'F*** casual gaming,' says Rockstar boss

By Ellie Gibson Published 2 May, 2008

But Houser thinks the Wii is "fantastic".

Rockstar Games boss Dan Houser has declared he's no fan of casual gaming - in no uncertain terms.

"F*** all this stuff about casual gaming," he told the New York Metro.

"I think people still want games that are groundbreaking. The Wii is doing something totally different, which is fantastic. We're hopefully going to prove that there's also a very big audience for people who want entertainment in another form, who think of games as being a narrative device that can challenge movies."

According to Houser, too many developers make games about the same old themes - "orcs and elves, or monsters, or space". In contrast, Rockstar prefers to make games "about something we could actually relate to. Or aspire to".

As for the issue of whether there's too much violence in GTA IV: "If you don't like any violent content in your entertainment, then I apologise because I do. And I've unfortunately been exposed to it my entire life. If we equally got rid of a lot of books that talk about violence, okay."

Houser went on to question why it seems to be okay for violent content to feature in films and TV programmes, but not games. "What you're saying is you don't like the medium because we don't have a George Clooney type sticking his face in front of the camera. There is nothing in the game you would not see in a TV show, or a movie a hundred times over, so I don't understand what the conversation is about."

For more from Houser, including some stuff about, you know, how they made the game and everything, read the full interview.

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (81) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • lambtron #1 4 years ago

    Ah, I am not the only one left manning the barricades I see.

    Still, its a losing battle :(

  • Widge #2 4 years ago

    According to Houser, too many developers make games about the same old themes - "orcs and elves, or monsters, or space"

    or generic marine troopers

  • TagemandBagem #3 4 years ago

    'Fuck casual gaming,' says Ari Gold.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #4 4 years ago

    Still, its a losing battle

    That all depends on how long GTA can beat Wii Fit in the charts.

    According to Houser, too many developers make games about the same old themes - "orcs and elves, or monsters, or space"

    Or urban violent crime?

  • SleepyMagpie #5 4 years ago

    Yeah, fuck casual gaming indeed.

    But Dan, this is a pretty guarded statement given that you heap praise on the Wii afterwards..

  • rudedudejude #6 4 years ago

    Go dude!

  • BiscuitBase #7 4 years ago

    Well if Houser thinks GTA is successful because of its narrative then he's massively mistaken. You could take all that story crap out and it would still be a great game.

  • Stu #8 4 years ago

    There's a wonderful bit of storytelling in GTAIV where there's a huge clap of thunder and flash of lightening as you drive back to your safehouse to find it's been torched. There's so much thought in that game, it's just superb.

  • SleepyMagpie #9 4 years ago

    Ok, but the GTA IV story is (as far as I've gotten) really pretty good. So they've advanced in that area.

  • syphaa #10 4 years ago

    Badass.

  • chrisola #11 4 years ago

    "Houser went on to question why it seems to be okay for violent content to feature in films and TV programmes, but not games"

    It's because you are in control of a game. In films you watch a violent act. In a game, YOU are the person who chooses to carry out a violent act.

    Games are interactive, that's the big difference....little Jonny can sit and watch cars being stolen in a movie, but in GTA little Jonny is the one who chooses to steal a car, and then to stab the owner with a knife and reverse over the corpse :p




  • M83J01P97 #12 4 years ago

    @Stu

    Weather in GTA4 is a random thing.

    During that particular part of the game it was a sunny day for me.

  • timpig #13 4 years ago

    that's all great and everything, but the main reason i havn't picked up GTA yet is that I don't have time to play it. job. family. friends. freelance work. anime to catch up with...

    I do know, however, that me and the g/f will get a few games of Wii bowling in tonight when we get back from the pub....

  • Velios #14 4 years ago

    That guy sounds like a complete idiot.

    I'm tired of this stupid comeback from companies like Rockstar when people critisize their violent games. Saying that "It is something that you see every day in a film or read in a book" just doesn't hold weight and sounds pathetic, even though strictly speaking it is true.

    YES you do see violence and sex in books, film and television - the key difference is that in those mediums the viewer is not taking an active role in the violence being dished out. For example, in a book - you might read about some poor fella getting struck over the head with a baseball bat 20 times, but in GTA - you actually make a conscious decision to do that yourself (as I have done loads of times,... even ran over the body with a hummer just to make sure the twat was dead)

    So.. there IS a difference.

    The participation in violence is altogether more stimulating than just watching or reading about it. Doing all these crazy things that we just cant do in real life is a hoot... For me personally, the more realistic these games get I sometimes consider the implications of doing that in real life...

    But thankfully I have been able to control my impressionable young mind.

    Last night I went into the Strip Club. I was unsatisfied at the lap dances I received (I wanted extras) so I went and found a handily placed shotgun in the office, then re-entered the club and blew the dancer away... and then all the other girls in the club, the bouncers too, and then the police that arrived on the scene were slaughtered one by one until I ran out of bullets. It felt good, I was duly arrested and released 6 hours later.

    Violence in games is NOT the same as violence in films or books. That doesn't mean it needs to be banned.

  • sickpuppysoftware #15 4 years ago

    "game casual fucking" says sickpuppy

  • redlander #16 4 years ago

    Or aspire to

  • DFawkes #17 4 years ago

    @chrisola

    How did little Jonny get the game? Most likely culprits are parents who don't realise, parents who don't care, and stores for selling it to him. Those aren't the same issue, that's about getting people to take notice of age restrictions and take them seriously.

    So why, for responsible adult, is it not okay for violent games? You're right that it being interactive does make it different, but I though most adults could just not stab the owner of the jacked car and reverse over him. Although in game I prefer to go forward, handbrake turn and run him over, but that's both the beauty and curse - free choice.

    The more you make a game feel free, the more you have to allow, so the furthur you can push immoral actions. In GTA3, you could, if you choose, make use of a prostitute and kill them for the money. But you were never told to, it's just an extra bit of freedom. No politician will go on about how you can walk about Liberty City sightseeing if you want, or just play darts, or do any of the other cool little things that they put in to make it feel awesome.

  • Camorrista #18 4 years ago

    Erm, he said "Eff asterisk star asterisk"?

    Why the censoring?

  • SpielFuhrer #19 4 years ago

    Thankfully he's not some tard who thinks Wii = casual gamer. It was the playstation afterall that started the casual gaming revolution.

    Besides titles like GTA, Metal Gear Solid etc are the titles which the casuals love...

  • alimokrane #20 4 years ago

    Oh yeah indeed screw casual gaming!

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #21 4 years ago

    I never understood the British sales figures for Metal Gear Solid. It's a frustratingly impenetrable idiosyncratic mess - an acquired taste that is the absolute antithesis of causual gaming for the masses. And yet it sells like hotcakes.

    I imagine that a fair proportion of its buyers don't get past the intro sequence.

  • miiiguel #22 4 years ago

    "Still, its a losing battle

    That all depends on how long GTA can beat Wii Fit in the charts."


    I don't understand this "war" thing, that was clearly imported from the US. I mean, imagine the Wii fit sells 8 millions copies, and GTA 4 sells 8 million and *one", this would mean Wii Fit is "oh da looser"...

    An Epic guy said the other day, that there's also this crazy idea that if a game doesn't sell as much as Halo 3 (insert the record holder here), it's automatically a failure. This is dumb, imho.

  • peterfll #23 4 years ago

    Why can't we all just get along?

    \hugs a casual gamer

  • Concrete #24 4 years ago

    F*** GTA I want Walker 2.

  • Razz #25 4 years ago

    Big words from someone that makes a game that hasn't changed muc h from the original release.

  • loopy #26 4 years ago

    "YES you do see violence and sex in books, film and television - the key difference is that in those mediums the viewer is not taking an active role in the violence being dished out. For example, in a book - you might read about some poor fella getting struck over the head with a baseball bat 20 times, but in GTA - you actually make a conscious decision to do that yourself (as I have done loads of times,... even ran over the body with a hummer just to make sure the twat was dead)

    So.. there IS a difference."

    Oh right, so it's ok to sit and watch ultra-violence as long as you don't actually physically have anything to do with it, because we all know that it will be totally unaffecting to the veiwer right?

    meh typos
    Edited by 3 at 02/05/08 @ 17:07

  • Muddtallica #27 4 years ago

    You know, one of the things that's really shocked me in all the hoopla over GTAIV is my realisation that people actually gave a toss about the plots of GTA games; this was something I found strange, because in my experience of the series (ie, up to and including Vice City) the narratives of Grand Theft Auto never hit me as anything more than a basic, self-conscious string of gangster movie cliches. I'm not even stating that as a criticism - after all, a large part of the appeal of the GTA series is that it lets players live out their gangster movie fantasies - but I never got the impression, from the games I played at least, that they were ever attempting to do anything more than ape movie stereotypes, and certainly not that they were attempting to provide a showcase for games as a legitimate storytelling medium. Is this guy talking out of his ass, or do the later GTA games genuinely hold their own as narrative experiences?

    Whatever the case is, I do feel he's bandying terms like "groundbreaking" in a fairly disingenuous way. GTAIV is clearly a fantastic title, and I can't wait to play it, but I've seen and heard nothing about it to convince me that it's anything other than Another 3D GTA Game, just like the other 3D GTA games they've been releasing over the last seven years. Again, that's no criticism: the brilliant Mario Galaxy, for all its bells and whistles, was just Another 3D Mario Game, and I'll be pretty disappointed if MGS4 isn't Another MGS Game. Game fans from all walks of life tell developers they want vastly new and different experiences, but they're lying; what they want is the same thing they know and love, but better, over and over again. GTAIV is just that: Same Old, But Better. That's fantastic, and they've done it brilliantly, so they deserve our money and adulation, but to try and tell me that it's "groundbreaking" just seems like they're insulting my intelligence. You can scoff and curse and scream "gimmick" all you want but when you break it down, a weight-and-fitness game aimed at middle-aged women breaks a hundred times more new ground for the videogame medium than the hundredth driving-and-shooting crime game does, no matter how good it is...

    PS - Mentalist(air) - I know just what you mean about MGS games. Honestly, I think that the series's position as a "Big Franchise" does it no favours at all; once you get past the blockbuster trimmings, the games are and always will be incredibly offbeat and idiosyncratic in their approach to gameplay and plot structure, and are in no way titles that everyone would enjoy. Sadly, I think you're right about most purchasers never getting past the intro; whenever I look in the PS2 pre-owned section in any shop I can barely move for copies of MGS2 floating around for insultingly low prices...

    PPS - Bloody hell, Razz, you basically just took a point that it took me 219 words to express and summarised it in 17. Why can't I be that concise? :p
    Edited by 2 at 02/05/08 @ 17:13

  • IronCladChicken #28 4 years ago

    @Velios

    Actually, I tend to feel more involved if I'm reading a good book than I do when I'm playing a video game & definitly much more emotionally connected with the protagonist & the world in which they exist - Which, when reading something like American Psycho is definitly not always a good thing.




  • IronCladChicken #29 4 years ago

    @SleepyMagpie
    I think he likes the Wii as a console, but hates that soo many developers only use it to sell 'casual' games.

  • Golgo #30 4 years ago

    They should make GTA IV on Wii.
    Scale graphics back to GTA:SA standards and shoe-horn some motion control in there.
    Reintroduce some of that RPG stuff like CJ working out in gym.
    GTA: Fit.
    It would be lovely.

  • Rash' #31 4 years ago

    "about something we can all relate to. Or aspire to"

    You tell them, Houser. We all relate or aspire to be psychotic killers...

    / contemplates Manhunt purchase
    Edited by 2 at 02/05/08 @ 17:29

  • Razz #32 4 years ago

    @SleepyMagpie
    I think he likes the Wii as a console, but hates that soo many developers only use it to sell 'casual' games.

    Really? You think? Wow you must be really intelligent. I could have never deduced that from the story. Wow! You must be like a professor. I bow before your superior intellect.
    Edited by 1 at 02/05/08 @ 17:24

  • kangarootoo #33 4 years ago

    "But Dan, this is a pretty guarded statement given that you heap praise on the Wii afterwards.."

    I think the most telling part is his use of the word "hopefully" when delivering his apparently firmly held belief.

    I tend to feel that very grumpy people are not good ambassadors for the games industry. Anyone reading his interview could just be thinking "if he hadn't grown up on violence in video games, maybe he would be a bit calmer".

  • rock27gr #34 4 years ago

    @Rash'

    Well judging from the sales...
    Edited by 2 at 02/05/08 @ 17:40

  • loopy #35 4 years ago

    "No. I can tell that you'd love to have an argument, but nobody is saying movies and books don't have an effect, and the post you quote certainly doesn't say that at all. Read it again."

    Heh no, I've been hanging arond on internet forums long enough to know not to get too involved in these online "arguments", as they're generally worth nothing more than the bytes they are comprised of.

    In answer though, yes, I did read it, and yes I understand what he's saying, but I always find it interesting how people will selectively quote/use other peoples opinions to reinforce their own bias and skew arguments in their favour.

    Maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate here,but some people will, as one poster mentioned above, get far more emotionally involved with characters and situations in a book/film than they ever will with in game actions. Who's to say which media type is more likely to lead to violent tendencies than another?

    Also, try not to talk down to people, even on here, you make yourself look like an idiot. ;)
    Edited by 5 at 02/05/08 @ 17:43

  • jglover4 #36 4 years ago

    "The participation in violence is altogether more stimulating than just watching or reading about it."
    Catagorically proven to be the exact opposite actually. Gamers care less about their actions and more about getting 'the goal' whereas movie-goers are more absored by the action and, thus, more affected by it.

    This tidbit came out of the last Government computer game witch-hunt.

  • rock27gr #37 4 years ago

    @kangarootoo


    I think when he says he grew up with violence, it isn't videogame violence he refers to...

  • Rash' #38 4 years ago

    rock27gr, frightening isn't it?

  • chrisola #39 4 years ago

    @ DFawkes

    completley agree with you.

    I also think there should be MORE non violent stuff in games like GTA IV..

    It has a fairground and rollercoaster, why can't i go on the rides?
    Why isn't there an arcade full of crappy games to play on?
    It has a dockland area with big cranes, why can't i mess around with them and pick stuff up?
    Why isn't there a race track i can drive cars round?
    Where did the monster trucks & tanks go? (ok not really too non violent there :p)


    etc etc :p

    (please let me know if any of the above happens at some point, i'm still only a couple of hours in!)


  • Ryze #40 4 years ago

    Here, here.

  • Ryze #41 4 years ago

    Where's the Wii version of GTA: San Andreas Stories? Put online play in there and it'd be huge!

    Voice chat with the Wiimote speaker / mic.

    That'd convert the casuals!! BANG, muthaf***ers!

  • Tzetrik #42 4 years ago

    Rockstar Table Tennis was kinda casual.

  • Ryze #43 4 years ago

    They could take the San An engine and optimise it for Wii - making a non-violent game set elsewhere.

    They could incorporate some Fahrenheit style interaction using gesture control rather than the right stick / button bashing.

  • holydrone #44 4 years ago

    Statement taken out of context!

    "I want to f*** casual gamers" gasps Rockstar boss. "GTA 3 was, despite it's glowing reviews and obvious merits, purchased primarily by the nambiest, pambiest, couldn't-control-an-analogue-stick-with-both-hands, shelved-after-cocking-up-the-third-mission and only-played-once-more-because-of-the-cheat-that-let's-you-pl ay-as-an-old-lady-before-only-ever-using-PS2-as-DVD-player type gamers... and they made us very f***ing rich. Ta luv!" stated Dan Houser in some interview.

    I hope this has cleared up any misunderstanding.


    Edited by 4 at 02/05/08 @ 18:24

  • Muddtallica #45 4 years ago

    DFawkes: "So why, for responsible adult, is it not okay for violent games? You're right that it being interactive does make it different, but I though most adults could just not stab the owner of the jacked car and reverse over him. Although in game I prefer to go forward, handbrake turn and run him over, but that's both the beauty and curse - free choice.

    The more you make a game feel free, the more you have to allow, so the furthur you can push immoral actions. In GTA3, you could, if you choose, make use of a prostitute and kill them for the money. But you were never told to, it's just an extra bit of freedom. No politician will go on about how you can walk about Liberty City sightseeing if you want, or just play darts, or do any of the other cool little things that they put in to make it feel awesome."

    Yeah, but it's not REALLY free, is it? True, the GTA games have a lot of diverting non-violent content thrown in there, but at the end of the day it's nothing more than window-dressing; actual progress through the game and engagement with the developers' overall design structure is based entirely on driving, shooting and killing. Colin Campbell of http://www.next-gen.biz< /a> had a brilliant quote on this subject:"The choice we have as gamers to kill that person or this person is an illusion of choice. There’s no such thing as an ‘open-world’ game. I can’t play GTA IV and decide I want to become Liberace."

    Yes, you do have the choice to play GTAIV as an entirely moral, non-violent game, but only in the same way that you have the choice to wear a dinner plate as a hat. Playing the game the way it was meant to be played means shooting and killing people. I'm not condemning that; just saying that that's the way it is.
    Edited by 1 at 02/05/08 @ 18:23

  • Sevens #46 4 years ago

    "We're hopefully going to prove that there's also a very big audience for people who want entertainment in another form, who think of games as being a narrative device that can challenge movies."

    Kudos.

  • DAN.E.B #47 4 years ago

    agreed casual gaming will destroy gaming as we know it!

    you have been warned!

  • Muddtallica #48 4 years ago

    zerolight: You appear to have misunderstood what I was saying. I'm perfectly aware of both the definitions and limitations of the sandbox/openworld game genres; I know that you can't simply do as you please and live whatever life you want, and in actual fact, that was my whole point. Dfawkes seemed to be implying that GTAIV is a game that offers you complete freedom to do whatever you want, and that immoral actions such as killing were merely a part of that freedom; my argument was that, for all the apparent choices the game offers you, the openworld genre actually remains fairly strictly controlled by developer design, and that in the case of GTAIV, that design is based around immorally stealing and killing as its core gameplay concept, whatever throwaway non-violent extras Rockstar might choose to tack on. Again, I'm not condemning it, but GTA is not a life simulator, it's an openworld violent crime game, and that's why the moralists are unhappy with it.
    Edited by 1 at 02/05/08 @ 19:46

  • anomagnus #49 4 years ago

    wii fit is not a game

    moving on, having a ball sack with 550 million dollars in it must feel quite good

  • Bumhug360 #50 4 years ago

    "Wired, people usually think of a casual games as someone who doesn't really know a whole lot about games."

    You are confusing games with gamers. Casual gamer is someone who plays for a few hours a week, a casual game is one that you can pick up and play for 15 minutes, its a simple mistake to make as so many people have made when commenting here.

    The Wii has sold shed loads, and games for Wii are relatively cheap to make and lets be honest the vast majority of Wii games out there are total garbage. Now all consoles have crap games, the poor Wii though has more than its fair share and this all boils down to it being cheap to make games for. When you develop a big budget PS3/360 quality is an issue as itf its crap it wont sell and you lose bucketloads of cash, with a casual game on the Wii though development costs are a lot lower and there are bound to be a few clueless people who buy the game because it has a picture of a cat on the front. So the danger is developers like Rockstar say "hey we want to spend $100 million on a game that will take 3 and half years to make" now the publishers think "hmm if we make $10 a game and sell 15 million copies thats 50 million profit, or we could make 200 really shit casual games that each only sell 250,000 copies but at $10 profit each that will make $400 million profit"

  • zedzee #51 4 years ago

    "Rockstar makes games...we could actually relate to. Or aspire to"

    I find nothing relational or aspirational about GTA-IV. I've never wanted to deal in drugs or have sex with a prostitute and/or then batter her to death. Nor have I ever had any desires to be in a gang or lead one.

    I don't mind GTA-IV - I think it's a fantastic game and although the focus from the press is on the violence (because it's very pronounced), I think it's got some really fun elements that are non-violent or criminal and highly original.

    But although I'm not a fan of Nintendo, I do think Sam Houser should shut the F*** UP and stop lying through his pearly whites.

    Edited by 1 at 02/05/08 @ 21:29

  • InsoFox #52 4 years ago

    Um, I sort of agree with some of the stuff he is saying (except that I like casual games!) but... not the most eloquent guy at getting his point across, is he?

  • Nithron #53 4 years ago

    Damn skippy.

  • Muddtallica #54 4 years ago

    rdexter, Bumhug360 - Yes, of course you're correct; no developer would now want to spend three years developing an expensive sandbox crime game, because there is simply no longer any demand for that sort of thing. This is because the success of Wii Fit and other casual interest games has killed the 30-year-old traditional games market stone-dead, as though by magic.

    ...to stop being a sarcastic ass for a moment, though, this whole "Casual Games Are Eating My Children" panic seemed daft two weeks ago; to hear it now, three days after the staunchly traditional GTAIV has become the talk of the entire country and posted the biggest debut for any game ever, seems outright ludicrous. Do you honestly believe that Wii Fit is going to cause this game to sell even one less copy than it otherwise might have done? Even if it does, do you really suppose, as I've asked before, that that's going to cause the developers of Mass Effect, Final Fantasy and Gran Turismo to suddenly down tools to start work on Jade Goody's Dance Workout HD Remix?

    What really gets me is this concept that the current wave of casual-friendly fluff has somehow come at the expense of hypothetical AAA "traditional" fare. Sure, I'm willing to bet that there have been a lot of mercenary, bottom-line developers who've been willing to shelve their more ambitious projects to try and turn an easy buck some casual shovelware trash, but seriously, do you really suppose that the makers of Brunswick Pro Bowling and Ninjabread Man were ever going to sit down and crank out Gears of War? Crap developers produce crappy games based on what's popular; that's what they've always done, that's what they always will do, whether the fad is casual games, 2D platformers, mascot racers or whatever. What you people want to do is keep an eye on the GOOD developers, who as far as I can tell still seem to be cranking out the GTAIVs, the Halo 3s, and the Super Mario Galaxys with the same level of quality and success as ever they have. Heck, maybe one of those new Wii Sports-lovin' casual gamers might even end up giving one of these "traditional" games a try and liking it, thus - gasp! - expanding the userbase. How about that for a concept, eh?

  • rprince #55 4 years ago

    Interactivity is generally agreed to not make any difference in terms of how content should be rated. The BBFC do not take it into account, and it's not been proven to make people act any differently. You are clearly Jack Thompson.

    As for Houser, he's a hypocrite. How are games involving shooting and other violence not as derivative as orcs and goblins?

  • knocker #56 4 years ago

    I would love a definition of a 'casual' game.

    I like to play games for 10 minute bursts sometimes ... at the moment my choice is err ... Rockstar Table Tennis.

    'F*** cunts in suits talking shite for some free PR'

    (Muddtallica, a well written reasoned response - so will probably be ignored ;)
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/08 @ 12:21

  • Transcendent #57 4 years ago

    Does casual mean non-violent? You can't play GTA4 casually?

    And about violence in books: You can't even compare Manhunt to that. The writers go much further than movies and games when it comes to gruesome details and realism.
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/08 @ 13:46

  • Xerx3s #58 4 years ago

    "Still, its a losing battle :( "

    No it's not, it's an endurance battle. Casual gamers are casual ergo, they lack brain power. Sooner or later their brain power will below the level where they can maintain their bodily functions and they will die out by the masses. It happened to the dinosaurs as well.

  • hybridial #59 4 years ago

    GTA has always equalled casual in my book, because it's popular.

    Hardcore for me means being into games to play the unpopular games just as much if not more than the popular ones.

  • Bumhug360 #60 4 years ago

    "What really gets me is this concept that the current wave of casual-friendly fluff has somehow come at the expense of hypothetical AAA "traditional" fare"

    Only in your head it seems because nobody is actualy saying that. The problem is in future games developed, sure the likes of Rockstar, Valve and Epic will make massive big budget traditional games and yes they will sell by the millions but thats not the point. Developers can make whatever game they please, as long as they have funding and its here where problems may arise. The vast majority of money comes from investors, they dont give a crap about what a game is about they want a return on their money and at the moment the smart money will be going into what traditional gamers think is utter crap. Whats worse is as these games are cheap to make the return is good on a small number of units sold and rather than spending money on something that takes two or more years to make they see a return after 6 or 7 months.

    Big games will continue to come from the big companies, but where is the new talent going to come from and how many good ideas are going to be passed on in favour of "Barbie and friends go to the mall"

    The funny thing is the people who are actualy saying casual games could be a threat arent analysts or journalists looking at getting a few hits its developers themselves (though not in this case as thats not what Dan Houser is on about)

  • Xerx3s #61 4 years ago

    Adding to the previous poster: Casual gamers are already making a good impact on the deeper games market. This is a process that's been going on for some time (I think it started around '96). If you want clear examples of that: The deeper genres are already gone for some time now. Most other genres are now watered down versions of what they used to be. Take ES4 i.e. They did everything possible to make the ES franchise accessible to a more casual market. You can clearly see this in every element in the game being simplified/dumbed down.

    The idea that the casual games market won't have a huge impact on the normal games market is stupid. If a publisher is spending it's money, where do you think it will go? That one big game that takes a huge amount of resources and time to make an might flop? Or those 10 small casual projects that make good money, cost next to nothing to make and will be on the market within a year?
    Of course there will always be publishers that make big games as long as there is money to be made but in the end of the day, that funding money will go where the best cost/benefit ratio goes. That could be the next cult classic in the making but it will most likely be the next casual game. Publishers are there to earn money, making good games is a distant second to that.

  • artix #62 4 years ago

    VIEWING != DOING (MOVIE != GAME)

  • Rrralphster #63 4 years ago

    Contains some sarcasm...

    Not everything needs innovation.
    Some "products" are great just the way they are.
    I wouldn't want my favorite band to change styles for the sake of innovation. I just like their music the way it is.
    Talk about innovating the bill of rights, 2nd amendment (the one about guns etc...) to an American!
    When they innovated beer, it didn't catch on. It was a big flop. I'm talking about alcohol-free beer...
    Wheels are still round. They didn't innovate on that either...
    You catch the drift, you liberal, innovation demanding bastardo's!
    I love my GTA IV just the way it is.


    Edited by 1 at 03/05/08 @ 17:16

  • Muddtallica #64 4 years ago

    Bumhug360: "Big games will continue to come from the big companies..."
    Xerx3s: "Of course there will always be publishers that make big games as long as there is money to be made..."

    But then surely there's no problem, because after all, aren't they the only games that traditional gamers care about anyway? The way I see it, the games industry isn't like the movie business, where you're just as likely to see a top-class film from a 25-year-old Polish immigrant as you are from Steven Spielberg; there's a reason that the likes of Nintendo, Namco, Valve, Epic and Rockstar are the big companies with all the money, and that's because they're the ones who recruit all the talent. When was the last time you played a great game from a genuinely small-time unknown developer? The days of the bedroom Spectrum coder are long gone; these days, even games generally regarded as "cult" classics or "sleeper hits" like Zack & Wiki, Okami, Portal or Ico are produced by behemoths like Capcom, Valve and Sony. It's the output of these major companies upon which the traditional games market is founded, because quite frankly they're the only ones with the means, the ability and the desire to make games that are any good.

    I don't doubt that there is a veritable ocean of other developers who are doing as you said, making cheap titles that traditional gamers will think are utter crap, passing on good ideas in favour of Barbie and Friends Go To The Mall, but in all honesty who gives a toss what they do? Those developers are crap. If they weren't making AMF Bowling Pinbusters, they wouldn't be producing the next Shadow of the Colossus instead; they'd be producing the next Tak and the Power of Juju, or the next Kabuki Warriors, or whatever other mediocre-to-awful titles have clogged our shelves with since time immemorial. As I've already said, crap developers produce crap games based on the current lucrative fad; frankly, I could care less about exactly what type of trash they produce, because I'm not going to buy it either way. What WOULD be cause for concern is if the elite developers, the ones who we rely upon to have creative integrity and a commitment to genuine quality, started sidelining traditional projects in order to produce crap casual stuff, but I've seen no evidence that that is either currently happening, or that there is any danger of it happening in the immediate future.

    Don't get me wrong, I think you raise some decent points; Xerx3s, in particular, I do recognise that a lot of games have gotten easier than their predecessors, though I would argue that there are other factors behind that, many justifiable, and that it isn't a universal trend. When all is said and done, too, this does remain a discussion based largely upon speculation and inference; ultimately, we're going to have to wait and see what happens. I will say, though, that I remain optimistic; this industry's innovators and creative movers-and-shakers, the ones upon whom we rely for our core gaming experience, have no history of simply following and pandering to the lowest common denominator. There's always been a "quick, easy alternative" to genuine graft, whether it's cheap party games, rote 2d platformers or shoddy licenced titles, but none of the developers worth caring about have ever thought about taking it; why on earth would they start now?

  • Kbone28 #65 4 years ago

    Velios - u make a very good point. I hadnt actually looked on it that way. I do think alot of people however aspire to be these Hollywood heroes, and whilst not being actively involved with the characters in the movie/tv show - they do still glamorize violence. That is the broad term argument most of the critics are making against the GTA franchise, and i guess what Houser is replying too.

  • canIdoyabombsforya #66 4 years ago

    Namby fucking pamby gaming more like ;)

    Back in the good ol days, a 'hardcore' gamer could be headbutted or spat on for being at the wrong arcade cabinet at the wrong time. 20 minute bus ride into town, pocket full of hard scrounged change, then join the queue to play the latest and greatest video games only to find fag burns on the buttons. Leaving a good 1 hour walk home starving hungry, welcomed by a bollocking from the parents. This for games that cannot be considered anything other than 'casual'.

  • kangarootoo #67 4 years ago

    @wired_protocol

    Best post of the thread dude/dudette. In particular,

    "Isn't the only difference between a casual gamer and a hardcore gamer free time? Seriously its not even an issue."

  • SleepyMagpie #68 4 years ago

    Some here are referring to old school SNES, VCS2600; the early video games, as casual games. Well, don't, cos it's wrong! Seen in the context of today they might seem casual, but back then the early adopters were as hardcore as they come. In fact, these games and machines were so alien to moms and dads, and politicians back then, as to disappear below the radar. Also, their visual presentation being pixels or sometimes nothing more than a block moving about, none but the informed knew how to parse them.

    I don't agree that wired_protocols' rationale is the best on this thread at all. He/she seems like a smartypants that reckons they've got it sussed out, and all we need to do is to sit down and talk with the naysayers.

    I don't think that will solve anything. The videogameblamers are alienated by games, because of their - still - nonfamiliar nature to them, plus they need a scapegoat for various problems of modern society. Their minds are so set that I see no way one could persuade them to see the varied expressions of gaming. It's akin to racism really.

    However, the mainstream games of today with their - purportedly - mass appeal, will saturate the market, breed familiarity, and generate great revenues.

    Money solves everything.

    As a hardcore gamer, I'm frightened that this mainstream of gaming will ruin the quality and essence of games. Sure, we might still get violence in our games (because it sells), but it might turn into stupid, dumbed down, Hollywood violence. Just like the stupid crapola Hollywood movies of today we all know so well.

    You can't talk to the moo'ing public as a whole and still say something intelligent, and considering the consolidation in this day and age, it just won't be said then.

    Witness the "indie" music scene of today - it's a lot of bought up and reprocessed second-guessed crap from the mainstream, but dressed up to look like an independent. In the eighties and early nineties when you had a very strong commercial music industry - the alternatives were likewise strong and distinct. Never shall the twain meet. Or should they.

    Vive la resistance I say. Even if it comes from a showboating Rockstar who unnecessarily says fuck more times in a short interview than most people have teeth. At least he's trying to snarl and bare some fangs.

  • Foat1 #69 4 years ago

    fuck casual gaming

  • lemonfist #70 4 years ago

    I thought GTA was about as casual as games come.

  • SleepyMagpie #71 4 years ago

    GTA IV, like a few recent big titles, caters to BOTH the casual and the hardcore.

    You can run through the missions, check out the scenery for a bit, and then leave it.

    OR, you can do all the sidequests, stunts, pick up all the hidden packages, and (on the 360 - the hardcore's refuge ^^) try to get all the achievements.

    I'd like to see anyone get all the achievements for this baby - casually.

    So today, to keep big studios alive, we've seen a few games doing both the casual and hardcore, Bioshock and Oblivion, are a couple that come to mind.

    But most smaller studios don't have the resources to throw 100 million $ into development, and then these narrower, but potential masterpieces won't get made.

    For this, I am cry.

  • Marshall2008 #72 4 years ago

    'suddenly down tools to start work on Jade Goody's Dance Workout HD Remix? '

    Fuck dude, I just threw up in my mouth !

  • kangarootoo #73 4 years ago

    @SleepyMagpie

    "Some here are referring to old school SNES, VCS2600; the early video games, as casual games. Well, don't, cos it's wrong! Seen in the context of today they might seem casual, but back then the early adopters were as hardcore as they come."

    Oy, less of the sneaky subterfuge. You talk of various early games systems not being mainstream, but then as a reference you refer specifically to early adopters. Early adopters are ALWAYS hardcore, that is their very nature. By your comment you imply that the audience of the 2600 and NES consisted only of early adopters, but this is just not true (if it were, the early adopters would be the only adopters).

    The NES and 2600 were some of the very first home games systems. There WAS no hardcore back then, there WAS no such thing as a hardcore gamer. The vast majority of people buying the 2600 were mainstream and it was their first console. I remember seeing 2600 adverts on TV, and there were only 3 bloody channels back then! If anything, that is more mainstream and casual than the Wii and DS are today!

    As for your assertion that you don't agree with wired because "he seems like a smarty pants"... well holy cow, why didn't I think of that infallible logic sooner. If someone is trying to make a point, but they have no firm basis on which to place that point, resorting to name calling is often their only strategy. To the rest of us, it suggests you simply can't back up what you are saying with facts. Drop the name calling and lets discuss like adults.

    I have to say, your attitude seems to be based mainly on fear (with a spoonful of snobbery thrown in). A belief that if the great unwashed get their hands on your precious gaming, they will chav it into oblivion. I understand.

    Allow me to alay your fears. If a market exists, products will be made to cater for it. Even more so, ifan established market continues to exist, people will continue to make products to feed that established market. People will always make the hardcore games you (and I) like, because we exist and will pay money to have them.

    To take your Indie music example, has good music disappeared from the face of the planet?.... or does the word "indie" just mean something else in music these days? I suggest the latter, along with which I would say "who gives a f*ck?".

    So long as music you like is still being made, who cares what its called? People say "the indie music scene isn't what it used to be", but they are wrong. What they should be saying is "the indie music scene is exactly what it always was, but its called something else these days".

    The sorts of games you like will always exist, because you and many others want to buy them. They might be tagged under a name other than "hardcore", but again I say, who cares?

  • kangarootoo #74 4 years ago

    @anomagnus

    "wii fit is not a game "

    Yes it is.

    http://di ctionary.reference.com/browse/game

  • SleepyMagpie #75 4 years ago

    @kangarootoo:

    Of course there was no differentiation of gamers back then as there is now. But I will argue that videogamers counted for far fewer of the capita than today, far fewer! Even though Atari and Nintendo aimed for mass-appeal, and even advertised their systems a couple of times on the telly, you couldn't pay mom, dad, your sister - to touch the things. Today dad plays regularly, and mom uses Wii Fit? Or at least some Sims game..

    I remember, cos I got my first VCS2600 in 1979. It was me, and a cadre of geeky boys in my class in SoCal, and moms had to be thoroughly strong armed, and sweet-talked, to cave and buy a system. There was no "Hey wife, kids, let's go out and buy a VCS2600 on saturday!".

    So I still hold that the large majority of videogamers and games in the early days of the cartridge systems were hardcore, and embodied and required certain skills of interpretion.

    As for my calling wired_protocol a Smartypants, well if that sparked your ire, than you can fuck off, as Dan Houser would say.

    I did argue reasons for my calling wired names, if "Smartypants" even amounts to that. Ooo, did I hurt someone's feelings? *Jon Stewart hand to mouth*.

    As for your "If a market exists, games will be made to cater for it" reasoning, I think it's about time you woke up and smelled the coffee. That is NOT the way globalization works. Consolidations of today, like we've also seen numerous examples of in the games industry lead to monopolys. This in turn kills off all the more exotic weeds in the farmyard, and has us all drinking liquid sugar instead, completely empty calories, that were also shipped across half the globe before it got to you.

    They won't ask you if you enjoyed it, they'll just let you buy a new one at a price they set (see Playstation 3 and Kutaragi comments).

    Dream on, Kangarootoo.

    Edited by 2 at 04/05/08 @ 13:28

  • Dr.Mott #76 4 years ago

    "YES you do see violence and sex in books, film and television - the key difference is that in those mediums the viewer is not taking an active role in the violence being dished out. For example, in a book - you might read about some poor fella getting struck over the head with a baseball bat 20 times, but in GTA - you actually make a conscious decision to do that yourself (as I have done loads of times,... even ran over the body with a hummer just to make sure the twat was dead)"

    Pah, to make sure he is really dead, you drive the hummer on his body, line it up with a couple of other cars. Then, chuck a few grenades under, and watch the fun. Oh, and remember to pick off any survivors with an assault rifle.

    You just can't do that in films.

    Edit: PS. I am in no way completely desensensitised to this kind of stuff. ;)
    Edited by 1 at 04/05/08 @ 19:07

  • MoFo #77 4 years ago

    In my opinion, people that say violence in games is more dangerous than film because in games you interact and dictate the violence are just plain wrong.

    I've played countless violent video games over the years and never felt inclined to do anyone any harm. Yet I find that when I come out of a cinema after watching a movie I often feel quite I wide range of emotions from joy and happiness to complete despair ,anger and even violence. Eg after watching Fight Club I came out the cinema and was willing other people to pick a fight with me and I'd say I'm of quite a sound disposition. I've no doubt that more impressionable people would have carried out violent acts after seeing that movie. And was there even the slightest hint of opposition to Fight Club?

    Point being that films are able to mess with our emotions and influence us much more effectively than games can. But people seem to jump to the conclusion that because you intereact with games therefore they MUST be worse.

  • Grayvern #78 4 years ago

    The only problem I have are with his view on first person games. The most effecting moment of any game film or book i've ever played is the end of Episode 2.

    I've also got a friend who used to play videogames owned a megadrive, n64 and an xbox but with this generation doesn't any more apart from some multiplayer halo from time to time. He's never looked at reviews and id consider him casual but he still loved portal.

    My point is the best thing to is to try and inform our friends who don't read reviews and seek out the best games what these games are when they do buy them.

  • drumbaby #79 4 years ago

    Indeed....fuck casual gaming.

    Sell loads of gimmicky consoles to people who like the idea of a new way to play games, but then...oh -- they've then actually got to buy games for them. Something they never really did before, and so in the end they don't really bother. The consoles gather dust. So companies make lots of shitty little games, instead of a few good ones, hoping some will stick. They don't spend any money on them, so they're basically just lazy ports (ahem, Capcom, ahem?) which means the proper consoles don't get a look in with well thought out in depth gaming experiences like they used to in the previous gen'. Then twats like Spielberg get behind laughable tosh like Boom Blocks (or whatever it's called) in an attempt to keep gaming in the gutter so the film industry isn't under threat from games attempting movie-style depth and interaction. Yep, use those silly casual gamers' consoles to push vacuous toss, keep the gaming IQs of our kids at moron-level, and gradually kill the gaming industry as we know it.

    But that's okay....we don't need big epic games with stellar production values and killer stories. Not when we can keep fit while waving a wand/ stylus at a frigging Italian plumber.

    Pika!

  • knocker #80 4 years ago

    Drumbaby, your post seems to have escaped from ... mid 2007 sometime. The state of the world regarding the wii has changed a little.

    The definition of "casual games" still hasn't been laid out clearly (to me anyway).

    Defining a specific genre as "casual games" is altogether silly (imo) decrying games because they have a limited story, or can be played in half-hour or even ten minute bursts, don't have enough violence and contain primary colours just displays an ignorance of the history of gaming. These sorts of games have always, and will always be around.

    Lame cash-ins are nothing new either, anyone remember the endless stream of movie tie-ins that reglualry plaged and topped the Amiga charts ?

    There is an argument to be had over "casual development" - the pile it high sell it cheap attitude of some companies to make a quick buck from ignorant wii owners. These efforts do devalue the *overall* quality of games - but this will have a greater impact on companies wanting to develop for the wii. The 360 and PS3 owners will be seen as too savvy to fall for this nonsense. But a new company developing for the wii - checking out the competition on that platform might think twice.

    Anyhow - I remember all the same arguments from gamers (especially in dreamcast forums) when the PSone was released. "Oh no - now every c'nt will be into games, it will be the end of gaming as we know it".

    I was wrong ... mostly ;)

  • tobsen #81 4 years ago

    Is there a difference between watching somebody being hurt/killed, and between hurting/killing him yourself? Point taken.

    Why doesn't Houser simply admit the obvious - that killing in a computer game is great fun, and totally unlike watching an action movie?