As someone who is heavily invested in the competitive side of gaming and esports, I have always struggled to reconcile the views I had on “casual” vs “hardcore” games.

Generally, I consider games to fall into one of these categories based on their skill ceiling. Therefore, I would have games like Quake and StarCraft (which are famously brutally difficult) as being the absolute peak of “hardcore” gaming, with other games. On the other hand, games like the newly released Animal Crossing barely have any “skill” requirement attached to them whatsoever. It is merely (in this context; not saying it’s a bad game) a chill game to be played for fun where you can move at your own pace.

One has to accept that different people play games for different purposes. For some (such as players of the aforementioned Quake and StarCraft), the goal is mastery. They see an impossible ceiling when they see players like Anton “Cooller” Singov and Lee “Flash” Young Ho and spend time trying to reach that absurd height of perfection. There is also the kind of person like my mother, whose only dabbles into gaming is occasionally playing puzzle/point-and-click adventure games on her phone and laptop. There is nothing wrong with either of these groups of people. Both are valid and have their own strengths, weaknesses, and reasons for playing their own way. To me, the problem arises when the two clash together. It’s extremely rare for a game to be successful at capturing both audiences, and when companies try they ends up with neither. Also, I think it’s fair to assume those two groups fundamentally fall into different personality types and character traits. The issue there is that there will always be some sort of a disconnect. The guy who only occasionally plays Angry Birds on his phone won’t understand his friend who spends 6 hours on their free days grinding deathmatch to work on their aim.

The latter of those groups is what is focused on in the article we read in class, titled “Social networks, casual games and mobile devices.” In it, Wilson and Leaver set the premise that the number of ways games can be played has increased dramatically over the years, and as a result, more people have different ways of playing games. From this, it logically follows that people will play games, and that leads to an increased volume of “casual” gamers.  Of course, as more people enter into the space, there are always going to be people who want different things out of it, which leads to the more elitist types of personalities trying to push people out who don’t fit their vision of what their perfect gaming landscape is. What’s confusing about this to me is why people are, in general, so obsessed with the way other people play games. I’ve lost contact with some people over the years over the fundamental philosophical differences we reached, and none of us hold much of a grudge against each other.

We also talked more specifically about Pokemon Go and how that was considered as the ultimate pinnacle of casual games, yet it was (and still is) one of the most popular games on the planet. I remember having 50 year old teachers at my High School who would pull out their phone and hunt pokemon while we were doing an assignment. It was surreal.

In order for gaming to evolve, one must accept that concessions are going to be made on both sides. There are plenty of different types of games, and not every game is going to be for everyone; and that’s perfectly fine.