Since "Casual player" is thrown around so much it has lost its meaning. I think it is about time it gets a defined meaning as per what a "Casual player" is? So please keep it constructive and open so everyone has an Idea so we can finally nail it down
A casual player is a player that seeks enjoyment/relaxation out of a game without having to dig deep in the mechanics of said game.
The player isn't actively seeking to be challenged nor having to learn specific skill set to play the game.
You can spend a lot of time playing while still being a Casual Player.
It's not necessarily related to the amount of time spent in a game.
Casual - relaxed and unconcerned.
Gintoki88 said:I thought it was a tag for everyone who wasnt in my guild? /sarcasm
Actually ignore my first reply. Gintoki is right, a Casual is anyone that's not in his guild. Sorry I forgot about it, I went ahead of myself.
There are two (or three) axes/spectra of players that the terms casual are used to describe a section of both, even though they're very different.
Skill/Knowledge Axis:
Casual is used here to describe people who don't care to get into mechanics, memorize optimal rotations, do out of game research on forums/sites to tell them the optimal way to play their class or optimal builds ot use, don't want to spend hours on a training dummy forching their rotation into muscle memory, etc etc etc. Note this is differnt from Ability, as some people may be great at figuring out mechanics and dealing with them but horrible at metronoming their way through a static rotation while doing other things.
Time Axis:
Casual is used here to describe people who don't play the game much OR who don't play in long stints in any play session. A person playing less than 10 hours a week or a person playing less than 1 hour at a time (and thus wanting "conveniences" in terms of travel or group forming) would fit here. So not only is casual used on this axis, it's used in two DIFFERENT WAYS as well.
Ability Axis:
Casual is used here to try to describe people that aren't very good at the game. In this use, it's a synonym with "Badz/Bads", though that is also used as a blanket insult for anyone who isn't at the ability level of the person casting the insult. Note that this is distinct from "skill" (though is probably what actual SKILL is) because this is referring to the person's ability to execute the dances around bosses or to be able to figure things out themselves as opposed to people reading what other people tell them to do and doing the same thing. Some people can have mastery of their rotation but be unable to figure out how not to stand in the fire.
Demenor Axis:
Casual here is a person who is kind of happy go lucky and not very competitive. Note that the person may be very skilled, have great ability, and a large time committment, but they don't run the hardest raids or PvP competitively because they just don't care. They might be fully capable, but they're just uninterested. Of all the uses of casual, this is probably the least insulting and is the most accurate.
.
Bads/Badz are also used in many of these ways.
Honestly, none of these are good definitions for casual, and are just the word "casual" being used as an insult rather than a valid descriptor. The Demenor Axis casual is probably the most accurate.
Since it's used as an insult/slur, it doesn't have a specific definition other than "those people I don't like", which is why people that don't consider themselves casual often call people they don't like "casuals" or even "filthy casuals", and blame them for everything they don't like in the game (even changes that are made for the sake of hardcore, elitists, raiders, etc.)
"Causal" and "Hardcore" are two directions on a spectrum. Most players already have an idea of what qualities are associated with each end of the spectrum (though many might be surprised at how widely those opinions vary). Everyone falls somewhere on the spectrum. The range of the spectrum is relatively infinite, as one can always find additional qualities that can further quantify the spectrum as needed when trying to differentiate between individuals who happen to fall closely together on it.
Because it is a tool for comparison, rather than an objective scale, EVERY player is both more casual than some, and more hardcore than others. Your position is determined by which arbitrary qualities are chosen to rate you (and by where on the spectrum the one rating you falls).
I will play Panthon every day at release. Player X plays only on Saturdays. Commonly, that would make me the hardcore player. BUT, I am single and retired, while player X has a family and full time job. So he may devote a significantly higher % of his 'free time' to playing than I do. Oops, now he is the more hardcore player. But if we decide that the cost of your gaming computer is to be the criterion of the moment, then my $5000 Alienware setup takes back the hardcore title from his economical, homebuilt rig. I win! Until I admit that I have little interest in raiding. I loose. (Curses, foiled again!)
As Philo has suggested, I see no meaningful way to define any objective definition of 'casual' or 'hardcore'.
One might gain more insight by looking at which players think one end of the spectrum is 'better' than the other. And which end it is. And WHY. But that would certainly be off-topic, and almost certainly more contentious than this topic.
casualty (n.)
early 15c., casuelte, caswelte, "chance, accident; incidental charge," from casual (adj.) on model of royalty, penalty, etc. From the earliest use especially of untoward events or misfortunes. Meaning "losses in numbers from a military or other troop" is from late 15c. Meaning "an individual killed, wounded, or lost in battle" is from 1844. Casuality had some currency 16c.-17c. in the sense "chance, a chance occurrence," especially an unfortunate one, but now is obsolete.
Leevolen said:casualty (n.)
Maybe searching for the correct word (or term) is too complex.
Khraag said:Leevolen said:casualty (n.)
Maybe searching for the correct word (or term) is too complex.
Khraag said:Leevolen said:casualty (n.)
Maybe searching for the correct word (or term) is too complex.
Khraag said:I mean, I see the humour in the post.
Joppa says: “You embraced your perception and that opens up the dialog and now you’ve read through the dialog and you got another perception ping..."
My definition of a "Casual Player" is simply one that is not in a rush and/or not interested in racing to defeat content first (especially max level raid content) or actively seek out BiS gear to the point of having that dictate your play sessions. The vast majority of MMORPG players are casual players, probably something like 95%. They are interested in playing with friends, having fun, and enjoying their time in the game world. Challenge or difficulty of the game has nothing to do with being casual, as most casuals enjoy challenging gameplay, it just needs to be when and where they feel like participating in it and they don't enjoy the stress that racing to content can cause.
It's obviously going to vary somewhat, person-to-person, but it's interesting to see people's definitions.
To me a 'casual' player is one that plays for fun and the joy of the game itself.
They play when it's convenient and practical and aren't driven by maintaining a ranking or statistical position.
They might be regular or irregular, but won't be playing to an 'imposed' schedule or feeling 'forced' or 'obliged' to play.
They aren't driven by external (or internal) notions of 'achievement'. They just want to enjoy the game. If 'achievements' are part of the game, they might enjoy 'collecting' them if they aren't too OTT.
They don't strive for some notion of perfection or try and be better than anyone in particular.
They don't obsess about their efficiency or performance beyond what is needed to play the game.
If a part of the game is stressful in something like a real world way, they might well ignore it.
They probably won't seek out the fan scene and if it's overly intense they might well avoid it.
To me, 'casual' has nothing to do with most ideas of challenge, though I see how some people's definition of challenge may make them think that, eg. if *they* feel a game must have competitive to be challenging, then yeah, they might think 'casuals' don't like challenge. What they don't like is unnecessary competitiveness on top of the game.
Casual may have nothing to do with time effort, either, if that casual has plenty of time to spare.
They basically aren't driven by the same things an intense fan of a game might be driven by. They don't take anything to extreme. They could well be into some of those extreme aspects, if they have that natural bent, but they wouldn't push themselves beyond what they find natural in order to be an 'achiever'.
As an example, I love Battlefield 1. I've played the whole franchise (15 years now). BF1 (oddly, the second-to-latest version) is 5 years old now and I still play pretty regularly. I play with RL friends on a Friday night - not every one, but a lot. The forums are dying, but I was very active and I even got a rare "DICE Friends" award from the devs for my contributions. I have a YouTube channel based on Battlefield that has 700+ subs and tens of thousands of views. I got involved in the Easter Egg solving community and made guides and, solving one part myself, developed an Excel spreadsheet-based solution to help others.
Most players of BF would think that's pretty far from 'casual', right?
As a BF1 *player* though, I still consider myself quite 'casual'. The reasons being: -
I don't obsess over my stats like a lot of the players do.
The most fun I have is with my friends who don't play much and we don't do great, but it's always a laugh.
I do always try and play to win the game and achieve the objectives, but only like when playing football you try and help your team score, or what's the point, not in some obsessive, sweaty way.
I try and win, but I'd rather lose and have a close game than win a one-sided victory.
I am often, when playing alone, top of the leaderboard, because I have thousands of hours in game, but I play every class and do what is needed by the team, not play some 'meta' in order to score well.
I never used to be anything but average and am only better now because of my mass of experience and practice, which is incidental from loving to play, not from being desperate to achieve.
Even though it's a shooter PvP multi-player game, I find it to be the best one because it is has team-based, squad-based, cooperative objectives, which is much more interesting, challenging and involving than solo domination.
TL;DR: I think the terms 'casual' and 'hardcore' are useful, but obviously flexible so making binary, definitive statements about them is pretty pointless. I don't view either as 'insulting' per se; like most things, it's the way they are used/intended that's important.
I think its a bit of a Schroedingers (sp?) cat.
If observed alone and comparable to no other source or if the player itself does not know to compare themselves to another, then there is no difference in modifier for all are players. Wether you call them casual or flatulent.
I think it depends on motivation/game accomplishments.
The question is interesting because I find myself inadvertently defining the good qualities of what I perceive to be the "hard-core" gamer and by extension why that obvious minority is important to the Devs. When Conversely it is the non-hard-core gamers that make up the vast quiet population of a consistent revenue stream.
From a "casual" perspective, casuals are symbiotic to the hard-core. Dependent on the info the Hard-cores produce early on that the casuals consume at their own pace in regard to quest walk-throughs, maps, item feedback, under/overcons, even higher end raid strats. I think Portal was the only game where the player was forced to solve the puzzle with no outside source to get hints or preliminary layout info. Imagine if every player in an MMO had to do that in a group/multi-group/raid situation? That is the ideal, but...how much info is needed because of something missed or highly counterintuitive in the NPC dialogue were it not for a "hard-core" that took the time to work it out? (reference: EQ Vasty Deep water quest with no Hints/spoilers- hit a dead end, nothing intuitive to lead you on past the middle)
Caine said:I casually play hardcore.
Ooh..then you have the hardcore casual players that put in a lot of time and effort to not put in a lot of time and effort.
Basically the entire idea of defining hardcore and casual is a moot point as it is all relative compared to where you might place yourself on said spectrum.