There has always been the divide on what’s counted as a real game, or being a real gamer. As someone who has been deep in both worlds of casual and hardcore games I feel as though this divide is slowly being torn away with games appearing in the mainstream spotlight more and more in the present day. 

Since we talked about Pokemon Go this week, I’ll use the main Pokemon series games as an example. So there are countless people who know of the basic game of Pokemon where you go get your starter, catch Pokemon and collect badges. That side of the game can be seen as the more casual side of the game, where there really isn’t that much skill needed to play the game, but knowledge of the mechanics can give someone the edge. For example the community has made up self imposed rulesets on playthroughs of the game to make it harder on themselves (nuzlocke- you can only catch one Pokemon per route and if someone faints you can’t use them anymore). That is only one aspect on how the main series can bleed more into the category of hardcore, there is a whole nother world when people enter the competeive wifi battling where people will compose team with the only intent of battling the most efficent way. 

Once we consider the competitive side of things Pokemon can be seen as a more hardcore game. The skill curve is much steeper then playing normally, making the wrong moves will have greater consequence then before and also gaining the knowledge of movesets, EV’s, IV’s types, normals sets so you can predict what people have based on experience (for anyone who doesn’t know EV’s are short for effort value and they are used to increase the Pokemon’s stats, and IV’s are short for individual values, which are predetermined stats for the Pokemon, think of it like genes).

This was only one example of how the division of hardcore and casual games are not as black and white as people assume it is. Also this shows even though a game can be labeled as hardcore or casual if people change the way of play the label can be not as defined. 

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.

Mohammad Farraj

DMS 448

Throughout history, any work force that is fully analyzed, one could see how it is either male dominated or highly male influenced. The unfortunate truth of a patriarchy is present and causes the opposite gender (i.e women) to push themselves to receive the same treatment, pay and balance that men receive. To make matters worse and even more dark, this type of behavior/concept has reached the gaming industry. Video games in general, were implemented to grant the player to become and create any identity they wish and ultimately have the freedom express themselves whoever they are. Thus completely contradicting the whole idea of both the gaming industry and gaming world. Writers Justin Cassell and Henry Jenkins not only prove this but analyze this as well, with the text, “Chess For Girls? Feminism and Computer Games”.

            In the text, it is portrayed that on a marketing scale, the general audience were for male gamers. Exploring the text, it is stated how a study is shown that proves how these said games are meant for boys. Thus, ultimately having a market of video games for males primarily. In the text, it states how, even, “Too often, the study of computer games has meant the study of boys playing computer games…In fact, too often the very design of computer games for children has meant designing computer games for boys” (Cassell and Jenkins 5). What this shows is that, a study is present to prove that in this time, computer games were programed for males as their targeted audience. This presents a problem because ultimately programming video games for one specific gender is not only sexist but fuels the concept of a patriarchy that too is present in society. Therefore, when gaming companies are unaware of this issue it fuels sexism and ultimately creates a division between the genders.

            In the text, the writers also make the point in how there is a false connections amongst genders. The authors state how, certain genders carry specific roles or attributes because of cultural perspectives. Due to these connections from the genders, it creates class system. In the text, it states how, “Today, however, the binary opposition between the sexes carries much weight, and leads us to speculate about “mas-culine” and “feminine” qualities, likes and dislikes, and activities. We are used to seeing “masculine” and “feminine” as natural dichotomies—a classification system that mirrors the natural world. (Cassell and Jenkins 6). What this shows is that, this ideology that certain genders and identities have certain interests based on who they are have create a space where sexism exist and fuels gender inequality. In addition, this creates the false notion that just because a gender or identity is different, they have certain interests that may be completely false. Ultimately like stated before, this supports the patriarchy that is present within society and has made certain genders second class citizens.  Overall, the writers within this article have proven that gaming companies portray certain genders falsely and market towards males specifically.   

                                                                        Work Cited Page

 Cassell, Justine, and Henry Jenkins. Chess For Girls? Femminism and Computer Games. The MIT Press , 1998, learn-us-east-1-prod-fleet01-xythos.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/5e00ea752296c/4772298?response-content-disposition=inline; filename*=UTF-8”Cassell%20and%20Jenkins%20-%20Chess%20For%20Girls%20Feminism%20and%20Computer%20Games.pdf&response-content-type=application/pdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20200413T032144Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=21600&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAZH6WM4PLTYPZRQMY/20200413/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=2793258970cb2c6a23ac07392670de5f80738d4af329da1e993297abfb1e6f60.

Love Live: School Idol Festival is a mobile game released in 2014 that consists of three gameplay styles; a visual novel, where you get to experience the story of Love Live, a rhythm game, and a gacha game. The gameplay mechanics and the art style of Love Live mark it as a casual game directed towards women, but the community surrounding the franchise is deeper than a typical mobile game, with anime adaptations featuring multiple seasons and movie releases deepening the lore.

The story portion of Love Live is one of the features of the game that make it unique. The player can go through the story of either the original Muse idols or the more recent addition of the Aquors idols. The story is divided up into smaller narratives of the day to day lives of the girls, culminating in you receiving rewards for going through it, as well as a song for the rhythm game section you must complete in order to get the next narrative. The narrative of Love Live is very much that of a slice of life anime, of which the game was adapted into in 2015, and details the journey of nine high school girls becoming friends and popstars in order to save their school from being shut down. This narrative is very feminine in itself, with the majority of characters being young girls and women. It features no action, and barely any drama, focusing instead on cute, funny interactions between the girls.

The next gameplay mechanic is that of the rhythm game. You can use virtual cards of your idols, which usually have a special ability, to form a team, and you then use that team to tap out the rhythm to a chosen song at varying difficulties. While this part can be challenging, the player can stop playing and resume using a pause button, and one can only play so much based on the amount of in-game energy that they have, which can be replenished by in-game ‘love gems’ that can both be earned through events and consecutive use of the app, as well as buying them. You also expend different amounts of energy depending on the difficulty of the songs that you play. Just because Love Live is seen as a very casual game, being a mobile app, featuring a story that focuses on young girls, and using exclusively cutesy, anime style graphics, does not mean that there isn’t any competition for the game. In a video from Sukufesu National Convention 2018, (Sukufesu National Convention 2018 Competition), a convention dedicated solely to the Love Live franchise, a Love Live e-sports competition is taking place. Four young adult men are sitting up on stage, headphones on and smartphones in hand, playing the rhythm game while an announcer comments in the background. Even though you can’t see them, you can hear an audience cheer at appropriate moments, and sigh in disappointment when a player misses a beat. When the blue player wins, he fist pumps, and shakes hands with the player next to him. It is clear that despite the perceived casualness of the Love Live franchise, there is a vibrant community of diverse players enjoying the game.

The final gameplay mechanic is that of the gacha game. Gacha is similar to loot boxes, in that you use in game currency, that can be earned either by playing the game or with real world money, to get randomized items. In Love Live, you can get different ‘cards’, each with a different illustration of one of the characters on them. These cards can have special abilities when used in the rhythm game portion, and can vary in rarity from normal, rare, super rare, super super rare, and ultra-rare. The pull of the gacha game is the illustrations. The art style itself is very cutesy, with all of the different girls dressed in themed outfits, with some of the most intricate illustrations being featured on the ever illusive ultra-rare cards. Youtubers will make videos of themselves playing the gacha, showing favoritism, or a desire to get cards that feature a specific character.

Love Live is a casual game that makes use of multiple features seen in other casual games throughout the years. It has a simple storyline that is easy to understand and can be resumed at any point, not unlike many other visual novels in the industry. It has a rhythm game, a genre popularized by franchises like Dance Dance Revolution and Guitar Hero, a gameplay style that is easy to learn, and easy to play in one’s spare time, a defining trait of casual games. The gacha portion of the game centers on the franchise’s cute art style, and capitalizes on the collectability of the illustrations, a tactic used by many other card games that precede it. By all means, Love Live: School Idol Festival is the ultimate casual games. Despite the casualness of the game, there continues to be a strong community that loves and continuously interacts with the franchise, to the point where a second game was made, Love Live: School Idol Festival: All Stars! was made in late 2019, a mobile game app largely similar to the first game, with a few new additions. It is clear that as long as there is appeal to your game, it doesn’t really matter whether or not it is a casual game, if it has a deep and epic storyline, if it has expansive and complicated lore, because sometimes all people really want are cute anime girls and some catchy j-pop tunes, and I think that that is pretty neat.

Works Cited

スクフェス全国大会2018 決勝, Sukufesu National Convention 2018 Competition, プーさん, Aug. 4 2018

Love Live: School Idol Festival, KLabGames, 2014

This week in Game Studies, we have been studying what it means to play a game. We used casual games to better understand this concept.  Casual gaming is a game where people don’t have to expend much time or energy into the game for it to progress, but it is just fun to play while playing it. Casual games usually have many overarching missions that are menial but make the game have more substance and add more things to do to keep players in a mind-numbing state of play as long as they can. Minecraft, which can be played casually, has personally hooked many hours of my time doing something ridiculous such as farming, making cows breed, digging straight down for hours, and just walking around. There is a little more personal satisfaction that can come from casual games as opposed to pure progression as in other types of games. There is more of a sense of self-satisfaction rather than game achievement, for example building a house in Minecraft makes the game easier, but building a nice house in Minecraft is for your own personal appeal.

We watched some gameplay of Stardew Valley, a casual game that involves building all the elements of a town and discussed what makes Stardew Valley a good example of how play can involve something that would constitute work in another context.  Laying down roads and making farms together would not be considered entertainment if it were being done in real life, but a lot of these types of games are popular and can really absorb someone when playing. Another example was Sims, which was just living in real life but had a very big moment of popularity. 

One thing I think is that maybe people are trying on something that they normally wouldn’t get to do. And that triggers a part of their brain that gets satisfied from the tasks.  The tasks are not that difficult that they need to think about them, but they are interesting because they are productive in some way.  

When I first came across this concept, I remembered something that Professor Cody told us, which is that almost anything can be made into a form of play. This is a very interesting concept because this means that theoretically we could make menial tasks into a form of play, which makes doing work that is undesirable a little bit more desirable and might make the experience of certain workers a little less tedious.I believe there are uses to this outside of the video game market, and can be utilized in the workforce among assembly line workers and people who work in jobs where the tasks might be repetitive and difficult.

In theory, if we applied games to more mainstream tasks, it could be easier for people to both learn and perform jobs. 

I both find it interesting and not surprising that video games have followed suit with other gendered activities such as sports.  It is not surprising that since the early wave of video games often mimicked actual sports, that the same expectations surrounding sports would transfer over to video games.  Before understanding the question of what “casual” games are and who they are associated with, I feel we first need to look at society as a whole.  When it comes to sports, men’s professional sports are unfortunately more popular than female sports are. Anything that has to do with sports would generally be advertised to men.  Another example of this would be guns.  Usually guns and warfare are geared and advertised toward men.  It is not surprising that first person shooter games are considered more hardcore and geared more towards men. I feel that if we want to address this gender gap when it comes to video games, then we have to address the gender gap within society overall.  Within “Chess for Girls? Feminism and Computer Games” by Justine Cassell and Henry Jenkins, it says “Hurtig and Pichevin conclude that sex is only a variable when gender is at issue—that is, only when socially constructed categories are evoked having to do with what we expect of men and women” (6). I agree that most things aren’t inherently gendered, but society places these expectations on gender and categorizes activities around those expectations. Society expects women to not have time for video games, thus “casual” games are made to be played in small intervals without much dedication needed. I don’t see the need to stamp a gender on these kinds of games.  I know plenty of women who prefer to not play games labeled as “casual” or “girly”. I also know plenty of men who enjoy playing games that are considered to be more “girly”.

I think that labels such as “casual” and “hardcore” should be less about the actual game and instead refer to the attitude a player has toward a particular game.  I feel that any “causal” game and be considered hardcore if a person were to dedicate themselves enough to it and take it really seriously.  I also feel that any “hardcore” game can be considered causal to a person who doesn’t take it seriously and just plays it every so often. There are many people who take the game Destiny 2 to be a very “hardcore” game because it takes a lot of dedication and knowledge about the game to be good in it.  However, I don’t dedicate hundreds of hours on the game in order to have the best gear or weapons.  When I play, I just jump into crucible and play with whatever weapons I have at whatever light level I am, and it doesn’t bother me.  I have a more casual attitude about a game that people label as “hardcore”. I know people who play Candy Crush every day and have dedicated so much time and energy into it even though it is considered to be “causal”.  I feel like these labels discourage people to play games outside of what is expected of them or advertised to them. Moving forward I think we should all take a step back from labeling games as “casual” or “hardcore” or “girly”, and instead treat all kinds of games equally just as those who play them.

Works Cited

Cassell, Justine, and Henry Jenkins. From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer Games. MIT Press, 2000.

In the last few decades, there has been a large surge of casual games on the market. These types of games are usually simple to play and usually deal with tasks and softer topics, such as farming or collecting critters in trees. The majority of these games appear on mobile platforms, such as smartphones and tablets, and are therefore easily accessible. In her article, “Who are the Casual Gamers”, Linda Eklund explains that women usually play casual games because “casual genres demand less time investment and are easier to pick up and play, thereby making them more accessible to women who still take on the majority of unpaid labour in the West, resulting in more fragmented leisure time”. Women usually juggle jobs, housework, cooking, and taking care of families, so casual games, especially mobile ones, are easier for them to play when they have a few minutes between tasks. Casual games are sometimes seen in a bad light because those who play more difficult, or “hard-core”, games (usually males) see them as too easy or simple to be considered “real” games.

