But just because they "drive" cars, they don't have to shove down our throats that what they do is actually "driving." Cause what they do has nothing to do with our (drivers') likes and dislikes. Actually, it has a lot to do with our dislikes.

In conclusion--they may be human, but they're not really "drivers."

Get my point? ;)

Good, 'cause I don't either. :shifty:

Yeah, I get your point. You're saying that French Canadian Asian women are lousy drivers. :D

No! You got it all wrong! :shifty: You see (I just realized my true point): I was using the Canadian metaphor to explain what Emily meant to get across:

They're Canadian, and they're people, but what they do is not "driving."

Likewise, they're casual gamers, and they are people, but what they do isn't "adventure gaming."

So there. ;)

What? Now, that's just mean! :crazy:

:frown: Now we'll have to go back to fighting over what an adventure game IS.







And old men in hats are the slowest-ass drivers in the world. :D

Hey, don't shoot the messenger! Shoot Emily! :P


Is it like old men in baseball caps driving Porches, or old men in cowboy hats driving old crankedy-ass pick-up trucks?


...I think you're right on both counts! :D

:frown: I...I can't! She's too damn cute!

Wait... if casual gamers don't consider themselves "casual" or even "gamers", then why would they be offended by a reference they don't associate with themselves?

Anyway, besides the fact that many Americans DO think of Canadians that way (:D), your Canada example illustrates how absurd it is to take the remark literally. If I heard someone say that about us (based on a gripe over... absolutely nothing, as is the case here), I would KNOW to interpret it as that person's struggle to adapt to something about us. And all the more if it was said humourously. You said yourself that you laughed when you first read it, so I'd say it succeeded at what it intended. Dissecting it out of context just strikes me as looking for problems where none exist.

Hey, I'm American, and I have no clue. What exactly is the stereotypical Canadian like?

(or I should just ask in Chit Chat :D )

The context I established concerned the lingering regret I felt about my own reaction. The problem exists certainly within me, sparked by a few innocent but potent lines. By expressing my concern with in this forum, my purpose is to speak up for the ignorant masses that have been named in their absence. My purpose is to shine the light of righteousness upon the creeping shadows of transgression! Let hosts of judges be called, and may they cast their bones against the label makers, and the pigeon-holers, and those who would whip the enlightened masses into dark corners and teach them to whisper against one another!!!

You know there was once an elementary school teacher who...

QUOTE

"She divided the class into two groups: the brown eyes and the blue eyes. Anyone not fitting these categories, such as those with green or hazel eyes, was an outsider, not actively participating in the exercise. Elliott told her children that brown-eyed people were superior to blue-eyed, due to the amount of the color-causing-chemical, melanin, in their blood.


She said that blue-eyed people were stupid and lazy and not to be trusted. To ensure that the eye color differentiation could be made quickly, Elliott passed out strips of cloth that fastened at the neck as collars. The brown eyes gleefully affixed the cloth-made shackles on their blue-eyed counterparts.


Elliott withdrew her blue-eyed students’ basic classroom rights, such as drinking directly from the water fountain or taking a second helping at lunch. Brown-eyed kids, on the other hand, received preferential treatment. In addition to being permitted to boss around the blues, the browns were given an extended recess.


Elliott recalls, "It was just horrifying how quickly they became what I told them they were." Within 30 minutes, a blue-eyed girl named Carol had regressed from a "brilliant, self-confident carefree, excited little girl to a frightened, timid, uncertain little almost-person."


On the flip side, the brown-eyed children excelled under their newfound superiority. Elliott had seven students with dyslexia in her class that year and four of them had brown eyes. On the day that the browns were "on top," those four brown-eyed boys with dyslexia read words that Elliott "knew they couldn’t read" and spelled words that she "knew they couldn’t spell."


Seeing her brown-eyed students act like "arrogant, ugly, domineering, overbearing White Americans" with no instructions to do so proved to Elliott that racism is learned. Prior to that day in 1968, her students had expressed neither positive nor negative thoughts about each other based on eye color. Yes, Elliott taught them that it was all right to judge one another based on eye color. But she did not teach them how to oppress. "They already knew how to be racist because every one of them knew without my telling them how to treat those who were on the bottom," says Elliott."

END QUOTE

The moral of that story is how simple it is to divide people. The most innocent demarcation can drive a wedge. It's a lot harder to unite people.

Please keep in mind that I'm concerned about Emily's words, not her intent.

I think she could have found a better joke.

That until there are no longer first class
And second class citizens of any nation
Until the colour of a man's skin
Is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes
Me say war

I still think you're constructing a problem. It's only natural active gamers shun the trend of simplifying games they play to cater to a market that doesn't even care for games. Nobody thinks we're better persons, only better gamers.

You're reinforcing my point. People can shun games by not buying them. They shun other people by commenting on what makes themselves superior. This is how schoolyard bullies raise their social position, by pointing out or demonstrating the weakness of a victim. Most often (and most subtly) it's done through creating humor at the expense of that victim.

My premise is, Emily's opening and ending statements reinforce exclusivity. That's what I walked away with, regardless of my initial chortle. That's what I'm talking about. Just because you didn't experience the same thing, doesn't me what I experienced isn't important. Will you now say you're better than me at reading?

A joke's not a good joke if it doesn't make people a little uncomfortable. I learned that in psychology. ;)

You've made your point -- you're uncomfortable with the joke. I'm sorry that that's the case. No one else seems to be, though, and you already said you don't take issue with the body of the article. Why is this being beaten into the ground? If you're looking for an apology for what I wrote, it ain't gonna happen. I've been known to make poor jokes in the past, but this isn't one of them. :D

-emily

I haven't asked for an apology. I'm not looking for an apology. I made an original remark about my concern, and that satisfied me.

Then several responders tried to rationalize that my concern wasn't important. I stood up for myself. I gave an example of why I was concerned.

I thought that was the end of it when the conversation digressed into a thread of ridiculous hijinx, as forum threads often do.

Then another person suggested that no problem existed, and I reiterated that I had one, and I supported my original premise with an illustrative example.

That person returned with a remark so tattooed with a bulls-eye, I loosed what I continued to hope would be my last rebuttal.

Why are you calling that 'beaten into the ground'? It's just a debate.

I won't say that because I haven't got enough examples of how you've interpreted articles, nor am I such a great reader. Nevertheless, getting to your conclusions from what was written in the article is not very good reading.

Nobody is demonstrating the weaknesses of casual gamers except the maker of the game reviewed. Humour might be often used by bullies, but that doesn't mean you're a bully if you use humour.

Obviously, it's not a very good debate since the writer's intent continues to be defended, when the complaint is concerned only with the writer's choice of words.

You can't just separate intent out like that. It's true that bullies use humour to create torment, but they INTEND to cause hurt. In the case of the article this is clearly not Emily's intention.

As I said before, (and Emily confirmed) I saw that opening line as a dig at the very prejudices you are accusing her of reinforcing (intentionally or accidentally) Humour has been used in this fashioon for decades.

To take your Canadian example, "South Park - The Movie" represented Canadians as all having wobbly heads and funny accents. Thiis serves as a perfect example of a stereotype showing a group of people as "different" allowing justification for war (when the real problems are clearly closer to home) Similarly, an episode had a new flag for the town depicting a black figure being hung by a group of white figures. The town-wide argument about racism is halted in it's tracks when it's discovered the boy's haven't noticed the difference in skin colour.

And who exactly are you saying is going to be oppressed anyway. It's already been made clear that most casual gamers won't even recognise the label (it only has meaning within the game community) so they can't be offended if they don't think it applies to them. Do you perceive a future in which more serious gamers (like the members of this site) will dominate and belittle less committed players?

I'm not sure what you're aiming for. You've already said you don't want an apology. You've been keen to stress you don't think one group should be considered superior to another but no-one appears to be disagreeing with you on that (just that this was not Emily's intention, her being a games reviewer with an arguably poor sense of humour rather than a bully) Are you saying writers have to carefully scrutinise everything they say for possible offence? (Can't call the good guys white hats and the bad guys black hats. Could be viewed as racist) If so, then I must stand firmly against you. Not allowing a light, self-mocking remark which can't offend any group (since the group doesn't even know it exists per se) is a severe curtailment of freedom of speech and I kind of value that.

To paraphrase an earlier post: "Just because a person isn't a bully, doesn't mean that another won't feel bullied by them." If you've ever taken a course in workplace harassment, then you'll know what I'm talking about.


Absolutely not, which is why I don't want an apology, but I do reserve the right to comment on what people say and write. I believe this is the forum category for such comment.

Are you saying that no-one should be allowed to express their opinions about that which is written? If so, then I must stand firmly against you.


As for the non-existence of the oppressed, of course the casual gamer exists. It certainly exists in the minds of some people here who call themselves non-casual or serious gamers. I believe an earlier poster claimed to be a 'better gamer'. He must be comparing himself to someone. So far, the only examples I've read here of people's opinions of 'casual gamers' have been negative.

I don't think that's very neighborly, and I exercised my right to comment on it.


How about we all meet in a bar, beat the crap out of each other, and share a few beers afterwards? My carpel-tunnel's acting up...

Of course casual gamers are people.

Now, hardcore gamers on the other hand...

I've not taken a course in workplace harrassment but I think I know what you mean. It's perfectly possible for someone to act in a way that upsets others, even if that isn't their intention. Following on from that I can see what you're saying about intent being separate (to some extent). However, soemtimes upset arises because of misunderstanding of intent. For example I can say to my wife "Get to the kitchen where you belong woman" (which would be offensive if I meant it) but she is aware I don't seriously think like that (Her normal response is a succint "Ha!")
Fair enough. I didn't intend to say you had no right to comment but I can see that what I said sounds just like that. I apologise unreservedly for this. The right to raise objections is just as important a part of freedom of speech as the right to make statements that could be considered objectionable.
I acknowledge that the prejudice exists. I can also see that, as a result of this, some gamers may look down on others (though the group being looked down on may not understand why) But I don't think the lines in the review reinforce this. Taking the two lines in question.
This can be read as "A prejudice against casual gamers exists. I have been guilty of holding this prejudice. This is wrong. Casual gamers are people too and deserve equal rights" This would make the phrase uniting rather than dividing.
This could be considered as belittling casual gaming. However, this sentence also expresses a legitimate concern of us "more serious" gamers. To a certain extent there is a limited amount of game publishing muscle to go around. If more of this is devoted to games that can be picked up and played for short periods of time then there will be less for the more in-depth games that require more commitment to play that many of us prefer. It's a concern that it is the "serious" gamer that's going to become the oppressed minority, not the casual gamer.Sounds good to me. Averaging out our locations I guess we're looking at some sort of trans-atlantic cruise ship. Any preferences?

Okay Musenik, you've proved your point. Casual gamers ARE people too.

That wasn't my post you were paraphrasing, was it? If it was, you completely twisted it's meaning.



You have every right to express your opinion and we have every right to tell you why you are wrong.

Yes, I was comparing myself to people who do not play games regularly. I have no doubt that my skills in playing games are better. That doesn't mean my opinion about casual gamers is negative. It's just an attribute that doesn't have a stigma like skin color has. Let's take your eye color example:

If a brown eyed kid makes a comment about ugly blue eyed kids after the teacher has separated the two groups, he's out of line.

However, if a brown eyed kid makes a comment before the separation about blue eyed kids having blue eyes, he's only stating the obvious. Eye colour isn't something that is used to gauge people's worth as human beings, neither is skill in gaming.

Just because I think I can get head shots in Counter-Strike more often than people who haven't played it doesn't mean I harbour some negative feelings against those people.

Interesting that this debate is still going on. Musenik, by all means, speak your mind freely. No one has remotely suggested you shouldn't.

What isn't clear is that you ARE actually speaking up for anybody, because you've yet to identify anyone who'd be offended. You've failed to address that question on several occasions. Until you do, this is an interesting theoretical exercise, but that's all. What's funny to me is that I'm usually one of the most outspoken opponents of adventure gamers spouting elitist crap towards other genres. This is simply NOT such a case.

You've refused to acknowledge that Emily's comments are, in fact, a tongue-in-cheek way of overcoming the very prejudice you're concerned about. The "context" that you're missing is that those two insensitive, offensive, bullying (ahem) lines come in an entire article devoted to exploring a game that was created "specifically for the downloadable market." Meaning, not for experienced adventure gamers; the readers of this site. Further meaning, simply by virtue of writing the article about a game the developer made for a "different group", Emily has already shown more respect for the casual gamer than... well, from what I can gather... pretty much anyone else. How much easier to simply ignore the whole thing altogether?

By choosing to remove a few words from their original written context, magnifying and analyzing them on their own, you've completely distorted their purpose. Could someone still misconstrue them in context? I suppose. Could the article have picked a safer, more sanitized joke? Sure. But as has already been said, we're not going to cater to the most hyper-sensitive people that might potentially be out there. We obviously differ on where to draw the line, as to me this IS about being politically correct, and not about showing basic respect.

I'll just close with this. If there's a segregating statement in the entire article, it's the excerpt taken from this statement on the game's website:

The distinctions were there already. Not created by us. If I were a casual gamer (and acknowledged myself as such), I'd be far more offended by THAT generalization than by an obviously humourous remark on a site specifically geared to adventure gamers.

Since we are, in fact, talking about opinions on both sides here, I must contest this statement. It seems written from the assumption that your opinion is the only valid one. Admittedly, most of those posting have come out against Musenik (myself included) but that only means we BELIEVE Musenik's opinion to be wrong. To start with an assumption you're going to tell someone "why they are wrong" shows poor debating technique and a lack of respect. If you want someone to come round to your way of thinking you must persuade them. Telling them they are wrong will just entrench them in their opinions.

In fact, I find Musenik's general principle (that calling one social group inherently superior to another is a bad thing) to be sound. I just feel it is misplaced in the context that it was raised.

Oh no, I was just reminding that freedom of speech goes both ways, precisely encouraging debate instead of what you read from it.

Although I do think you have the goals of debate a bit wrong. It would hardly be possible without telling "why they are wrong", although you have to be diplomatic about. Convincing people is rarely possible, debate usually helps more with establishing your own views. Note the "why", but I can't fathom how debate would be possible without disagreement.

Honestly, I did not read the first line at all like that. It's the opening line, so the only context going into the article is the reader's baggage of the moment. I suspect she wrote it with her audience in mind, which appears to be demonstrated by her loyal champions here. I'm new to this board, so I don't have the advantage of knowing the culture.

From my point of view. I'd just returned from the GDC, where a lot of experienced gamers were talking all about casual gamers being the current force that's growing the PC games market, and how THEY've lowered the level of games. So when I read the opening line, I smiled at her phrasing, but I also rolled my eyes a little. After a while, I felt I should comment about it.

I've learned a LOT about the culture here, since then. <smile>

Musenik, have you asked a whole bunch of 'casual' gamers you know (or even any friends/family who sometimes play Solitaire or Minesweeper) how they felt reading Emily's article? I asked my sister to read it quickly (she plays Solitaire once in a while) and she said, "So? What's the big deal"

Also, Musenik, I hope you're also aware that we have a HUGE number of other good things here to offer you besides Emily's article, here in the forums as well as all of AG.com. Why don't you go explore? Your energy spent on this thread alone could also be re-channeled discovering us as a site and as an awesome community. Thanks for joining us. :)

My point is in debate you aren't telling by people why they are wrong but why you think they are wrong. This is why they are called opinions instead of facts. We've put forward logical arguments supported by some anecdotal evidence but without doing a proper survey of casual gamers (and not just people we know who happen to be casual gamers) we can't say for sure. There may well be a group out there that would feel offended and belittled by Emily's words. Instinctively we feel there won't be. Our own little investigations show no sign of them. But that's not the same as saying they're not there.

I'm not suggesting anyone really tries to do a survey like this. if nothing else, there are far more important subjects (even just in the field of discrimination) that such energy could be devoted to. Just don't tell people they are wrong unless you're dealing with indisputable fact.

This is not my native language, stepurhan, please let's not get bogged down by semantics. Of course we debate opinions, who in their right mind would have a debate over facts? ;)

Religious debate is all about arguing the facts, and people do it all the time. 'Cause you know, everyone thinks they're peddling facts once it comes to these issues. But, you could argue religious folk aren't in their right mind. :shifty: