Um artigo interessante com opinião de developers sobre o assunto. Estou com preguiça de trtaduzir, mas quem tiver boa vontade....



January 29, 2009 - Casual gaming is without a doubt the latest phenomenon to sweep through the videogames industry. The constant struggle to legitimize gaming in the eyes of the mainstream consumer is now within the reach of the throngs of ad executives that power the business side of the industry and it seems as though their attempts at opening the floodgates to every Joe, Bob and Mary have very nearly been realized.

You can see it in virtually every game that's released today. So often I'm sitting in game demos with a developer and public relations representative and I hear the words "accessibility" and "very important to us" mentioned in the same breath. It's all in the spirit of making games a more "pick up and play" experience that anyone can enjoy. From Madden football to games like BioShock, just about every title gives a nod to those who may not be as invested in their games as you probably are.

But is that good or bad for games? It can be looked at any number of ways, really. On one hand, you could make the argument that in these trying economic times videogames need to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. Perfectly logical statement. But on the other hand there's this galley of hardcore, diehard videogame fans that feel slightly alienated by "dumbing down" games.

Christoph Hartmann, President of 2K Games had this to say about the two types of game players: "Many casual gamers tend to evolve into core gamers. In supporting casual game development as part of a larger core gaming business strategy, we help to expand the market for more of our own games."

The method of thinking is evidenced perfectly by the design of BioShock. From the outside, it walked and talked like a hardcore game with its upgrade system and multiple options for combat that needed to be discovered by the player (sans handholding), yet it still had a very forgiving respawn system thanks to the vita chambers. Perhaps that's why BioShock resonated so well with gamers, because it was able to provide a hardcore environment with nuances that would resonate with fans of classic games, while still simplifying things ever so slightly to draw in newcomers.

Doug Lombardi from Valve Software -- a company that has traditionally developed hardcore games, but has opened its business model to casual games thanks to the Steam platform -- seemed to agree with Mr. Hartmann saying:

"As any form of entertainment develops, new subgenres and devices are bound to emerge. Short, silent comedies paved the way to epic dramas with sound and shot in Panavision, which opened the door for musicals, etc. With music, R&B released on vinyl gave way to rock and disco releases on 8-track, which gave way to punk, grunge, and rap issued on CDs and now digitally as MP3's. So it's not surprising -- especially as gaming continues to be the fastest growing form of entertainment -- that new genres, input devices, and distribution platforms are among the most interesting areas of growth within the industry."

Think about the sentiment of that statement for a second. If casual games are the MP3 to hardcore gaming's CDs then does that mean that we'll one day see every release geared toward the "non-gamer"? Mr. Lombardi doesn't say whether he approves of the trend of the industry, but if he's right, I'd be one of many up in arms over the simplification of my favorite pastime.

Michael Taramykin, Executive Producer behind EA Sports' stable of Tiger Woods titles says, "I don't think that it's fair to describe 'casual gaming' as a type of art style or play mechanic. I believe that the genre has more to do with time and how easy it is for a player to jump in and out of a play experience. It's less about total immersion and more about quick and accessible entertainment."

I think that's where casual gaming could run into a problem. For as long as I can remember I've known that videogames were a new tier of entertainment that simply hadn't been discovered by the mainstream. They had the potential to rival movies in sales (something that we're just starting to see) and present players with unmatchable interactive experiences. If Doug Lombardi is right and casual games -- the kind described by Michael Taramykin -- are the 8-track to our vinyl, then haven't videogames failed to live up to the potential that we all imagined so many years ago?

Lucy Bradshaw, General Manager over at Maxis, said, "Casual games tend to have compelling, yet simple ideas and gameplay mechanics that have drawn new players at any level and age into gaming -- a huge feat that's made a significant and positive impact on our industry."

That's true, more money being pumped into the games industry is most certainly a good thing for all involved. But for casual games to not completely abolish what has already been established (in other words, hardcore games going the way of the adventure genre) there needs to be some kind of medium created; some sort of blend between the two distinct types of games. Developers are trying for it, but it seems like they rarely find the perfect mix.

Nathan Fouts, President of Mommy's Best Games (the folks who made the fantastic Community Game on Xbox Live called Weapon of Choice, a hardcore game on a casual delivery system) perfectly summed up how many hardcore gamers feel:

"Having played games all my life, I don't like feeling like I'm being ignored by publishers and developers. Seeing companies trip over themselves to make games for people my parents' age who might be interested in playing them is really frustrating. It feels like resources are being pulled from developing games that I will play. If having casual games swell the market meant there were just more gamers around I'd be fine, but I feel as though the casual gamer increase could be disproportionately convincing publishers to vie for the casual gamer's dollar more than my own."

Right now publishers and developers can rely on name brands like Prince of Persia, Battlefield, and Madden to still draw people in, but eventually there will come a time for developers to find the perfect blend between casual and hardcore if they want to retain the fans of some of the staple series of the industry.

But what if they don't? Could we see the total dissolution of the hardcore gamer? And if we do, is that really a bad thing for our beloved medium? All we can do is sit, watch, and hope that developers remember what the foundation of gaming used to be.

Ben Judd, a producer at Capcom, thinks that the hardcore market is here to stay and will, in fact, not be forgotten. Quite the contrary, saying, "There will be less hardcore gamers but I think they will form their own clique and boast about the different hard core games they have been able to conquer. I personally wouldn't have it any other way. Gaming needs a variety of different gamers so that we can always push the envelope in new ways."

But if this sect of gamers is dwarfed by the casual majority then won't developers pump the most money into their casual projects thus lessening the production and overall value of their games? Would the core audience be able to deal with less sheen on their favorite franchises and no longer being the apple in developers' eyes? Or would they just be happy to still be in the conversation?

Gaming is in a transition phase where many of the staple, high-cost, high production value franchises are being forced to soften their design and play mechanics to open their doors to new customers. Over the next few years we'll see which of our favorites can retain an identifiable feel and which need to be totally retooled and simplified to stay in existence. Hopefully I've made it clear which I'll be playing when that time comes.



[Tens de ter uma conta e sessão iniciada para poderes visualizar este link]