However, some casual games can be seen very positively in the public eye. One such example is the very popular Pokemon Go, a mobile game that persuades its players to go outside and explore their surroundings in search of various creatures, inspiring physical activity and group play. While there have been various reports of players being too absorbed in the game and causing accidents or disturbing certain locations in search of Pokemon or items, the game has a large fanbase and overall positive ratings. Frans Mäyrä discusses the popular mobile game in his essay, “Pokemon GO: Entering the Ludic Society”, saying that “Pokémon GO has encouraged not only physical exercise, but also public discussion about the role of games; it has also promoted the formation of informal knowledge communities to negotiate and create solutions for the associated multiple challenges”. Pokemon Go, as well as other casual games, has shown how easily games can become part of our everyday lives and routines and recreate how we can play games overall, so they shouldn’t be written out by the gaming community all together.

As we indulge into a time period where technology seems to be improving by the day, mobile games have become something that many people have taken a part of. During week ten of this course, we discussed the different categories games might be classified into, including girl games, casual games, and mobile games. Although I do not enjoy playing mobile games, I am in some way pro mobile games. The one aspect that has won me over on mobile games is that gameplay can be remote. Mobile games also draw a diverse audience since a majority of the people in our world own smartphones. That being said, mobile games should become the new focus for the gaming world.

One of the assigned readings for the week was Angry Birds: Mobile Gaming by Gregory Steirer and Jeremy Barnes. This piece focused on the mobile game Angry Birds, a game that many of us might be familiar with. The authors described mobile gaming as a new act/form of play. I agree with this denotation because prior gaming platforms are completely different. Mobile games allow for people to play wherever they want, which adds to the ideas of flexibility and comfort. As opposed to connecting a controller and all of the wires that most consoles require, mobile gaming is as simple as a cell phone. According to the authors of this article, “What makes a mobile game a mobile game, we argue, is not simply the fact that the game is played on a phone or tablet; more important are the ways that play itself is constructed, not only via the code of the mobile application but also via the social interactions and industrial processes that surround it” (Kindle pg 216). As we can see, the authors are more inclined about the positive effects mobile games bring about on social networks. Mobile games allow for people to connect with each other in-person. A simple example of this is Pokémon Go. Now, think about gaming on the PS4. Pokémon Go allows for you to leave your house, and connect with some other players face-to-face, still being able to accomplish your goals for the game. On the other hand, PS4 does allow for game chats, but that face-to-face interaction during gameplay is certainly lost.

Another great point to get at with mobile games is that they are cheaper to make than regular console games. According to the article, “Angry Birds cost approximately US$100,000 to make, a mere fraction of that of most console games (by way of comparison, Rockstar’s Grand Theft Auto V [2013] cost an estimated US$137.5 million)” (Kindle pg 221). My point here will focus on the idea that games will sell, but what matters most is how much the companies make in revenue. Many people play video games in our world, so selling a game is not really an issue, unless the game is flat out terrible! Companies should try to maximize their gains. That is, put in less, and still bring in more. On top of this, many people design their own games, but due to a lack of funds, their game never hits a major market. Allowing for cheaper games to trend opens up the idea of more diversity in game choices.

All in all, games can be categorized into many different classes. This week we focused on games that fit under the girl game, casual game, and mobile game umbrellas. Mobile games are easy to play and arguably easy to make. Shifting a focus to this medium will only benefit the gaming world. With the recent advances in technology, now is the time to promote the play of mobile games for the sake of our gaming world.

-Andy Kissoon

One of the topics from class, domesticity, brought up some interesting points in regards to video games. “Domestication also refers more literally to the integration of the novel object into the home.” Videogames were slowly domesticated and transferred into the home and our lives. The first main consoles like the Atari infiltrated the home with their basic games that had no real niche audience. They were very abstract. This domestication happened during a point where games weren’t created completely with the gender in mind, but also it was quite difficult to make a game to fit gender with the few pixels they had. As stated in HTPVG, the ball and paddle games were meant to bring the family together, that was their marketing strategy, the family. Specifically, both genders were advertised to and this was a time period, where games had equality and more representation for women compared to the following years. Now games don’t have to worry about what specific audience as much as they worry about trying to appeal to every audience. It may be impossible to appease everyone, but it is very apparent that companies will try to incorporate as large of an audience as possible.

In the same way that domestication occurred with the ball and paddle games, we can see a similarity as casual and mobile games attempt to integrate themselves into a broad audience, that will spread gaming as a whole, versus the setting of the home and family. Domestication is similar to ludification. “The focus of ludification is on the spread of play as a practice, playfulness as an attitude and the supposedly growing role of playful designs in our everyday reality.” Mobile games have been at the bottom of the “hardcore” gaming caste system. However, the creation of games like Pokemon Go have allowed more hardcore gamers, previous lovers of Pokemon, and casual gamers to join together. There are elements within Pokemon Go that could be deemed hardcore. Elements like grinding can be considered hardcore and Pokemon Go definitely takes long hours and time to become a high level and obtain good pokemon. However, the easy accessibility and playability of it confirms Pokemon Go as a mobile or casual game. There are four elements of a mobile game that makes it what it is and those are “gameplay accessibility, software accessibility, everyday ubiquity, and variable monetization.” A phone is quite accessible already, but Pokemon Go is free, a simple download, has an easy interface and is overall basic for anyone to start playing.

Overall, the process of ludification and domestication both are an integration of games into an audience. Although, ludification is on a much larger scale. It is the push for gaming in everyday life. One could say that ludification is negative. Games shouldn’t consume our everyday life or else we would jeopardize productivity, which is true in many scenarios. With the addition of social distancing, people can end up forgetting their daily duties and hope to just stick to the luxuries of homelife.

Works Cited

Mäyrä, Frans. “Pokémon GO: Entering the Ludic Society.” Mobile Media & Communication, vol. 5, no. 1, 2016, pp. 47–50., doi:10.1177/2050157916678270.

Payne, Matthew Thomas, and Nina Huntemann. How to Play Video Games. New York University Press, 2019.

Recently I downloaded Love Nikki which is a dress-up mobile app where the player progresses through levels by competing against AI in attempts to dress a model fitting to a prompt. This app is pretty decent in the sense that it is not too much of a cash grab and has mechanics other than paying. There are not too many adds and both forms of in game currency can be obtained at reasonable rates with out paying for the game. Though in comparison to another fashion related game, Style Savvy, (released for both the DS and 3DS), Love Nikki falls short in entertaining the player and keeping the engrossed in the world. Style Savvy has similar mechanics to Love Nikki, the player still can compete against AI to fit a category but in Style Savvy the main mechanic of the game is finding outfits and items that fit a customer’s style needs.

Tamashii Hiroka has a YouTube video where she discusses the difference in girl games made from the mid 90s to mid 2000s and games made from the mid 2000s to present. Both of the games, I mentioned earlier would be considered in the second category, but they both go along with a topic she mentions (at 9:56 if you wish to jump to the part). Hiroka mentions that a fun part about fashion is the ability to mix and match clothes. Both Style Savvy and Love Nikki allow for this and provides the user with a diverse wardrobe that they can purchase. Style Savvy is able to keep up this illusion of finding the perfect matching outfit better though. In both games when attempting to fit a style the game will give categories that the player should chose from as a hint. As long as a player has some items from these categories they should be able to prosper. Though Love Nikki limits the number of times a player can compete through a heart system that the player exhausts every time they attempt a level. These hearts will grow back, but by either waiting or spending money. (I should note though, that game does give a reasonable amount of hearts such that the player can probably attempt levels for about an hour or so before having to wait.) This limiting of resources makes the player want to attempt to get the best score out of every match and takes away from the joys of finding matching pieces to a theme, switching a focus on putting as many items on as possible that will match the recommended categories (which, let me tell you, has made several high scoring fashion disasters). Since Style Savvy lacks this mechanic of paying and waiting to be able to server customers, with the only real penalty for straying to farm from what the customer desires is the customer might not return (which is not a main concern since the game has numerous NPCs so customers are not necessarily a hot commodity), the game becomes more forgiving on the player for not making sure every item is tagged with certain categories. This allows the player to be able to experiment and fall into the illusion of selecting perfect matching outfits better. Though both games are well designed and are not apparent cash grabs, Love Nikki‘s presence (even though it is small) of a payment mechanic takes the player away from some of the immersion of the game by making the player have to shift their strategy from matching fitting outfit pieces together to putting pieces of specific categories on regardless of how well they match.

Bellow is the referenced YouTube video for your viewing pleasure: