I think this helps explains why Rogue-Lites/Likes have become so popular nowadays. They have immense depth, short play times, and you can enjoy them at any level of play.
After beating the Dark Souls tutorial level the normal way (run away from the first encounter with the boss, get a real weapon, plunge attack, and r1 spam into his ass) I was curious to see if there was a way to beat him in the first encounter. I started another character for this, and through trial and error figured out you can kill him with good use of the black firebomb starting gift. (I hadn't even figured out how to put them on my hotbar, I just threw them from the item menu lol). For my efforts I was rewarded with a giant monster weapon with a stat requirement that seemed unimaginably high for that point in the game. All I remember thinking then was "I'm going to love this game".
There's nothing "hardcore" about having to walk 10.000 steps to hatch an egg in pokemon, being artificially locked out of areas in borderlands 2 because you didn't level grind enough which reduces your damage or dodging 200 lightning bolts in ffX, it's just disrespectful of your time and every game would be better for respecting it.
Core players lead busy lives. We have to stop equating playtime with desire for depth. P.S. Sorry the episode was late this week everyone! We brought it through several program crashes and even a power outage, but the setbacks delayed our release until Thursday.
I find it interesting that you chose to depict casual players with red and core players with blue. If I were illustrating would do it the other because that feels more intuitive to me!
+Extra Credits It also confuses something else very important, which is why one shouldn't rush to dismiss. 'Hardcore' players are also people who try to get a meaningful learning experience out of the game they're playing. That means that within the 'hardcore' grouping there are sub-groups of people who want to persuade the regular consumer of entertainment to their ideology. This means developers have to approach their craft with enough selflessness to include people they might otherwise despise and educate those inclined towards ignorance. Most developers simply want to ignore the real gravity that is mechanized by the perpetuity of their craft in favor of their own ideal (mostly commonly that of the lack there of). So of course gamers are divided; but only because developers more than anything want to consider themselves more valuable to the process than they actually are and treat their 'friends' on the other side of the screen like shit. Destiny is the perfect example. It had every reason to succeed, but because Bungie didn't feel morally compelled to represent their fans in the market (due to primarily existentialist ideology) they created a Frankenstein game. You can't have depth without thoughtfulness, and you can't have thoughtfulness without consideration.
+Venki Phy6 I think it was a conscious choice to go against the grain, like showing women as the core and men as the casual. The entire point was to look at these "groups" differently and knocking you out of your comfort zone is a good way to do that.
That is an interesting point that could lead to games whose meaning, theoretically, could be seen differently the more one masters its systems. However I can see such a model also introducing new arbitrary problems to a game. For instance let's take a fairly standard, class-based RPG. A player has the freedom to choose whatever kind of role they wish. However its designers, in a bid to give the kind of depth you propose, make it so the most efficient way to win fights early on is with a sword. Though you may prefer the glass cannon approach of a mage the best reward comes from melee attacks. Now let's take this example even further and look to the middle of our hypothetical game. Up to this point players, driven by its superior reward, have used swords to deal with every combat challenge and have only been improving their skill in swords. Suddenly the game throws an enemy that's immune to melee and is only susceptible to fire spells. Like most RPGs it may be (cont'd next post)
The other day I was playing Achron in a library and someone came up and asked me about it. At one point I mentioned I am only a casual RTS player. Then they asked me what games I really enjoy, and when I said Dark Souls they laughed. "And you call yourself a casual player?" Yeah. Of Real-Time Strategy games. Give me a spectacle fighter and it's a whole 'nother story. But it was frustrating that the term had such a strong definition in his mind that he didn't understand how useless that definition was to describe any gamer in general. If I can only be a core gamer, or a casual gamer, then I'm going to identify as casual; the games that are considered the most "hardcore" are usually games that don't interest me. Further, I tend to play any game through only once. But give me dark souls, or mirror's edge, or even a final fantasy game, and suddenly that definition doesn't work. I don't fit. Because these are the games that hit my core engagements; achievement and exploration (yes FF hits achievement: just look at all those systems, all those numbers to juggle. How to be most effecient with your limited mana, which unit to heal with to make sure the injured guy isn't killed first, but also keeping your DPS as high as possible, etc; passing these games is relatively easy. Mastering them requires analysis and effort) For some genre's I'm casual, and for some I'm core. You can't lump me in one category for everything.
TheBoundFenrir Then I’m hardcore clicker gamer! I’m playing tones of clickers and only quit when there is no further upgrades in the game or when I’ve bought all the heroes/buildings/resource generators...
Many years ago when the Casual x Core x Hardcore thing was going around I considered it and using "time played" was a pretty inaccurate measure. For example, there were definitions like a "casual gamer" plays for 5 hrs / week while a "hardcore gamer" plays over 40 hrs/wk, "core gamers" being somewhere in between. However, while observing my own behaviours and the behaviours of other gamers, you could consider someone as "hardcore" but they play less than 5 hrs/wk while a "casual" person plays over 40 hr/wk (ever see someone on a mobile device playing bejeweled for HOURS while commuting or on break?). The thing to note is that the "hardcore" person will invest themselves differently, they consider their character's build or consult a wiki. They read and write guides, join communities, develop mods, etc. These kind of actions show a different kind of investment that would be much better for designers to consider when developing their game.
+PerfectDeath4 Blizzard's forums are notorious for this. If you have an opinion, many will check your profile for the time you've played, and the level you're at to determine your general intellect. It's disgusting.
+PerfectDeath4 People also use casual as an insult sometimes. Made a thread on steam to remove repetitve and tedeus task in the game. Then I got called a casual gamer and "new" and "bad" to the game.
+PerfectDeath4 tl;dr There is a difference between Core and Casual players and it has nothing to do with how much time they spend playing games, but rather in how they spend their time playing games. I agree. This is a rare miss for EC for me. The fact of the matter is that they are not properly comparing core vs casual. They really just showed two core gamers, with the only difference being that one person has more time to spend on playing the game (or at least chooses to). You cannot really get depth of gameplay out of a quick introduction to something like the combat award system they presented. For instance Paper Mario introduced a similar combat system right from the start, but I would hardly call it deep. If anything, the timing mechanics made it feel more like a casual game a la Angry Birds. Depth implies complexity. Complexity requires study and experimentation. Both are things which will turn off your typical Farmville playing casual. Casuals are called casual because they don't want to think about the game, they just want to get in and mess around. It's the same difference between a casual cosplayer and a devoted/professional one. The casual cosplayer will throw on a cheap facsimile and put forth minimal effort in their costume, while a devoted (core) cosplayer is one who will make sure that the colors, service ribbons and even their haircut are all perfect down to the smallest detail when creating their Roy Mustang cosplay uniform (I'm not obsessed, I swear >_
Femsplainer I had done some presentations in business classes where I looked into it and made attempts to organize the whole thing as well. It is still a topic that feels difficult to discuss because, as mentioned above, casual is an insult for many gamers. It does define how a player plays but that should not establish how they should be treated. On the other end of the insults, there is also "try hard" used to generalize someone who puts in "too much" into playing/competing/mastering.
PerfectDeath4 Well there will always be a separation between the casual and core in any field, but with games I think it is a little different. I think that part of this comes from the negative stigma that has been associated with gamers as basement dwelling no-lifes. Gamergate caused it to come to a head when they tried to eliminate the very term gamer, because the casuals had become such a presence in the market. They tried to equate the valley girls playing candy crush on their phones to the die hard FPS and RTS players on their fine tuned custom rigs, which is absurd. No medium has had as much social pushback as video games have. As such, all hell breaks loose when casuals come tromping in on what core gamers perceive to be sacred ground. However, as I said before, casuals can become core players if they choose to, so we shouldn't use it as an insult. That being said, there is still a difference between them, and it is folly to believe otherwise. The Tiny Tina's Assault on Dragon's Keep expansion for Borderlands 2 really hits the mark perfectly on this. If you're unfamiliar with it, the expansion is basically a D&D parody (some spoilers). In it, Torgue (a jock type alpha male character) wants to join in and the other characters get pissed off at him because he is a jock invading their sacred space. At this point he breaks down and cries because he always sincerely wanted to be included with the groups. They feel bad because they were doing the very thing that they hated, excluding people and judging them for who they are. I think the same thing is happening here when core disparages casual.
+Patrick Johnson I'm one of those in-between players. I really only sink my teeth into a game a few times a year, but when I do it'll be all of my free time for at least a week. I crave depth in my games just as much as a traditional core player does; the difference is that I don't play games that often. It's not that I don't have time, it's just that I don't have the interest most of the time. There are other ways I typically spend my days off. That being said, I've watched every EC video (most multiple times) and try to keep on top of all the new titles because I genuinely love video games and I love playing them.
+Ryuzaki the thing about the souls games, is that it throws everything at you at once, but in very small doses. now, not every game should have that difficulty or style, because it is all calculation based. the concept of the tutorial is to get you a feel for the atmosphere of the world's lord and gameplay at the same time. the item names, the enemy designs, the world design in the first area, the Dev-written messages that tell you the controls, the stat descriptions that you can access from the menu. it's so much you can do from the get-go, and it's absolutely captivating. the first boss in three, iudex gundyr, or the first boss in one, the asylum demon, both give very good examples of what's to come, and are embedded with lore one can infer if they want, but it's not necessary at all. if all games could reach the same level of implementation as dark souls 1 and 3 tutorials, that's pretty much perfect.
I play plenty of games but I have a job now, and I'm increasingly of the mind that with so many other games and other experiences out there to choose from I shouldn't have to put up with any of a game's crap. I play hard games, I play games with a lot of systems involved, but once a game starts taking it for granted that I've got nothing better to do but bash my head against a wall in either of those two areas before it'll give me an experience worth my time? That's the point I start eyeing the other games on my shelf.
Portal is probably the largest example I can remember of a game where it took WAY too long to get to the depth. By the time it did the game was over. There were challenge modes, but what I really wanted was more levels, not to replay the old ones more efficiently. One of my favorite examples of early depth is in the recently released turn-based RPG Bravely Second. If you beat your enemies in one turn then you can choose to call in a second wave of enemies. If you beat that wave in that turn you can call in another, and so on. Each time you do you get larger and larger reward multipliers. More money, more experience, more Job Points, and more items. The depth comes because it's all considered one continuous first turn, meaning that if your characters act once then they can't act again (except in some rare scenarios). So you have to get as far as you can with a limited number of moves. The titular Brave and Default system also lends a lot of depth to the fights as well. It's great because it's optional, but if you choose to do it then you can have instant back-to-back fights with a huge, multiplicative reward at the end. It's a grinder's dream! Interesting AND efficient.
I appreciate the message this video has. I have always been someone in between casual/core. I have always been passionate towards games, and when I play I want to play seriously and with intensity. However in the whole scope of my life there have always been more important things for me to do. From school to work to programming to video making to hanging out with friends who are not gamers or who like different games, more importantly just hanging out with friends, family, and my church life.... As a result I have always consciously made an attempt to limit the number of games I'm playing, and how much time I spend on each one. I haven't always succeeded, but having games that I can play deeply without a big time commitment would be helpful.
So I fancy myself as "casual", though I'm less a "play game quick and don't care about depth" type so much as "in it for the long haul, but care more about aesthetics and lore than difficulty." I'd rather play a fighting game with easy AI versus/arcade than go online to be frustrated by perpetual loss. So... what colour does that make me? :P
Radiant Historia is a prime example of what you described, an RPG that gives non-traditional Core audiences something early on: for "casuals", there's a mechanic of knocking monsters into each other with special attacks (available at the very beginning) for combo damage, allowing even low-level players to end battles in a single turn if they're paying attention, and thus allowing them to speed through the "grinding" aspect to the next story point But the XP reward system also gives bonus rewards for higher combo multipliers earned during combat (e.g. 4-5 hit "Great" combos gets more then 2-3 hit "Good"), rewarding those who can get the highest combos...but to get the highest combos possible, you need to learn how to vary your attack types, how to anticipate where your opponents will be knocked around by certain attacks, and learn how to manipulate the turn order to best advantage, all while trying to actually end the battle with the fewest resources lost possible (don't want to run out of mana in the middle of a dungeon, after all). The XP reward system can be ignored if desired; the bonus isn't so huge as to be game-chaning, and most people can obtain the lower bonuses without much problem. But both systems taken together require mastering the different characters' abilities and figuring out how best to use them together, as well as strongly encouraging players to go for the secondary quests that unlock new abilities for each character - you're not just after greater power, you're after greater versatility, too!
+qwesx Eh, it's a consideration, but I also feel like it's a band-aid to a deeper wound. I'd think of why you'd want to skip the tutorial in the first place: is it not engaging? Do you feel like you are being condescended? If the answer is "yes" to any of those questions, the problem is that the tutorial sucks.
+Ratty524 Are you playing the game for the fifteenth time and don't need to be told to pay attention to what the action icon says for the thirty-seventh time? (Navi tells you twice with no way to avoid it, and there's a sign you can choose whether to read or not that also tells you). There are (at least) three major groups of people who will play the opening section of your game, with very different needs in terms of early guidance - there are people who've either never played a game before, or at least not one in this genre, who need even the most basic things explained - like how to move and look around. Then there are seasoned gamers, who only need to know how your game differs from other games of the genre - can you fall off edges, and if so, how much does landing hurt? (if at all) What happens if you try jumping in midair? Finally, there are the game's fans - who at most need a brief reminder, and spend most of the early game waiting impatiently for their favourite abilities to unlock. It's a genuinely hard problem to come up with an opening that suits all three classes of player - even if you discount the non-gamers, you still need to make sure someone playing for the first time gets the information they need in order to be able to play your game, while still allowing someone who does know what they're doing to get started without feeling crippled or railroaded...
+Ratty524 I don't know about other people, but I dislike tutorials as a concept. I'll never say a game shouldn't have them, just that they should ALWAYS be skippable. An unskippable tutorial is a bad tutorial. Put bluntly, there are those whom don't want the nuance handed to them on a silver platter that would greatly prefer learning and figuring things out for themselves. It makes it stick better, it makes the understanding of the application of the mechanic better, and it honestly makes it feel more rewarding. I'm not going to pretend that I'm part of any sort of majority by viewing tutorials that way, which is why I'd say skipping them should always be an option instead of trying to claim that tutorials should be done away with. I'd much rather play a game where the things I know about the game are things I've collected and picked up on entirely of my own volition, than to play a game where the basics were simply handed out. Honestly, it degrades the experience as a whole to force a tutorial. Megaman X is probably the only game tutorial that didn't bog down the game, and mostly because it wasn't actually a tutorial. You were still figuring things out entirely on your own instead of the game explaining things. I don't want to be told "press LB + X to do a special" or "press A to do a thing". I want to be thrown into the game and if it's useful I'll figure it out by my own means at my own juncture of choosing to figure it out, and if it's not useful to how I intend to play then I'll simply not know it. I realize I'm in a sort of excessively hardcore gamer type of category here, and by no means a majority of any sort, but having an unskippable tutorial undermines the game as a whole. It's not longer "I'm overcoming the obstacle in the way I figured to do so," it then instead becomes "Every obstacle overcome just feels like it's because the game hands you everything you need apropos of nothing."
Fascinating observation! I've always been labeled a casual gamer (even self labeled) because I don't play games frequently. But I love depth and if I could I would sink all the time into games, digging into them fervently. I just have to work and clean and eat and sleep and study...
It would be cool if you did an episode explaining the differences between Casual, Mid-Core, Casual-Core, Core and Hardcore and mapped them to different quadrants of Bartle's Taxonomy and different age-groups! That episode would be a dream!
+TCMOREIRA More Bartle would be cool, but I think that going from full casual to full hardcore would just be repetitive and boring. "Mid-core gamers like this more than casual but less than hardcore gamers. Core gamers like it more than mid-core, but still less than hardcore blah blah blah." I just can't see it being interesting.
Beezlbob Destraint I can understand your point. But it wouldn't be uninteresting it would at worst be a little boring and heavy. But I just wish such episode existed because information like that comprised in a 10 minute episode would be soooo marvelous. That's usually the best part about extra credits: when you have to explain some game design thing to someone then you can instead just send them a 10 minute video about it. And there are no videos containing information about audiences and demographics comprised under 10 minutes.
This is not related to this video but today my social studies teacher used your extra history videos to teach us about the Punic Wars. I thought it was kinda cool, so I decided to tell you
Gotta agree with all of this. I am now very quick to drop games if the depth feels like it is a puddle. And on the flipside I am far more likely to complain about systems that are pointlessly deep for the wrong reasons. I end up complaining about so many different small things in games like darksouls 3 than about the games that simply didn't hook me.
+Adalore As soon as I read "systems that are pointlessly deep for the wrong reasons" I instantly thought of Mirror's Edge: Catalyst. Just from watching people play the beta, I'm already guessing that I'm not gonna like it at all.
I agree, many games try to invent something new or try to make a fresh new gamemode. For example say in an FPS, they try to make a new gamemode, by saying you need to get object A's to point A and object B's to point B but object C can take away objects and convert... Blah Blah Blah and so on. Trying to be too complex takes away from the real enjoyment. It all depends on the game but keep the objective simple, use depth in giving the player options to go about getting the objective.
+Sychopath52 Mirror's edge was fun because it was just simple. Find the fastest routes, execute them in a flawless manner and keep your momentum. Now they've added fighting which is only acceptable if parkour is integrated into it, but most of the time it's not. They now have upgrades and all this crap which absoulutely ruin the "Go fast as possible" idea. Now you don't know if you have a bad time because of your skill, or the fact that you haven't played through the game to get all the unlocks.
Naw I don't think they are mutually exclusive. When I think of useless never used mechanics that is when I think "Pointlessly deep". They went through the motions and then horribly poorly implemented something, it adds to the "Game space" in the worse way.
This hits really close to home. I have a backlog of games that I would love to play for hours and hours on end like I used to, but there just feels like there`s no time. Now it`s gotten to the point where there`s almost no point in buying new games until I complete the ones I already have, almost all of which are RPGs or in-depth stories that would require at least 40-50 hours with missions lasting way longer than I can manage in a sitting between shifts. It`s very sad :(
I really like how illustrations got better. No lazy stock photos, everyting cute and sometimes even with small stories in it. And different haircuts. Thank you, it's great and you work is appreciated! :)
Something I would like to see more games do is have standalone tutorials available from the menu screen. The number of times I have gotten busy irl and left a game for a while, only to come back and have to re-learn everything; having the option to just have a dedidcated refresh-your-memory section would be great. You could even have the tutorial section update as you learn new skills.
I was a core player if you use the definitions they used here. but i became a casual one, just simply because i don't have the time anymore. And i agree that i want depth early in the game. Like always great video :)
I have no idea why this video is so late in your series, but your starting to get it. Considering the nature of your player is mandatory, but pidgin holing them to much hurts everybody. I know people who spend the whole of there free time building spreadsheets and strategies for games. But equally I know people who jump in blind and prefer to stay in the game and not use spoiler like meta or community info. Finding there core value in what THEY find and feel in a game. And I know dedicated players that start there research early and dig into the community of a game to gather there knowledge almost exclusively. We are all equally passionate about games, and most of the time can even play together without issue, as long as we respect each others approach. (or get into arguments about Buffy Vs Firefly) From a design perspective I would say this means consider your core the people that are likely to be attracted to the presented components of your game and think critically about the components you choose to use both in and out of the game based on what makes them attractive to a player. Yourself included. I mean you are making games, enjoyment is key.
This is what happened to WoW and the Nostalrius thing. It's not that we like the Vanilla graphics or bosses, it's because you could do much more things: questing, exploring, professions, making teams for a raid/dungeon/battleground. WoW those days make content that was focused on teamwork, instead of single player experience.
Oh my Goodness! Thank you! I've been waiting for someone to make a video on something like this! Especially from the likes of you! I have friends who always wonder why I don't play Facebook games and when I explain why they always say something like, "What difference does it make? These games are designed with casuals in mind?" And at the same time, I saw through the constructive fallacy to begin with!
"I have biotics?" hahahahaha oh my God that perfectly encapsulated my first playthrough of Mass Effect. I beat almost the entire game treating it as a stop and pop cover shooter.
I think that Dan pointed out something that I noticed but couldn't explain. There seems to be only two philosophies in making games and only two audiences. When people talk about games it always if the game is hardcore or casual and not if its good.
i can think of 2 examples currently okami gives you ranks for damage taken and time taken for every fight and gives a better amount of bonus money fir playing better persona right from the first dungeon gives you access to shuffle time which requires correctly exploiting enemies and it is fun to try and attain the sweep bonus
Thank you for this video! As someone who used to spend hours on end playing games, but now has only a fraction of that time to spend now, I have been thinking about this issue lately. My personal example: The Dragon Age series. When I was in college, playing Origins, I did EVERYTHING in that game. On the hardest level. Every side quest, every conversation. Camp interactions were my favorite. Fast forward to Inquisition. Now I'm a full-time teacher. I bought this game on release day in November, and I only make it to Skyhold because I got extra time during my semester break. All this time, I could only devote maybe one or two hours to this game per day. I was ready to stop playing this game by New Year's. I finally swallowed my pride and switched the difficulty level down to casual because I just was NOT having fun! I was never able to get immersed enough in what I was doing during that time. On the easier level, I was able to beat it while still enjoying it, and come summer break, I remembered it fondly enough that I took another crack at it on a harder level. But the ONLY reason I persisted when I was so disenchanted with this game was the fact that I had two friends who kept pushing me to finish it because they knew I'd like it. Now I've played it through several times and have gone ahead and bought some DLC (which I normally hate doing). If I didn't have the idea in my brain that casual game= shallower game, I wouldn't have had such a hard time switching that difficulty level.
4:20 - 4:25: The first example with that mechanic that came to mind was the Mega Man Battle Network/Star Force games. Depending on how long you take and how much damage you take, your average grade (or "Busting Level") rewards you with slightly better gear or more money all because of how well you're applying what you learned in a four minute tutorial. I believe there were some specific battle items you couldn't get unless you mopped the floor with random encounters without a scratch. I feel like other games handle this much better, yet I love the series so any reason to mention it is a plus for me.
+j.max It's interesting. A lot of the games that come to mind with this "Better play=better reward" system are ARPG's like Bayonetta and Devil May Cry. Sure, their gameplay is supposed to be fasted paced and flashy, but if they didn't add in a grading system and rewards dependant on grade, then I think more people would just spam a single OP combo. You CAN still do that and get the same story and whatever, but the game will be more rewarding if you take the time to master the mechanics.
I guess I can say I'm a hardcore Battle Network 3 player, I spent 80 hours so far and I only have three of the seven stars. I got back into the Battle Network games last year and played through all of the stories (yes, even the terrible Megaman Battle 4 Red Sun and Blue Moon) but I went back to BN3 to see how far I can get into the post game content, so far I have all standard chips, beat Serenade (Who was too easy), fought Bass, and did a few of the trials. I know some people would call shenanigans if I don't elaborate more on why Serenade was so easy: Program Advances, if you use either bodyguard, Duex Hero, or 2x Hero, you're pretty much golden. I wish I would've used a less powerful folder to really see the challenge Serenade and Bass offered...
One really good example of this in my opinion is the DS game: The World Ends With You. You encounter monsters called "noise" by pressing a button on the lower screen to scan the world around you. When you do this, different sized red icons will appear that you can tap to initiate a battle. After a certain point, you also gain the ability to "chain" the noise which basically means that, depending on how many of the icons you touch before the random encounter, you fight the random encounters one after the other without stopping. And if you succeed, then you can get some pretty nice bonuses. The game will also reward you for performing difficult tasks such as fighting without an auto-battle on the top screen or getting a high combo of attacks. While it probably isn't to the same degree, another good example which is also somewhat more recent would be Bravely Default and Bravely Second. (Or at least the demo for Bravely Second; I haven't yet gotten to play the actual game yet.) Bravely Default gives you different rewards depending on if you can beat a group of enemies at the same time, if you can win without taking damage, and if you can win in only one turn. Depending on which of these you do, you'll either get an extra amount of EXP, job points, or cash with the exact amount depending on how many times you completed that task in a row. (And of course if you do all three, you'll be rewarded with extra EXP, cash, and JP.) In Bravely Second, or at least the demo, if you defeat the group of enemies in one turn, then you can choose to end your fights there and the normal amount of exp, cash, and JP, or you can fight another random encounter in which winning will apply a multiplier to all three things mentioned above. The catch is that your BP, the points you can use to pergorm multiple actions in a turn doesn't reset to zero in between any of the battles. While you can theoretically fight as long as you don't die, don't choose to stop, and keep beating all of the enemies in one turn, if you don't plan your attacks and abilities carefully, you can only make it through so many battles before your lack of BP forces you to take a turn to gain more. While this will end your chain since you're unable to beat the enemies in only one turn, you still get the multiplier that you obtained as long as you're able to defeat the enemy.
"I have biotics?" Perfect. I was definitely playing Mass Effect like a core player and I ran into exactly what you're talking about. That example really drove it home for me.
+LX Indeed, and it's oddly the first RPG I've come across with that sort of system in place. Even something like Chrono Trigger doesn't give that incentive, though I so wish it did. Unchained X also offers some interesting choices from the get-go with the single/multi/special system. Specials are easy to get back, single targets are free and do a lot of damage, while multis are great for free crowd control. IMO, it's quite brilliant.
Stardew Valley's probably one of the best examples of breaking the old casual/core perception of game design. It is both easy to get into and has the potential to be very deep right from the get-go. You start out with plenty of choices, and by the end of the first week of game time, you can do basically everything in the game (although a lot of it you probably won't be able to do right away simply because of money and time constraints; choice of how you spend your time and money are big in Stardew Valley). You can take the game as slow or as fast as you like, and you're bound to still have a great time either way.
One excellent example I can think of that allowed for players to demonstrate depth immediately is the MegaMan Battle Network series. It had a battle system where players had to immediately interesting choices to use a randomly drawn 'hand' of weapons from a set 'deck' and post-battle rewards were based entirely on player performance. Countering enemy attacks was rewarded, and in order to get the top ranking in a random battle you not only had to defeat all enemies in under five seconds, you had to destroy at least two simultaneously. The fact that you has a very limited deck to begin with and none of the storyline power ups didn't detract from a deep battle system from the start of the game.
Unfortunately, all 6 Megaman battle network suffer from a very heavy handed tutorial section. Not that they're bad games though, it's some of my favourite games to date. Their story pacing is usually excellent.
+Knight Loltrec for hardcore players, the fun is being good/getting better at the game, for casual they would just play for fun, not looking to get better. not trying to make it black and white but its kinda like that
+Knight Loltrec More like, hardcore players have DIFFERENT types of fun that they enjoy. Depth and difficulty makes the fun better since it feels more significant and meaningful to play games with higher steaks.
+Dreikoo Precisely. A casual might want to mash on a fighting game(which is alright if they find that fun)but I know lots of people would rather know how to use special moves and how to counter effectively and applying those skills and winning using them might be the most satisfying.
Damion Dixon I have tourney experience in fighters and my avatar is from blazblue so...yeh, you're right. Adrenaline rush high steaks top level matches are so much more fun than fartin around vs the ai in easy mode.
Bravely default is a great example of the rpg system you mentioned. There's also a ton of depth in getting different class types to synergize but the game is still possible to win without constructing the best mixture of classes.
I think you guys got it backwards. It's not that time invested implies desire for depth, is desire for (or fulfillment of) depth that causes time investing.
+Lince Assassino Yeah basically there's a threshold for how much time one can spend on a game due to real world reasons, but no limit to how much one WANTS depth in a game since that is an attitude one holds. However, I do think that there's some weaker correlation somewhere between the two in a sense that, you can't expect to go extremely in-depth gaming if you're only going to play something say an hour or two a week. At some point of game depth, players needs to invest time outside of gameplay time to research data and plan stuff ahead etc. If one is not able to do that, it seems meaningless however much depth one desires out of the game
oh my god i saw this video's thumbnail and i was like "OH MY GOD thank you for this video" as a smash player i constantly see this mentioned, and it never makes sense. things that are fun for hardcore players doesn't push it away from new players. really the main thing thats necessary is cleaning up foo strategies.
Personally I view this as part of a larger problem: where games treat time-sinks as difficulty. Requiring the player to put a lot of time into something is not the same as making it difficult. Difficulty is when a challenge is placed in front of the player, and they are asked to overcome it using an actual skill. This can be accomplished through mini-games that model what the character is actually doing: such as the lockpicking mini-game in ESO. These mini-games were genuinely tricky. But, you could start doing it in the tutorial even. A lockpick was one of the first items you would acquire (after your sword), and then you could use it on one of the locked chests that was lying around. Et voila! instant, depth. For all the faults of that game, it sure knew how to whack you with a deep and immersive play experience from the start! unfortunately, there were a great many other things wrong with that game.
I think you could capture a lot more nuance by adding an extra layer to how yo break down your audience. Core: Has Time, wants Depth, will play your game a lot Busy Core: Does not have Time, wants Depth, will play your game slowly Casual: Does not have Time, doesn't care for Depth, will play your game slowly (Sidenote: these people tend to not own very many games, so they will probably still play through a good chunk of your game, just not at a fast pace) Invested Casual: Has Time, doesn't care for depth, will play your game a lot (These are people who are invested in your game for reasons outside of mechanics, they like how it looks, like the story, are fans of the franchise, etc)
As a person with very little free time who loves depth in gaming, It's nice to see someone advocating for giving all types of players a richer experience as soon as possible. I think Kurt Vonnegut said it best: "start as close to the end as possible."
The main thing that bugs me is the perception in multiplayer games that "casual players don't try to win". If trying to win is what distinguishes casual from core, then I guess I'm a core gamer. But on the other hand it's not like I'm the type of player who sees winning as everything. My goal is to enjoy my time playing; if that means going an unusual build just for the heck of it, once in a while, so be it.
That's exactly me. I love winning and I hate losing (even when the losing multiplayer matches had interesting climaxes). Loads and loads of people told people like us to stop caring about the results and focusing on the process, but that's our nature and we can't fix nature. It bugs me whenever someone say "wanting to win means taking a game seriously", because that's an inaccurate expression of who we are, quite frankly. My friends are part of those people who say so and it hella bugs me sometimes when they say it. I have to explain to them that I hate losing and winning is just my ultimate and probably the only way of enjoying a multiplayer game. Losing streaks are never fun for me, and that doesn't mean I am a core player whenever I don't like losing in a game.
I just want to say i literally spit out my water when the pacha showed up on screen. amazing content as always! so happy to have seen you in YT rewind!
A fair example of a game rewarding doing well in battles is probably Bravely Default actually. You get bonus XP and Job Points for completing fights without taking damage, in a single turn, etc. Its a small bonus, but it makes you want to eek out that extra little bit all the time. Is it perfect? NOPE! But it is a good step in the right direction as it exists and makes the easier fights have a reason later in the game instead of turning off encounters.
4:45 Something like Bravely Second's One More Fight mechanic, where beating all enemies in one turn adds multipliers to gold, experience, and job points and allows for additional multiplies to be added if the same can be done on subsequent fights.
I'm definitely somewhere inbetween, I'm not afraid to turn down the difficulty level or use cheat codes if a game is giving me too much trouble to the point that I'm not having fun, and I don't really tend to be especially interested in how the game mechanics work in depth, but at the same time I'll easily sink hundreds of hours into a game like Civ, a GOOD Final Fantasy, the Elder Scrolls, or Fallout.
+Dee Twenty You might be an interstitial gamer, who may want to dedicate as much time and effort as a hardcore gamer (and might've even been one in the past), but can't afford to. You might also be considered a niche gamer, since I believe that rpg games and turn-based strategy games are both considered niche markets (at least in the West).
I was going into thinking I would hate it, but you actually nailed my problems with games like Overwatch. They are vastly making each hero more and more easier to play and pick up, but leaving no room to master them, or rather no perceived incentive. Every hero is meant to be swapped out constantly, no hero is meant to be played for long periods of time, and to me that's really boring.
I feel like if I had been given a system where I was more rewarded for doing better in a battle, I might get burned out faster. I'm talking retrying over and over until I got the best reward, and then getting tired of it because I had to restart all the time. Sure, it's my own choice to restart, but knowing you could do better will lead to players retrying more, even when they don't want to. kinda like how players playing on Hard will likely quit the game all together than lowering difficulty.
But maybe that's a good thing, if someone who is going to invest smaller play time and retries more often, they begin to understand the depth faster and learn strategies. After enough retrying you learn how to best play against enemies with certain mechanics and enjoy the more depth related portions of the game faster. The beginning fights aren't harder, they just demand a basic understanding of the game's mechanics. Portal one and two did this very well. They showed you how to use the core mechanics of the game and then took away the developer's helping hand immediately.
+AlliArt15 Yeah, but I wasn't given a better reward for completing it faster. If I did, and constantly fell a bit short, I think I have to be honest and say I'd skip portal and play one of the other games I have in my backlog. Of course, there is a difference in what the reward would be. Dark Souls KINDA has a system like this where you can spend a ring slot or a shield slot to use a specific ring/shield that gives you more souls. That system is alright, because whenever I found myself in need of more stamina when I died to the boss, I decided to rather switch the shield out with one that regenerated stamina faster. All I'm saying is that I like the idea, but it has to be balanced so that it doesn't feel like you're missing out if you go the straightforward route
Focie Agreed, and not all games should follow the example to a T because maybe there is rewards in spending longer time in a certain area or prolonging fights. I think it was a general example to fix the RPG problem he brought up and developers should know the problem exist and attempt to work around it.
I've been playing Hitman: Absolution lately and, while there are many criticism about the game that I could make, this aspect they do nail down and it is a great example of rewarding depth early on. Your first mission is a simple one. You start with a little tutorial that is pretty decent in introducing the basic mechanics of the game to you, and already in that level you have challenges available to complete. And, again other criticism I've about the game aside, those challenges (most of them I've seen so far) DO allow and reward you for exploring the game in depth. Right there, on the intro level. And at the beginning of the next level, which you could say is the first real level, you are still reminded of the existence of challenges one last time just in case you blazed through the tutorial and smashed next next next the moment it was over, just so that you will for sure know about that option too.
Where did the idea that core players play more and casual players play less come from? That certainly isn't part of my definition. My parents play the same casual game for hundreds of hours. (because they play them the same way that most people play solitare) There are WoW players that are max level, but very casual players. (because they care more about the chat system than the game) Then the obvious one that you covered in the video. (I hate filler in rpgs, so I often prefer 20 hour rpgs over the 60+ hour monstrosities we keep getting)
I feel like that's an unneeded complication of terms. What are casual players, other than people who play games casually? What are hardcore players other than people who play games hardcore? My argument is that the idea that time invested determines whether someone has played hardcore or casually seems silly. In a way, I'm agreeing with their points, but I take it a step further in that I'm shocked that developers would even consider that a measure of Core vs Casual. As an example, Nuzlocke runs of Pokemon are often much shorter than someone playing through the game normally, but faaaaar more hardcore.
Sir Robert Walpole I guess I've never heard the term "core" used with games except when it's been shorthand for hardcore, so that seems like semantics to me. Is that a commonly used term among devs, distinct from hardcore? If they were using the term to describe their key demographic, then their description of it through the rest of the video doesn't make sense. They show dark souls, using new game plus as an example of content for "core players." That content is not made for a general audience, as the majority of dark souls players just beat the game once and are done with it. NG+ is content aimed directly at hardcore players. In the video it sounds like they're using it in the same way I'd use hardcore. Casual players are those who don't sink their teeth into the mechanics and just breeze through. Core players want to excel at the game and gain mastery over it. Isn't that exactly what hardcore players are?
+Steve Zirngible time invested is a stupid measurement that's what the video said too. it's the reason why they want more depth. i think they use the term "core players" instead of "key demographic" because most games are meant to be played for a certain duration of time. now in this time frame there are people that quit earlier (casual) and those that stay for a longer time (core). (the exceptions are obviously games like wow, hearthstone etc. and with duration i mean all the sessions you play.) like they said in the video putting people in categories like this doesn't help much since their are various ways to play the game e.g. someone rushing through a game with all playable characters one after another vs. someone who does every optional quest with just one chara. if your key demographic is teenagers 14 and up that liked skyrim you still didn't categorize them as "casual" and "core" since this group has both the ones that just play every new big title game (they probably have less time for the game) and those that want to do every quest in it (which takes time). time is important for knowing how much optional content you should put in the game but if you don't choose the type of content right you end up with a game that some can play "hardcore" in their play style and others can't or if you don't choose when something becomes available right some could play less long and have far too little of their type of content.
Great presentation. As a "core" style gamer I have often wondered about this. I have found some wonderful games that work well for those who are big on "depth" however the games have been so complex that they have scared away most casuals and a significant number of cores. The problem is often that the tutorials are poorly constructed or presented. I first conceptualized The Boffin Lab after observing that my favorite game at the time, Eve Online, failed miserably at teaching new players the basics. I heard horror stories of players spending hours just working out the "tutorials" and giving up. Then I found that they had in fact been completely miss led and were not actually doing tutorials at all. And its still happening. I hope to fix this. I feel that tutorials and help for games have been somewhat lacking. Indeed the same can be said for instructions for normal software. If game designers can ix this, they can get casual and core players to the parts of the game they want to see faster and pull them into the immersion sooner. That is how they will grab their fan base.
Great episode! It really hits home for me, I used to love JRPGs and I think I still do, but many of them (old and new) take too long to get interesting. That's probably why I've been into mostly indies for a long while now, they get made by a lot of people in my situation (young adults who love games but can't commit 50 hours to every game). It feels like many AAAs are a big time commitment and the introductions start saying "use WASD to move". Really!? BTW, a shoutout to the EC artists, the drawings have improved in quality for a while now. Good job!
The only argument I'd have against the idea of rewarding playing well early on is that some of the "casual" players might feel like they're missing something and get frustrated about that. The only way I could think of to prevent that would be to hide(= not talk about it but let it work anyway) this mechanic for at least the first few moments of the game. That way: - Casual players if the get to the point where they are told this mechanic exists, will simply try to apply it after having understood the mechanics of the game - Core players might discover the mechanic and feel special because they didn't wait for the game to tell them about it, and they'll be rewarded for their plays Of course there are still some ways to find frustration in this system, and it was just an example they used for the video, but here are my ideas. Also thank you for existing Extra Credits, I care very much about games, and your videos help me understand them better :3
Garbunclezzz well... to each their own. also df was just an example i'm sure there is some game out there that truly lets you enjoy losing as much as winning and still have winning be fun
+Garbunclezzz Unless you're the sort of player it's geared for, in which case it's one of the most amazing rabbit-holes of timesink games. It has a small but insanely dedicated audience because there's basically nothing else that quite scratches the same itch - though more and more indie games have been borrowing from it of late, with things like stonehearth, rimworld, and many others being more friendly, toned-down versions of the same idea.
Re: Rewarding players by taking less turns in an RPG: There's a Japanese Strategy RPG series that does this: Super Robot Taisen. If you fulfill special objective like "finish the fight in 4 turns," or "Amass X number of kills in one turn with one character," then you get rewarded with secret units, better endings, and the like. And you had to use the mechanics masterfully to achieve these objectives. It's a pity though that the games are almost exclusively in Japanese, but two were translated into English for the GBA.
+Mortimer Zabi My partner and I had a lot of fun with FFXIII's battle system, because right from the start it gives you a 0-5 star rating for how quickly you beat each encounter. We still just mashed X for the first few hours, but every time they gave us a little bit more complexity we started analyzing it and making the most of it, trying to keep a good rating the whole way through.
Usually I love these episodes and agree with you as a budding designer, but this is a wierd one where you have it backwards yet your points are spot on. Casual and core, the difference is time investment. Not depth, not "play it well" since everyone wants to play decently, but it is time investment. Your points about games needing great intros and adding the core of the game interestingly in the first bit of the game as well is great, but I think the defining terms of core and casual are very far off. It's just simply, time investment.
Skyrim is a good example :) the lore for core, open world for core and a bit for casual, and then the main story for the casual :) so you can finish the game in a decent amount of time. but you can really finish it for the ones that want to. Skyrim is a good example to get people into a game, because the exploring raises so many curiosity that casual will become core
+PeekATracked I'd say that the earlier Elder Scrolls games are better examples of this, but I think that they might have a bit TOO much depth early on, as in, it's difficult for the casual players to get into the role playing aspects of the game because the combat/world etc. might be a bit too overwhelming and difficult to grasp.
+Terminator Yeah, I'd played Skyrim and Oblivion, as well as Fallout 3+NV, before I tried Morrowind and even so I found that game very overwhelming (and the ones before that lost me on the mouse-based attacking mechanics before the world could draw me in).
Want to see a video game opening that was done well? try playing Child of Light, within half an hour you go from being a defenceless child to getting a sword, to fighting your first mini-boss, to getting wings (which allow for better exploration), to getting your first party member
My idea (I tried to think of one before watching the video to compare and contrast) was that in the tutorial (or some other form of really early stage) to give the player a mechanic, and let them try to use it really well with great execution to get something extra (Say a few bonus rating points), but also give another path that might take it a bit more simply, allowing them to get through without as much timing. This encourages players to try at the depth, but also lets them get around it and see more of the game (for those with less time/just wanting to see the game) or try it till they get it right and feel the success (more time/determination to do it the best way). Path A makes the player feel awesome, gives a sort of graphics showcase (a great view over a park and a city from a rooftop you just jumped across buildings to get to), while path B gives a bit more appreciation to detail of design and still encourages depth, but allows the user to choose the simplest path if they choose to. Example... you start out on roof 1 on one side of a park that is surrounded by skyscrapers. you get the ability to jump between roofs. you can try to get there, you get tons of visual fun and you feel challenged if you want to. Otherwise, you can walk down the stairs into the park, maybe have a conversation with some park people, then eventually get to the other side. building 10 (the last one) is really hard to get into from the bottom (lets just say it is a restaurant hotel, and you have to book a room to get up there. You can try convince the person there to let you on the roof somehow). The place next door is much easier to get into (lets just say it is a museum with really lazy security guards. you can make it to the roof there easily) and all you need to do is a simple jump (rather than the more difficult ones from starting at the top of the 1st building). Players enjoy 4 things (for the most part) in games: being challenged, being able to complete things, being able to appreciate the game (in its visual design, gameplay, quirkiness, story, etc), and feeling important. This allows different paths for different people. unfortunately, you can't make an infinite amount of paths, so you do have to lump people together a bit early on. If people appreciate a challenge, they take path A. They also get some scenery from the rooftops, perhaps some interaction when they get to the destination, and a nice reward for completion (reward for completion also acts as completion) If people want to get it done, they can find the simplest path for them and do that. they get some scenery going through the park, they do some interacting to determine the best path, and they take it, get their reward, and move on. If people want to just appreciate the game, they can try jumping between buildings, finding weird routes, talking with people in the park chasing after a squirrel in the park, etc. this one is really just the user trying to see how well the visual design, gameplay, and strategy were set up. if they were done well, they will appreciate the game, depending on what they want to appreciate. If people want to feel important, use illusion of choice (as described in a previous video of EC's). This can even be applied to how to get from roof 1 to the target roof. I think yours could work better for more tactical "lets get this done" sort of games, that have singular focuses (fighting, racing, strategizing, etc), especially level based ones. Mine is pretty much just yours applied to multiple areas of a game to satisfy different types of players based on the path they want to take. My sort of idea could work for more open world sort of games (sort of like Fallout 4. IDK many great examples of this since I don't play too many games) where the player decides less how seriously they want to play, but how they want to actually *experience* (not play) the game, such as appreciating artwork, interacting with NPC's, going all rogue assassin hitman killer, getting it done strategically well and efficiently, or just going for that instant gratification of doing something that looks cool (building hopping still since another example doesn't really need to be here for how this idea works).
game freak is the best at captivating this whole spectrum of players imo Pokemon is simple enough for a 6 yo to play and complex enough for a thriving competitive scene
I feel that Gamefreak's issue is just how they present all the competitively aspects of the game, mainly with how they lock the majority of said competitive items and abilities like checking IVs after you beat the game. They could do well by introducing them slowly so people know how to prepare themselves for the complexities of competitive battles, as well as making competitive players more interested in the CPU matches.
Thank you for this video! I've been feeling like a "dirty casual" in the Destiny community lately because I'm a student with a job and just can't invest all the hours that some other players do, so I'm behind the "core" players in my leveling. But I love the game and I've put hundreds of hours into it and I enjoy playing all of the game modes even though it's taking me longer than most to complete all the content. I've been working on the same two games for almost a year now (Assassin's Creed: Black Flag being the other one), with about ten in the queue to get to later. After watching this video I feel less bad about being behind all my friends who have more time to invest in various games (or who have been playing them longer).
"Who is this Steve people keep talking about? What was up with the Pokemon in this episode?" Watch the latest episode of artist Dan Jones attempting the Pokemon Nuzlocke challenge to find out! ruclips.net/video/pO1F12gJVrg/видео.html
+Extra Credits Speaking of pokemon, isn't casual/core also seen in pokemon where the casual players might just beat the Elite four/pokemon league while the core players try to fill their pokedex and catch them all?
Those two frames of the player getting pushed in front of the giant demon might be the funniest thing I've ever seen on EC by a long shot. It was brilliant.
The big problem that isn't talked about here is that many great games that had excellent depth have been destroyed in favor of making the game pointlessly easy for casuals. Skyrim is the first that comes to my mind as the combat slightly improved in ease of use but everything else suffered drastically for it. Fallout 4 is the same, and just about every game series I used to love is getting shallower and shallower. Soon I won't even be able to drown in their virtual worlds. Being a Hardcore player doesn't have anything to do with time investment in any video game, it has to do with player mentality and a thirst for quality and depth. When I get into a game, I REALLY get into it. I want to see all the little details that the devs worked so hard to put in. I want to scale the highest reaches and delve into the deepest chasms. I don't care about how much time I spend in a game but how much of that time was well spent. I can tell you, the shallower an RPG is, the worse it is in terms of quality. Truly good RPGs allow players to explore freedom within even their own character designs, whereas so many RPGs these days are being "streamlined" to the point of ruining them. More and more I find there are no games really left for people like me. Dark Souls is probably the last series I will ever fall in love with. Series that I used to love: Elder Scrolls Mass Effect Halo Assassin's Creed Fallout Fable And now I don't care at all about the next installments in those series. I wish I did, I wish I could, but they are dead to me, and nothing is gonna change about that. The devs/publishers have made their choice for profits over substance.
As someone who frequently pushes games back in the queue for reasons such as "I'm going to want 2-4 hour slots of playtime for this and I have between 1 and 2 at most so maybe later" but also someone who frequently likes to dig in a bit of power gaming with stuff, I can relate to the topic of this video
+Pickled Gremlin I think the real problem is people are so used to hand holding tutorials that when xenoblade Chronicles X came out they where overwhelmed because they actually had to learn it themselves or read the manual.
Xenoblade X was very much created in line with old school JRPGs in terms of insane depth and mechanics that the game throws at you and makes you learn. The first game is a very long time I fully read the manual. I don't think Xenoblade was ever intended to be accessible. It's a 100+ hour RPG with layers upon layers of mechanics with hundreds of sidequests. In saying that, I know people who picked up the game, played the main story missions in 50 or so hours, and couldn't tell me what an overdrive was or how the resource system worked or didn't know about affixes and skell customization. None of that extra depth is necessary for a good experience but if you want to seek it out, you can. Nothing is forced on you and I appreciate the lack of in game tutorial (which sounds odd to say) but those players that don't care for mechanics won't feel overwhelmed. And those that want to dig deeper can read the manual and figure it out for themselves. I liked to challenge myself in this game and the first Xenoblade to create builds to defeat enemies at the lowest possible level. Other players just want to level up enough so they can defeat enemies without knowing how to abuse combos and buffs and overdrives etc.
I'm definitely in the "want a deep experience but doesn't have the time" boat. So many games have come out that I want to get into, but I've never bought them because of the necessary time commitment. It's hard to mix a job with a love of epic RPGs. Great episode!
This is why we need to not gate core gameplay with grinding. We need more games that, like Dota 2, Starcraft 2, EU4, or Minecraft, just let me play the damn game I bought instead of slowly revealing mechanics and bringing me up to the level of normal players over hours and hours of agonizing grinding. Get rid of straight powerups to players who have played longer, don't gate your multiplayer experience unless you absolutely HAVE TO (to keep smurfs and the like out), and don't introduce level up mechanics that persist across multiple playsessions unless that is the ABSOLUTE FOCUS of your game. JUST LET ME PLAY JUST LET ME PLAY THE GAME I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR 'CURATED EXPERIENCE' JUST LET ME ACCESS THE CORE GAMEPLAY AND HAVE FUN WITH MY FRIENDS AT THEIR LEVEL
+Bobo The Talking Clown EU really doesnt belong on that list. Casuals dont play that game. You need like 10 horus of tutorials to get a good grip on what is going on.
I actually think that God Hand did a pretty decent job of this. Like it's certainly harder than most games, but it went out of its way to tailor its difficulty to your skill level and reward you for plumbing the depths of its core experience. Also, the first level introduced basically every general concept you'd need to know, but gave you very surmountable challenges that you could nonetheless come back and smoke later on when you were just better.
Juan Moreno (One of many) Definition of Irony: "a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result." I never expected Extra Credits to fall victim to a fallacy they later made a video against. Then again, it has been a while since I've seen that Fallout Shelter video, so maybe it mirrors what was said in this video. Either way, saying that this was an ironic occurrence AND also saying that "it goes to show how the core-casual approach on game design is BS" are not mutually exclusive statements. I wasn't trying to say it wasn't still BS, just that I also found it amusing they fell into the trap.
I asumed you were more ignorant than that. My apologies. I simply misunderstood your true meaning. This is because they stated at the beginning their realisation, and thus have learned from their past mistake. I thought that you were trying to make fun of them in a negative way, which is very common on RUclips, or the internet in general, these days.
Yeah. I guess with my job and my hobby's, I've become the "casual" gamer. So while I have less time to put in a game than when I was still at school, I enjoy games that bring me into the game from the get-go. It's the reason why I love click-and-point adventure games, like the Telltale games. For those games, story is more important rather than hours of dedicated gameplay. But that doesn't mean that I won't spend hours on games I love. Because I do. When I have the time, I can really dive into ageless games, like XCom, Civilization or even simple things, like Plants Vs Zombies. Also, the fact that I often have limited time to play games, I tend to prefer games that offer short bursts of gameplay, like typical Facebook / mobile games. Play a few levels, then let the meter charge your energy back up while you do stuff that's actually important; like cooking, hobby's, your financial stuff or going out IRL.
This is actually my primary issue with the new Doom. I don't dislike it mind you, I think it's fantastic. That being said, why the hell am I stuck with just the Shotgun for the first 2 levels? The levels in the new Doom are much longer than the old ones. Within the same timeframe in the old games I could easily also get the Chaingun and Rocket Launcher. Furthermore, why is the speed of weapon switching and mod swapping gimped until far later into the game? The fun of Doom's combat is rapidly switching between different weapons to flow between multiple unique encounters within one giant chunk of combat. Swapping to Rocket Launcher to take out a Hell Knight coming at you before jumping up a ledge and pulling out the Super Shotgun on a Mancubus and then turning and sniping a Summoner with the Gauss Rifle as you run in to switch back to the Super Shotgun to finish it off. I'm not saying the game needs to throw all of that on you from the start, but it's a Shooter, not an RPG. Why do I need to upgrade my way into making both weapon mods equally useful, into having enough ammo to handle extended shootouts, into swapping between three different guns in the run up to one enemy, and into swapping between Alt Fires in the middle of a fire fight in a decent timeframe?
I miss the days games used to specialize on their genres, not shove other genres into one. An open world game? Don't forget to add a leveling system too!
+NiGHTSnoob I haven't played the original Doom since I was like 8 so I don't remember, but I like the progression system in the new Doom. Character progression, unlockables, skill trees etc are some of my favorite parts of games in general. Doom doesn't have a particularly rich story to drive your motivation (as the player). If everything was unlocked from the start, why am I playing? Just for the fun of killing demons? That won't motivate me enough to go through the whole game. Why would I ever explore away from the main objective if there weren't armor upgrades and stuff to find? From a tutorial standpoint, I don't mind getting some practice with a weapon before unlocking its alternate fire, but I suppose it's not necessary. I can understand your point of the weapon switching being too slow for such a fast game though.
The motivation is to beat the game. You go exploring to find health, armor, and ammo pickups alongside new weapons and temporary powerups to help you beat the game. In the original Doom having enough ammo to fire the BFG or having the Mega Armor could very easily be the difference between a tough fight and a near impossible one, and oftentimes you'd only get those tools if you explored a bit. Not to mention many of the levels are generally designed in such a way as to require you to double back across the central area at least once to complete the level your first time through promoting exploring a bit and seeing important rooms from multiple angles. My problem isn't unlocking new weapons, mods, or tools. My problem is in unlocking basic features central to the core experience. I shouldn't have to unlock better controls because that's just making the game objectively worse at the beginning than it needs to be, and Imps may become easier to take down when I have better weapons and am more familiar with the game but they shouldn't become less of an offensive threat because I've upgraded my maximum health and armor. I don't need an abstraction to show my character's growth, my ability to take them out consistently without getting hit should be proof enough, you don't need to abstract a refinement of motor skill and understanding of patterns in real time in a game based around refining motor skill and understanding patterns in real time, it's something that should be reserved for games where such things are abstracted out for strategic manipulation of values.
4:20 That's "Bravely Second" in a nut shell. Its a traditional JRPG but they allow you to chain battles if your able to wipe out the other side in one turn, and for each battle you add to the chain the more EXP, Job Points, and money you get
+The Otaku Dragon Slayer respect??? were either being disrespected??? its about the idea that you can only pick one and devs oversimplifying for not wanting to alienate casuals and the example he gave was how to keep it engaging for both "treated with respect" what????
That bit about RPGs rewarding you for faster enemy takedowns reminded me of something, and it took me a while to remember which game it was. Bravely Default! They have mechanics built in from the get go where if you finish a battle in one turn/don't take any damage/finish the fight by killing all enemies at once you get bonus experience/money/job points. And if you keep that streak going battle to battle you'll get greater rewards! It's not quite as gradual as EC described, but even in such a simple form it really does liven up the battles for me.
The examples of depth you talk about kinda remind me of Sonic Mania and its "Cool Bonus" system, which rewards you with extra points at the end of a level based on how many times you got hit during the level. It's a nice little addition that most Casual players won't notice all that much, but for the people that play well it's a huge reward for knowing the mechanics and level design.
+Kohdok Fuck that. Casuals catch whatever Pokémon they feel like. Cores catch one of each, and only once they've determined that its stats are in the upper tiers of those available. Casuals use whichever mon looks cutest. Cores use whichever one has the greatest statistical advantage, OR alternatively, one that has a massive type disadvantage that they deliberately spent ages overlevelling in order to humiliate the opposition.
+SotiCoto "Spent ages overlevelling"? Don't you know to run a team of less than six pokemon so that they get more exp and wind up overlevelled WITHOUT spending ages on them?! Filthy Casual...
This is part of what makes me love Planetary Annihilation so much, so much depth right at your fingertips right from the start, but you don't need to use it right away if you aren't ready, play against ai that aren't that strong or play the galactic conquest where you have to work for the depth and don't get it all dumped on you right away.
+Roscoe Kane Very similarly Arma 3. The whole game is ready and available, no obnoxious leveling or kill-grinding so you can get Standard Issue Rifle #2.
Harrison Wade re read my comment. I'm agreeing with you. Fallacy is arriving at a conclusion using faulty logic. It doesn't mean that the conclusion is wrong, but that the argument for the conclusion is wrong. The conclusion can still be right, but the "math" (so to speak) is wrong.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
I think this helps explains why Rogue-Lites/Likes have become so popular nowadays. They have immense depth, short play times, and you can enjoy them at any level of play.
+Jaqen i totaly agree
if a core player is forced to go casual, does that make them a casualty :|
+Raz Taz What if it's on Friday?
I love you
Wp
After beating the Dark Souls tutorial level the normal way (run away from the first encounter with the boss, get a real weapon, plunge attack, and r1 spam into his ass) I was curious to see if there was a way to beat him in the first encounter. I started another character for this, and through trial and error figured out you can kill him with good use of the black firebomb starting gift. (I hadn't even figured out how to put them on my hotbar, I just threw them from the item menu lol). For my efforts I was rewarded with a giant monster weapon with a stat requirement that seemed unimaginably high for that point in the game.
All I remember thinking then was "I'm going to love this game".
Too bad the weapon is shit :l
Wait, so if you kill him after fleeing, you don't get the weapon?
Now map your keys to a guitar or drum set and play (there's legit someone who completed dark souls with a drum set)
There's nothing "hardcore" about having to walk 10.000 steps to hatch an egg in pokemon, being artificially locked out of areas in borderlands 2 because you didn't level grind enough which reduces your damage or dodging 200 lightning bolts in ffX, it's just disrespectful of your time and every game would be better for respecting it.
I hate the Bloodshot Compound in Borderlands 2
Not valuing time... you forget about AC?
Tf you on about with borderlands 2? Every piece of the story is "unlocked" the at lvl 30 and you reach that naturally
Core players lead busy lives. We have to stop equating playtime with desire for depth.
P.S. Sorry the episode was late this week everyone! We brought it through several program crashes and even a power outage, but the setbacks delayed our release until Thursday.
Did you really use that "just right" meme from kuscos new groove ?
I find it interesting that you chose to depict casual players with red and core players with blue. If I were illustrating would do it the other because that feels more intuitive to me!
+Extra Credits It also confuses something else very important, which is why one shouldn't rush to dismiss. 'Hardcore' players are also people who try to get a meaningful learning experience out of the game they're playing. That means that within the 'hardcore' grouping there are sub-groups of people who want to persuade the regular consumer of entertainment to their ideology.
This means developers have to approach their craft with enough selflessness to include people they might otherwise despise and educate those inclined towards ignorance. Most developers simply want to ignore the real gravity that is mechanized by the perpetuity of their craft in favor of their own ideal (mostly commonly that of the lack there of).
So of course gamers are divided; but only because developers more than anything want to consider themselves more valuable to the process than they actually are and treat their 'friends' on the other side of the screen like shit.
Destiny is the perfect example. It had every reason to succeed, but because Bungie didn't feel morally compelled to represent their fans in the market (due to primarily existentialist ideology) they created a Frankenstein game.
You can't have depth without thoughtfulness, and you can't have thoughtfulness without consideration.
+Venki Phy6
I think it was a conscious choice to go against the grain, like showing women as the core and men as the casual.
The entire point was to look at these "groups" differently and knocking you out of your comfort zone is a good way to do that.
That is an interesting point that could lead to games whose meaning, theoretically, could be seen differently the more one masters its systems. However I can see such a model also introducing new arbitrary problems to a game.
For instance let's take a fairly standard, class-based RPG. A player has the freedom to choose whatever kind of role they wish. However its designers, in a bid to give the kind of depth you propose, make it so the most efficient way to win fights early on is with a sword. Though you may prefer the glass cannon approach of a mage the best reward comes from melee attacks.
Now let's take this example even further and look to the middle of our hypothetical game. Up to this point players, driven by its superior reward, have used swords to deal with every combat challenge and have only been improving their skill in swords. Suddenly the game throws an enemy that's immune to melee and is only susceptible to fire spells. Like most RPGs it may be (cont'd next post)
The other day I was playing Achron in a library and someone came up and asked me about it. At one point I mentioned I am only a casual RTS player. Then they asked me what games I really enjoy, and when I said Dark Souls they laughed. "And you call yourself a casual player?"
Yeah. Of Real-Time Strategy games. Give me a spectacle fighter and it's a whole 'nother story. But it was frustrating that the term had such a strong definition in his mind that he didn't understand how useless that definition was to describe any gamer in general.
If I can only be a core gamer, or a casual gamer, then I'm going to identify as casual; the games that are considered the most "hardcore" are usually games that don't interest me. Further, I tend to play any game through only once.
But give me dark souls, or mirror's edge, or even a final fantasy game, and suddenly that definition doesn't work. I don't fit. Because these are the games that hit my core engagements; achievement and exploration (yes FF hits achievement: just look at all those systems, all those numbers to juggle. How to be most effecient with your limited mana, which unit to heal with to make sure the injured guy isn't killed first, but also keeping your DPS as high as possible, etc; passing these games is relatively easy. Mastering them requires analysis and effort)
For some genre's I'm casual, and for some I'm core. You can't lump me in one category for everything.
im the type of person who uses horrible but fun equipments yet try my hardest to win
i guess im a casual - hardcore player? how does that work lol
SonicSanctuary
yea, stuff like that
TheBoundFenrir exactly
TheBoundFenrir
Then I’m hardcore clicker gamer! I’m playing tones of clickers and only quit when there is no further upgrades in the game or when I’ve bought all the heroes/buildings/resource generators...
Many years ago when the Casual x Core x Hardcore thing was going around I considered it and using "time played" was a pretty inaccurate measure. For example, there were definitions like a "casual gamer" plays for 5 hrs / week while a "hardcore gamer" plays over 40 hrs/wk, "core gamers" being somewhere in between.
However, while observing my own behaviours and the behaviours of other gamers, you could consider someone as "hardcore" but they play less than 5 hrs/wk while a "casual" person plays over 40 hr/wk (ever see someone on a mobile device playing bejeweled for HOURS while commuting or on break?).
The thing to note is that the "hardcore" person will invest themselves differently, they consider their character's build or consult a wiki. They read and write guides, join communities, develop mods, etc.
These kind of actions show a different kind of investment that would be much better for designers to consider when developing their game.
+PerfectDeath4 Blizzard's forums are notorious for this. If you have an opinion, many will check your profile for the time you've played, and the level you're at to determine your general intellect.
It's disgusting.
+PerfectDeath4 People also use casual as an insult sometimes.
Made a thread on steam to remove repetitve and tedeus task in the game.
Then I got called a casual gamer and "new" and "bad" to the game.
+PerfectDeath4
tl;dr There is a difference between Core and Casual players and it has nothing to do with how much time they spend playing games, but rather in how they spend their time playing games.
I agree. This is a rare miss for EC for me. The fact of the matter is that they are not properly comparing core vs casual. They really just showed two core gamers, with the only difference being that one person has more time to spend on playing the game (or at least chooses to). You cannot really get depth of gameplay out of a quick introduction to something like the combat award system they presented. For instance Paper Mario introduced a similar combat system right from the start, but I would hardly call it deep. If anything, the timing mechanics made it feel more like a casual game a la Angry Birds.
Depth implies complexity. Complexity requires study and experimentation. Both are things which will turn off your typical Farmville playing casual. Casuals are called casual because they don't want to think about the game, they just want to get in and mess around. It's the same difference between a casual cosplayer and a devoted/professional one. The casual cosplayer will throw on a cheap facsimile and put forth minimal effort in their costume, while a devoted (core) cosplayer is one who will make sure that the colors, service ribbons and even their haircut are all perfect down to the smallest detail when creating their Roy Mustang cosplay uniform (I'm not obsessed, I swear >_
Femsplainer
I had done some presentations in business classes where I looked into it and made attempts to organize the whole thing as well.
It is still a topic that feels difficult to discuss because, as mentioned above, casual is an insult for many gamers. It does define how a player plays but that should not establish how they should be treated.
On the other end of the insults, there is also "try hard" used to generalize someone who puts in "too much" into playing/competing/mastering.
PerfectDeath4 Well there will always be a separation between the casual and core in any field, but with games I think it is a little different. I think that part of this comes from the negative stigma that has been associated with gamers as basement dwelling no-lifes. Gamergate caused it to come to a head when they tried to eliminate the very term gamer, because the casuals had become such a presence in the market. They tried to equate the valley girls playing candy crush on their phones to the die hard FPS and RTS players on their fine tuned custom rigs, which is absurd. No medium has had as much social pushback as video games have. As such, all hell breaks loose when casuals come tromping in on what core gamers perceive to be sacred ground. However, as I said before, casuals can become core players if they choose to, so we shouldn't use it as an insult. That being said, there is still a difference between them, and it is folly to believe otherwise.
The Tiny Tina's Assault on Dragon's Keep expansion for Borderlands 2 really hits the mark perfectly on this. If you're unfamiliar with it, the expansion is basically a D&D parody (some spoilers). In it, Torgue (a jock type alpha male character) wants to join in and the other characters get pissed off at him because he is a jock invading their sacred space. At this point he breaks down and cries because he always sincerely wanted to be included with the groups. They feel bad because they were doing the very thing that they hated, excluding people and judging them for who they are. I think the same thing is happening here when core disparages casual.
I'm curious about the other types of players. Not just casual or core but the types in between. Can you guys do a video on that?
+Patrick Johnson I'm one of those in-between players. I really only sink my teeth into a game a few times a year, but when I do it'll be all of my free time for at least a week. I crave depth in my games just as much as a traditional core player does; the difference is that I don't play games that often. It's not that I don't have time, it's just that I don't have the interest most of the time. There are other ways I typically spend my days off. That being said, I've watched every EC video (most multiple times) and try to keep on top of all the new titles because I genuinely love video games and I love playing them.
+Patrick Johnson There is one, its called: "Bartle's Taxonomy - What Type of Player are You? - Extra Credits"
+Ryuzaki ikt feel bro I'd love to love EU4 or CK2 but fucking hell I just can't be arsed
+Ryuzaki the thing about the souls games, is that it throws everything at you at once, but in very small doses. now, not every game should have that difficulty or style, because it is all calculation based. the concept of the tutorial is to get you a feel for the atmosphere of the world's lord and gameplay at the same time. the item names, the enemy designs, the world design in the first area, the Dev-written messages that tell you the controls, the stat descriptions that you can access from the menu. it's so much you can do from the get-go, and it's absolutely captivating. the first boss in three, iudex gundyr, or the first boss in one, the asylum demon, both give very good examples of what's to come, and are embedded with lore one can infer if they want, but it's not necessary at all. if all games could reach the same level of implementation as dark souls 1 and 3 tutorials, that's pretty much perfect.
+Patrick Johnson They already did
I play plenty of games but I have a job now, and I'm increasingly of the mind that with so many other games and other experiences out there to choose from I shouldn't have to put up with any of a game's crap. I play hard games, I play games with a lot of systems involved, but once a game starts taking it for granted that I've got nothing better to do but bash my head against a wall in either of those two areas before it'll give me an experience worth my time? That's the point I start eyeing the other games on my shelf.
+Fors Clavigera Couldn't agree more! I know what I want, but the game has to really show it early for me to care!
Portal is probably the largest example I can remember of a game where it took WAY too long to get to the depth. By the time it did the game was over. There were challenge modes, but what I really wanted was more levels, not to replay the old ones more efficiently.
One of my favorite examples of early depth is in the recently released turn-based RPG Bravely Second. If you beat your enemies in one turn then you can choose to call in a second wave of enemies. If you beat that wave in that turn you can call in another, and so on. Each time you do you get larger and larger reward multipliers. More money, more experience, more Job Points, and more items. The depth comes because it's all considered one continuous first turn, meaning that if your characters act once then they can't act again (except in some rare scenarios). So you have to get as far as you can with a limited number of moves. The titular Brave and Default system also lends a lot of depth to the fights as well. It's great because it's optional, but if you choose to do it then you can have instant back-to-back fights with a huge, multiplicative reward at the end. It's a grinder's dream! Interesting AND efficient.
When the opening gameplay is just right...
Had to scroll way too much for this.
I'm devious like that.
+weaponmasterJConn thank pacha
I appreciate the message this video has. I have always been someone in between casual/core. I have always been passionate towards games, and when I play I want to play seriously and with intensity. However in the whole scope of my life there have always been more important things for me to do. From school to work to programming to video making to hanging out with friends who are not gamers or who like different games, more importantly just hanging out with friends, family, and my church life.... As a result I have always consciously made an attempt to limit the number of games I'm playing, and how much time I spend on each one.
I haven't always succeeded, but having games that I can play deeply without a big time commitment would be helpful.
So I fancy myself as "casual", though I'm less a "play game quick and don't care about depth" type so much as "in it for the long haul, but care more about aesthetics and lore than difficulty." I'd rather play a fighting game with easy AI versus/arcade than go online to be frustrated by perpetual loss.
So... what colour does that make me? :P
Black
Purple? Purple.
I think it would make you the in-between red and purple. You're not that close to being in-between, but you still want some depth in your game.
THATCANADIANDUDE So... Magenta? :)
+kimarous Mellow Yellow
Radiant Historia is a prime example of what you described, an RPG that gives non-traditional Core audiences something early on: for "casuals", there's a mechanic of knocking monsters into each other with special attacks (available at the very beginning) for combo damage, allowing even low-level players to end battles in a single turn if they're paying attention, and thus allowing them to speed through the "grinding" aspect to the next story point
But the XP reward system also gives bonus rewards for higher combo multipliers earned during combat (e.g. 4-5 hit "Great" combos gets more then 2-3 hit "Good"), rewarding those who can get the highest combos...but to get the highest combos possible, you need to learn how to vary your attack types, how to anticipate where your opponents will be knocked around by certain attacks, and learn how to manipulate the turn order to best advantage, all while trying to actually end the battle with the fewest resources lost possible (don't want to run out of mana in the middle of a dungeon, after all).
The XP reward system can be ignored if desired; the bonus isn't so huge as to be game-chaning, and most people can obtain the lower bonuses without much problem. But both systems taken together require mastering the different characters' abilities and figuring out how best to use them together, as well as strongly encouraging players to go for the secondary quests that unlock new abilities for each character - you're not just after greater power, you're after greater versatility, too!
+darkmage07070777 I was literally just about to post this very thing. Nice to know there's someone else who's played this great game!
Adding tutorials is good - as long as you can fucking *SKIP* them.
+qwesx yes
+qwesx Eh, it's a consideration, but I also feel like it's a band-aid to a deeper wound. I'd think of why you'd want to skip the tutorial in the first place: is it not engaging? Do you feel like you are being condescended? If the answer is "yes" to any of those questions, the problem is that the tutorial sucks.
+qwesx ...Or that they're so good you don't want to skip them *points at portal*
+Ratty524 Are you playing the game for the fifteenth time and don't need to be told to pay attention to what the action icon says for the thirty-seventh time? (Navi tells you twice with no way to avoid it, and there's a sign you can choose whether to read or not that also tells you).
There are (at least) three major groups of people who will play the opening section of your game, with very different needs in terms of early guidance - there are people who've either never played a game before, or at least not one in this genre, who need even the most basic things explained - like how to move and look around. Then there are seasoned gamers, who only need to know how your game differs from other games of the genre - can you fall off edges, and if so, how much does landing hurt? (if at all) What happens if you try jumping in midair? Finally, there are the game's fans - who at most need a brief reminder, and spend most of the early game waiting impatiently for their favourite abilities to unlock.
It's a genuinely hard problem to come up with an opening that suits all three classes of player - even if you discount the non-gamers, you still need to make sure someone playing for the first time gets the information they need in order to be able to play your game, while still allowing someone who does know what they're doing to get started without feeling crippled or railroaded...
+Ratty524 I don't know about other people, but I dislike tutorials as a concept. I'll never say a game shouldn't have them, just that they should ALWAYS be skippable.
An unskippable tutorial is a bad tutorial.
Put bluntly, there are those whom don't want the nuance handed to them on a silver platter that would greatly prefer learning and figuring things out for themselves. It makes it stick better, it makes the understanding of the application of the mechanic better, and it honestly makes it feel more rewarding.
I'm not going to pretend that I'm part of any sort of majority by viewing tutorials that way, which is why I'd say skipping them should always be an option instead of trying to claim that tutorials should be done away with. I'd much rather play a game where the things I know about the game are things I've collected and picked up on entirely of my own volition, than to play a game where the basics were simply handed out. Honestly, it degrades the experience as a whole to force a tutorial.
Megaman X is probably the only game tutorial that didn't bog down the game, and mostly because it wasn't actually a tutorial. You were still figuring things out entirely on your own instead of the game explaining things.
I don't want to be told "press LB + X to do a special" or "press A to do a thing". I want to be thrown into the game and if it's useful I'll figure it out by my own means at my own juncture of choosing to figure it out, and if it's not useful to how I intend to play then I'll simply not know it.
I realize I'm in a sort of excessively hardcore gamer type of category here, and by no means a majority of any sort, but having an unskippable tutorial undermines the game as a whole. It's not longer "I'm overcoming the obstacle in the way I figured to do so," it then instead becomes "Every obstacle overcome just feels like it's because the game hands you everything you need apropos of nothing."
Fascinating observation! I've always been labeled a casual gamer (even self labeled) because I don't play games frequently. But I love depth and if I could I would sink all the time into games, digging into them fervently. I just have to work and clean and eat and sleep and study...
It would be cool if you did an episode explaining the differences between Casual, Mid-Core, Casual-Core, Core and Hardcore and mapped them to different quadrants of Bartle's Taxonomy and different age-groups! That episode would be a dream!
+TCMOREIRA More Bartle would be cool, but I think that going from full casual to full hardcore would just be repetitive and boring. "Mid-core gamers like this more than casual but less than hardcore gamers. Core gamers like it more than mid-core, but still less than hardcore blah blah blah." I just can't see it being interesting.
Beezlbob Destraint
I can understand your point. But it wouldn't be uninteresting it would at worst be a little boring and heavy. But I just wish such episode existed because information like that comprised in a 10 minute episode would be soooo marvelous. That's usually the best part about extra credits: when you have to explain some game design thing to someone then you can instead just send them a 10 minute video about it. And there are no videos containing information about audiences and demographics comprised under 10 minutes.
4:54 "When the sun hits the side of this hill, just after sunrise... those hills sing!"
"Sweet! Now I've got just the place to build Daikatopia!"
+KBABZ ...I _knew_ I recognized that pose and facial expression, but I just couldn't place it.
4:54
BOI HE DID IT
+Mohammed Tyler When the gameplay feels just right.
This is not related to this video but today my social studies teacher used your extra history videos to teach us about the Punic Wars. I thought it was kinda cool, so I decided to tell you
Im VERY jelly
DAN! WHY YOU PUSHIN STEV OUTTA THE WAY HUH? He not good enough for you anymore? Givt Steve some love mate!
+SirSaladhead Steve is just an HM mule. MANGO FTW!!
+Ray “RJFilms” Josef Exactly, Every time Mango goes into the yellow, I get very concerned...
+SirSaladhead May Stev burn in hell
+SirSaladhead
I think i'm missing something here. Is this a reference to a RUclipsr?
+Violent Jiggler art Dan's Nuzlock run over on extra play
Gotta agree with all of this. I am now very quick to drop games if the depth feels like it is a puddle.
And on the flipside I am far more likely to complain about systems that are pointlessly deep for the wrong reasons. I end up complaining about so many different small things in games like darksouls 3 than about the games that simply didn't hook me.
+Adalore As soon as I read "systems that are pointlessly deep for the wrong reasons" I instantly thought of Mirror's Edge: Catalyst. Just from watching people play the beta, I'm already guessing that I'm not gonna like it at all.
I agree, many games try to invent something new or try to make a fresh new gamemode. For example say in an FPS, they try to make a new gamemode, by saying you need to get object A's to point A and object B's to point B but object C can take away objects and convert...
Blah Blah Blah and so on. Trying to be too complex takes away from the real enjoyment. It all depends on the game but keep the objective simple, use depth in giving the player options to go about getting the objective.
+Sychopath52 Mirror's edge was fun because it was just simple.
Find the fastest routes, execute them in a flawless manner and keep your momentum.
Now they've added fighting which is only acceptable if parkour is integrated into it, but most of the time it's not.
They now have upgrades and all this crap which absoulutely ruin the "Go fast as possible" idea.
Now you don't know if you have a bad time because of your skill, or the fact that you haven't played through the game to get all the unlocks.
+Adalore What do you even mean by "pointlessly deep for the wrong reasons."
If it's pointless and doesn't fit in, it's not deep.
Naw I don't think they are mutually exclusive. When I think of useless never used mechanics that is when I think "Pointlessly deep". They went through the motions and then horribly poorly implemented something, it adds to the "Game space" in the worse way.
5:14 OMG IT'S MANGO AND STEVE!
This hits really close to home. I have a backlog of games that I would love to play for hours and hours on end like I used to, but there just feels like there`s no time. Now it`s gotten to the point where there`s almost no point in buying new games until I complete the ones I already have, almost all of which are RPGs or in-depth stories that would require at least 40-50 hours with missions lasting way longer than I can manage in a sitting between shifts. It`s very sad :(
5:14 Nice Nuzlock reference.
+Demogarose Guest appearance by Steve and Mango, can't believe that didn't make it into the title.
I really like how illustrations got better. No lazy stock photos, everyting cute and sometimes even with small stories in it. And different haircuts. Thank you, it's great and you work is appreciated! :)
4:54 11/10 meme usage, art team!
+Adam Bierstedt When Extra Credits memes just right.
Something I would like to see more games do is have standalone tutorials available from the menu screen. The number of times I have gotten busy irl and left a game for a while, only to come back and have to re-learn everything; having the option to just have a dedidcated refresh-your-memory section would be great. You could even have the tutorial section update as you learn new skills.
I was a core player if you use the definitions they used here. but i became a casual one, just simply because i don't have the time anymore. And i agree that i want depth early in the game.
Like always great video :)
I have no idea why this video is so late in your series, but your starting to get it.
Considering the nature of your player is mandatory, but pidgin holing them to much hurts everybody.
I know people who spend the whole of there free time building spreadsheets and strategies for games.
But equally I know people who jump in blind and prefer to stay in the game and not use spoiler like meta or community info. Finding there core value in what THEY find and feel in a game.
And I know dedicated players that start there research early and dig into the community of a game to gather there knowledge almost exclusively.
We are all equally passionate about games, and most of the time can even play together without issue, as long as we respect each others approach. (or get into arguments about Buffy Vs Firefly)
From a design perspective I would say this means consider your core the people that are likely to be attracted to the presented components of your game and think critically about the components you choose to use both in and out of the game based on what makes them attractive to a player. Yourself included.
I mean you are making games, enjoyment is key.
This is what happened to WoW and the Nostalrius thing.
It's not that we like the Vanilla graphics or bosses, it's because you could do much more things: questing, exploring, professions, making teams for a raid/dungeon/battleground.
WoW those days make content that was focused on teamwork, instead of single player experience.
Oh my Goodness! Thank you! I've been waiting for someone to make a video on something like this! Especially from the likes of you! I have friends who always wonder why I don't play Facebook games and when I explain why they always say something like, "What difference does it make? These games are designed with casuals in mind?" And at the same time, I saw through the constructive fallacy to begin with!
"I have biotics?" hahahahaha oh my God that perfectly encapsulated my first playthrough of Mass Effect. I beat almost the entire game treating it as a stop and pop cover shooter.
I think that Dan pointed out something that I noticed but couldn't explain. There seems to be only two philosophies in making games and only two audiences. When people talk about games it always if the game is hardcore or casual and not if its good.
As an RPG enthusiast, I totally agree with this.
I have dropped so many games early on because they don't show any depth in the first 30 - 120 mins. Free to play games are especially bad for this.
i can think of 2 examples currently okami gives you ranks for damage taken and time taken for every fight and gives a better amount of bonus money fir playing better persona right from the first dungeon gives you access to shuffle time which requires correctly exploiting enemies and it is fun to try and attain the sweep bonus
Thank you for this video! As someone who used to spend hours on end playing games, but now has only a fraction of that time to spend now, I have been thinking about this issue lately.
My personal example: The Dragon Age series. When I was in college, playing Origins, I did EVERYTHING in that game. On the hardest level. Every side quest, every conversation. Camp interactions were my favorite. Fast forward to Inquisition. Now I'm a full-time teacher. I bought this game on release day in November, and I only make it to Skyhold because I got extra time during my semester break. All this time, I could only devote maybe one or two hours to this game per day. I was ready to stop playing this game by New Year's.
I finally swallowed my pride and switched the difficulty level down to casual because I just was NOT having fun! I was never able to get immersed enough in what I was doing during that time.
On the easier level, I was able to beat it while still enjoying it, and come summer break, I remembered it fondly enough that I took another crack at it on a harder level. But the ONLY reason I persisted when I was so disenchanted with this game was the fact that I had two friends who kept pushing me to finish it because they knew I'd like it. Now I've played it through several times and have gone ahead and bought some DLC (which I normally hate doing).
If I didn't have the idea in my brain that casual game= shallower game, I wouldn't have had such a hard time switching that difficulty level.
4:20 - 4:25: The first example with that mechanic that came to mind was the Mega Man Battle Network/Star Force games. Depending on how long you take and how much damage you take, your average grade (or "Busting Level") rewards you with slightly better gear or more money all because of how well you're applying what you learned in a four minute tutorial. I believe there were some specific battle items you couldn't get unless you mopped the floor with random encounters without a scratch.
I feel like other games handle this much better, yet I love the series so any reason to mention it is a plus for me.
+j.max It's interesting. A lot of the games that come to mind with this "Better play=better reward" system are ARPG's like Bayonetta and Devil May Cry. Sure, their gameplay is supposed to be fasted paced and flashy, but if they didn't add in a grading system and rewards dependant on grade, then I think more people would just spam a single OP combo. You CAN still do that and get the same story and whatever, but the game will be more rewarding if you take the time to master the mechanics.
I guess I can say I'm a hardcore Battle Network 3 player, I spent 80 hours so far and I only have three of the seven stars. I got back into the Battle Network games last year and played through all of the stories (yes, even the terrible Megaman Battle 4 Red Sun and Blue Moon) but I went back to BN3 to see how far I can get into the post game content, so far I have all standard chips, beat Serenade (Who was too easy), fought Bass, and did a few of the trials. I know some people would call shenanigans if I don't elaborate more on why Serenade was so easy: Program Advances, if you use either bodyguard, Duex Hero, or 2x Hero, you're pretty much golden. I wish I would've used a less powerful folder to really see the challenge Serenade and Bass offered...
One really good example of this in my opinion is the DS game: The World Ends With You. You encounter monsters called "noise" by pressing a button on the lower screen to scan the world around you. When you do this, different sized red icons will appear that you can tap to initiate a battle. After a certain point, you also gain the ability to "chain" the noise which basically means that, depending on how many of the icons you touch before the random encounter, you fight the random encounters one after the other without stopping. And if you succeed, then you can get some pretty nice bonuses. The game will also reward you for performing difficult tasks such as fighting without an auto-battle on the top screen or getting a high combo of attacks.
While it probably isn't to the same degree, another good example which is also somewhat more recent would be Bravely Default and Bravely Second. (Or at least the demo for Bravely Second; I haven't yet gotten to play the actual game yet.) Bravely Default gives you different rewards depending on if you can beat a group of enemies at the same time, if you can win without taking damage, and if you can win in only one turn. Depending on which of these you do, you'll either get an extra amount of EXP, job points, or cash with the exact amount depending on how many times you completed that task in a row. (And of course if you do all three, you'll be rewarded with extra EXP, cash, and JP.)
In Bravely Second, or at least the demo, if you defeat the group of enemies in one turn, then you can choose to end your fights there and the normal amount of exp, cash, and JP, or you can fight another random encounter in which winning will apply a multiplier to all three things mentioned above. The catch is that your BP, the points you can use to pergorm multiple actions in a turn doesn't reset to zero in between any of the battles. While you can theoretically fight as long as you don't die, don't choose to stop, and keep beating all of the enemies in one turn, if you don't plan your attacks and abilities carefully, you can only make it through so many battles before your lack of BP forces you to take a turn to gain more. While this will end your chain since you're unable to beat the enemies in only one turn, you still get the multiplier that you obtained as long as you're able to defeat the enemy.
"I have biotics?" Perfect. I was definitely playing Mass Effect like a core player and I ran into exactly what you're talking about. That example really drove it home for me.
Kingdom Hearts Unchained X has that "more rewards for winning in less turns". 1 turn triumphs are very prominent and a great pull for the game.
+LX Indeed, and it's oddly the first RPG I've come across with that sort of system in place. Even something like Chrono Trigger doesn't give that incentive, though I so wish it did. Unchained X also offers some interesting choices from the get-go with the single/multi/special system. Specials are easy to get back, single targets are free and do a lot of damage, while multis are great for free crowd control. IMO, it's quite brilliant.
Stardew Valley's probably one of the best examples of breaking the old casual/core perception of game design. It is both easy to get into and has the potential to be very deep right from the get-go. You start out with plenty of choices, and by the end of the first week of game time, you can do basically everything in the game (although a lot of it you probably won't be able to do right away simply because of money and time constraints; choice of how you spend your time and money are big in Stardew Valley). You can take the game as slow or as fast as you like, and you're bound to still have a great time either way.
3:58 "I have Biotics?" lmao xD
One excellent example I can think of that allowed for players to demonstrate depth immediately is the MegaMan Battle Network series. It had a battle system where players had to immediately interesting choices to use a randomly drawn 'hand' of weapons from a set 'deck' and post-battle rewards were based entirely on player performance. Countering enemy attacks was rewarded, and in order to get the top ranking in a random battle you not only had to defeat all enemies in under five seconds, you had to destroy at least two simultaneously. The fact that you has a very limited deck to begin with and none of the storyline power ups didn't detract from a deep battle system from the start of the game.
Unfortunately, all 6 Megaman battle network suffer from a very heavy handed tutorial section.
Not that they're bad games though, it's some of my favourite games to date. Their story pacing is usually excellent.
As soon as I finished the video I Crtl-F Megaman to try and see if it was by anyone else as a very good example (if not perfect)
"fun is for casuals" and hardcore players don't want to have fun?
yeah...
+Knight Loltrec for hardcore players, the fun is being good/getting better at the game, for casual they would just play for fun, not looking to get better. not trying to make it black and white but its kinda like that
+Knight Loltrec More like, hardcore players have DIFFERENT types of fun that they enjoy. Depth and difficulty makes the fun better since it feels more significant and meaningful to play games with higher steaks.
+Dreikoo Precisely. A casual might want to mash on a fighting game(which is alright if they find that fun)but I know lots of people would rather know how to use special moves and how to counter effectively and applying those skills and winning using them might be the most satisfying.
Damion Dixon I have tourney experience in fighters and my avatar is from blazblue so...yeh, you're right. Adrenaline rush high steaks top level matches are so much more fun than fartin around vs the ai in easy mode.
Bravely default is a great example of the rpg system you mentioned. There's also a ton of depth in getting different class types to synergize but the game is still possible to win without constructing the best mixture of classes.
I think you guys got it backwards. It's not that time invested implies desire for depth, is desire for (or fulfillment of) depth that causes time investing.
+Lince Assassino Yeah basically there's a threshold for how much time one can spend on a game due to real world reasons, but no limit to how much one WANTS depth in a game since that is an attitude one holds.
However, I do think that there's some weaker correlation somewhere between the two in a sense that, you can't expect to go extremely in-depth gaming if you're only going to play something say an hour or two a week. At some point of game depth, players needs to invest time outside of gameplay time to research data and plan stuff ahead etc. If one is not able to do that, it seems meaningless however much depth one desires out of the game
oh my god i saw this video's thumbnail and i was like "OH MY GOD thank you for this video"
as a smash player i constantly see this mentioned, and it never makes sense. things that are fun for hardcore players doesn't push it away from new players. really the main thing thats necessary is cleaning up foo strategies.
Personally I view this as part of a larger problem: where games treat time-sinks as difficulty. Requiring the player to put a lot of time into something is not the same as making it difficult. Difficulty is when a challenge is placed in front of the player, and they are asked to overcome it using an actual skill. This can be accomplished through mini-games that model what the character is actually doing: such as the lockpicking mini-game in ESO. These mini-games were genuinely tricky. But, you could start doing it in the tutorial even. A lockpick was one of the first items you would acquire (after your sword), and then you could use it on one of the locked chests that was lying around. Et voila! instant, depth. For all the faults of that game, it sure knew how to whack you with a deep and immersive play experience from the start! unfortunately, there were a great many other things wrong with that game.
I think you could capture a lot more nuance by adding an extra layer to how yo break down your audience.
Core: Has Time, wants Depth, will play your game a lot
Busy Core: Does not have Time, wants Depth, will play your game slowly
Casual: Does not have Time, doesn't care for Depth, will play your game slowly (Sidenote: these people tend to not own very many games, so they will probably still play through a good chunk of your game, just not at a fast pace)
Invested Casual: Has Time, doesn't care for depth, will play your game a lot (These are people who are invested in your game for reasons outside of mechanics, they like how it looks, like the story, are fans of the franchise, etc)
custscenes are good, tutorials are good.
either forced is a disservice and the main problem with any game rpg or not
As a person with very little free time who loves depth in gaming, It's nice to see someone advocating for giving all types of players a richer experience as soon as possible. I think Kurt Vonnegut said it best: "start as close to the end as possible."
The main thing that bugs me is the perception in multiplayer games that "casual players don't try to win". If trying to win is what distinguishes casual from core, then I guess I'm a core gamer. But on the other hand it's not like I'm the type of player who sees winning as everything. My goal is to enjoy my time playing; if that means going an unusual build just for the heck of it, once in a while, so be it.
That's exactly me. I love winning and I hate losing (even when the losing multiplayer matches had interesting climaxes). Loads and loads of people told people like us to stop caring about the results and focusing on the process, but that's our nature and we can't fix nature. It bugs me whenever someone say "wanting to win means taking a game seriously", because that's an inaccurate expression of who we are, quite frankly.
My friends are part of those people who say so and it hella bugs me sometimes when they say it. I have to explain to them that I hate losing and winning is just my ultimate and probably the only way of enjoying a multiplayer game. Losing streaks are never fun for me, and that doesn't mean I am a core player whenever I don't like losing in a game.
I just want to say i literally spit out my water when the pacha showed up on screen. amazing content as always! so happy to have seen you in YT rewind!
A fair example of a game rewarding doing well in battles is probably Bravely Default actually. You get bonus XP and Job Points for completing fights without taking damage, in a single turn, etc. Its a small bonus, but it makes you want to eek out that extra little bit all the time. Is it perfect? NOPE! But it is a good step in the right direction as it exists and makes the easier fights have a reason later in the game instead of turning off encounters.
+Ranger Cado Jop, thought of this as well. And Bravely Second, with all it's flaws, is even better at this in my opinion.
3:57 - That mass effect picture encapsulates my experience with the game flawlessly.
Your content is great!
4:45 Something like Bravely Second's One More Fight mechanic, where beating all enemies in one turn adds multipliers to gold, experience, and job points and allows for additional multiplies to be added if the same can be done on subsequent fights.
I'm definitely somewhere inbetween, I'm not afraid to turn down the difficulty level or use cheat codes if a game is giving me too much trouble to the point that I'm not having fun, and I don't really tend to be especially interested in how the game mechanics work in depth, but at the same time I'll easily sink hundreds of hours into a game like Civ, a GOOD Final Fantasy, the Elder Scrolls, or Fallout.
+Dee Twenty You might be an interstitial gamer, who may want to dedicate as much time and effort as a hardcore gamer (and might've even been one in the past), but can't afford to. You might also be considered a niche gamer, since I believe that rpg games and turn-based strategy games are both considered niche markets (at least in the West).
5:03 Breath of the Wild, baby. Who could forget looking out at the enormous expanse of land from the Great Plateau for the first time?
I was going into thinking I would hate it, but you actually nailed my problems with games like Overwatch.
They are vastly making each hero more and more easier to play and pick up, but leaving no room to master them, or rather no perceived incentive.
Every hero is meant to be swapped out constantly, no hero is meant to be played for long periods of time, and to me that's really boring.
I feel like if I had been given a system where I was more rewarded for doing better in a battle, I might get burned out faster. I'm talking retrying over and over until I got the best reward, and then getting tired of it because I had to restart all the time.
Sure, it's my own choice to restart, but knowing you could do better will lead to players retrying more, even when they don't want to. kinda like how players playing on Hard will likely quit the game all together than lowering difficulty.
But maybe that's a good thing, if someone who is going to invest smaller play time and retries more often, they begin to understand the depth faster and learn strategies. After enough retrying you learn how to best play against enemies with certain mechanics and enjoy the more depth related portions of the game faster.
The beginning fights aren't harder, they just demand a basic understanding of the game's mechanics. Portal one and two did this very well. They showed you how to use the core mechanics of the game and then took away the developer's helping hand immediately.
+AlliArt15 Yeah, but I wasn't given a better reward for completing it faster. If I did, and constantly fell a bit short, I think I have to be honest and say I'd skip portal and play one of the other games I have in my backlog.
Of course, there is a difference in what the reward would be. Dark Souls KINDA has a system like this where you can spend a ring slot or a shield slot to use a specific ring/shield that gives you more souls. That system is alright, because whenever I found myself in need of more stamina when I died to the boss, I decided to rather switch the shield out with one that regenerated stamina faster.
All I'm saying is that I like the idea, but it has to be balanced so that it doesn't feel like you're missing out if you go the straightforward route
Focie Agreed, and not all games should follow the example to a T because maybe there is rewards in spending longer time in a certain area or prolonging fights. I think it was a general example to fix the RPG problem he brought up and developers should know the problem exist and attempt to work around it.
+AlliArt15 well, yeah. that is true. at least we agree
I've been playing Hitman: Absolution lately and, while there are many criticism about the game that I could make, this aspect they do nail down and it is a great example of rewarding depth early on. Your first mission is a simple one. You start with a little tutorial that is pretty decent in introducing the basic mechanics of the game to you, and already in that level you have challenges available to complete. And, again other criticism I've about the game aside, those challenges (most of them I've seen so far) DO allow and reward you for exploring the game in depth. Right there, on the intro level. And at the beginning of the next level, which you could say is the first real level, you are still reminded of the existence of challenges one last time just in case you blazed through the tutorial and smashed next next next the moment it was over, just so that you will for sure know about that option too.
+Louis Victor Glad to see an underrated game getting some praise for what it did right.
Where did the idea that core players play more and casual players play less come from? That certainly isn't part of my definition.
My parents play the same casual game for hundreds of hours. (because they play them the same way that most people play solitare)
There are WoW players that are max level, but very casual players. (because they care more about the chat system than the game)
Then the obvious one that you covered in the video. (I hate filler in rpgs, so I often prefer 20 hour rpgs over the 60+ hour monstrosities we keep getting)
+Steve Zirngible they aren't talking about casual players as in people that casual games but people that play a certain game casually.
I feel like that's an unneeded complication of terms. What are casual players, other than people who play games casually?
What are hardcore players other than people who play games hardcore?
My argument is that the idea that time invested determines whether someone has played hardcore or casually seems silly. In a way, I'm agreeing with their points, but I take it a step further in that I'm shocked that developers would even consider that a measure of Core vs Casual.
As an example, Nuzlocke runs of Pokemon are often much shorter than someone playing through the game normally, but faaaaar more hardcore.
+Steve Zirngible
"core" audience, not "hardcore" audience.
Sir Robert Walpole I guess I've never heard the term "core" used with games except when it's been shorthand for hardcore, so that seems like semantics to me. Is that a commonly used term among devs, distinct from hardcore?
If they were using the term to describe their key demographic, then their description of it through the rest of the video doesn't make sense. They show dark souls, using new game plus as an example of content for "core players." That content is not made for a general audience, as the majority of dark souls players just beat the game once and are done with it. NG+ is content aimed directly at hardcore players.
In the video it sounds like they're using it in the same way I'd use hardcore. Casual players are those who don't sink their teeth into the mechanics and just breeze through. Core players want to excel at the game and gain mastery over it. Isn't that exactly what hardcore players are?
+Steve Zirngible time invested is a stupid measurement that's what the video said too. it's the reason why they want more depth.
i think they use the term "core players" instead of "key demographic" because most games are meant to be played for a certain duration of time. now in this time frame there are people that quit earlier (casual) and those that stay for a longer time (core). (the exceptions are obviously games like wow, hearthstone etc. and with duration i mean all the sessions you play.)
like they said in the video putting people in categories like this doesn't help much since their are various ways to play the game e.g. someone rushing through a game with all playable characters one after another vs. someone who does every optional quest with just one chara.
if your key demographic is teenagers 14 and up that liked skyrim you still didn't categorize them as "casual" and "core" since this group has both the ones that just play every new big title game (they probably have less time for the game) and those that want to do every quest in it (which takes time).
time is important for knowing how much optional content you should put in the game but if you don't choose the type of content right you end up with a game that some can play "hardcore" in their play style and others can't or if you don't choose when something becomes available right some could play less long and have far too little of their type of content.
Great presentation. As a "core" style gamer I have often wondered about this. I have found some wonderful games that work well for those who are big on "depth" however the games have been so complex that they have scared away most casuals and a significant number of cores. The problem is often that the tutorials are poorly constructed or presented. I first conceptualized The Boffin Lab after observing that my favorite game at the time, Eve Online, failed miserably at teaching new players the basics. I heard horror stories of players spending hours just working out the "tutorials" and giving up. Then I found that they had in fact been completely miss led and were not actually doing tutorials at all. And its still happening. I hope to fix this.
I feel that tutorials and help for games have been somewhat lacking. Indeed the same can be said for instructions for normal software. If game designers can ix this, they can get casual and core players to the parts of the game they want to see faster and pull them into the immersion sooner. That is how they will grab their fan base.
3:56 Ahah... heh. CROSSWORDS ARE HARDER!
Great episode! It really hits home for me, I used to love JRPGs and I think I still do, but many of them (old and new) take too long to get interesting. That's probably why I've been into mostly indies for a long while now, they get made by a lot of people in my situation (young adults who love games but can't commit 50 hours to every game). It feels like many AAAs are a big time commitment and the introductions start saying "use WASD to move". Really!?
BTW, a shoutout to the EC artists, the drawings have improved in quality for a while now. Good job!
That EC version of Dark Souls's knight is adorable.
The only argument I'd have against the idea of rewarding playing well early on is that some of the "casual" players might feel like they're missing something and get frustrated about that. The only way I could think of to prevent that would be to hide(= not talk about it but let it work anyway) this mechanic for at least the first few moments of the game. That way:
- Casual players if the get to the point where they are told this mechanic exists, will simply try to apply it after having understood the mechanics of the game
- Core players might discover the mechanic and feel special because they didn't wait for the game to tell them about it, and they'll be rewarded for their plays
Of course there are still some ways to find frustration in this system, and it was just an example they used for the video, but here are my ideas.
Also thank you for existing Extra Credits, I care very much about games, and your videos help me understand them better :3
+extra credits can you do an episode on dwarf fortress and how losing can be fun?
Garbunclezzz well... to each their own. also df was just an example i'm sure there is some game out there that truly lets you enjoy losing as much as winning and still have winning be fun
+Garbunclezzz
The fun of Dwarf Fortress is watching everything go to hell because of some minor thing setting off a dozen other things.
+Garbunclezzz Unless you're the sort of player it's geared for, in which case it's one of the most amazing rabbit-holes of timesink games. It has a small but insanely dedicated audience because there's basically nothing else that quite scratches the same itch - though more and more indie games have been borrowing from it of late, with things like stonehearth, rimworld, and many others being more friendly, toned-down versions of the same idea.
Daemonworks and i am (or would like to be) part of that audience
+Sir Robert Walpole Catsplosions....
Re: Rewarding players by taking less turns in an RPG:
There's a Japanese Strategy RPG series that does this: Super Robot Taisen. If you fulfill special objective like "finish the fight in 4 turns," or "Amass X number of kills in one turn with one character," then you get rewarded with secret units, better endings, and the like. And you had to use the mechanics masterfully to achieve these objectives. It's a pity though that the games are almost exclusively in Japanese, but two were translated into English for the GBA.
+Mortimer Zabi My partner and I had a lot of fun with FFXIII's battle system, because right from the start it gives you a 0-5 star rating for how quickly you beat each encounter. We still just mashed X for the first few hours, but every time they gave us a little bit more complexity we started analyzing it and making the most of it, trying to keep a good rating the whole way through.
As someone who works 60 hour weeks, thank you.
Usually I love these episodes and agree with you as a budding designer, but this is a wierd one where you have it backwards yet your points are spot on. Casual and core, the difference is time investment. Not depth, not "play it well" since everyone wants to play decently, but it is time investment. Your points about games needing great intros and adding the core of the game interestingly in the first bit of the game as well is great, but I think the defining terms of core and casual are very far off. It's just simply, time investment.
Skyrim is a good example :) the lore for core, open world for core and a bit for casual, and then the main story for the casual :) so you can finish the game in a decent amount of time. but you can really finish it for the ones that want to. Skyrim is a good example to get people into a game, because the exploring raises so many curiosity that casual will become core
+PeekATracked I'd say that the earlier Elder Scrolls games are better examples of this, but I think that they might have a bit TOO much depth early on, as in, it's difficult for the casual players to get into the role playing aspects of the game because the combat/world etc. might be a bit too overwhelming and difficult to grasp.
+Terminator Yeah, I'd played Skyrim and Oblivion, as well as Fallout 3+NV, before I tried Morrowind and even so I found that game very overwhelming (and the ones before that lost me on the mouse-based attacking mechanics before the world could draw me in).
Want to see a video game opening that was done well? try playing Child of Light, within half an hour you go from being a defenceless child to getting a sword, to fighting your first mini-boss, to getting wings (which allow for better exploration), to getting your first party member
A harder way to beat the tutorial boss with a better reward? Like the initial encounter with the Asylum Demon from Dark Souls?
My idea (I tried to think of one before watching the video to compare and contrast) was that in the tutorial (or some other form of really early stage) to give the player a mechanic, and let them try to use it really well with great execution to get something extra (Say a few bonus rating points), but also give another path that might take it a bit more simply, allowing them to get through without as much timing. This encourages players to try at the depth, but also lets them get around it and see more of the game (for those with less time/just wanting to see the game) or try it till they get it right and feel the success (more time/determination to do it the best way). Path A makes the player feel awesome, gives a sort of graphics showcase (a great view over a park and a city from a rooftop you just jumped across buildings to get to), while path B gives a bit more appreciation to detail of design and still encourages depth, but allows the user to choose the simplest path if they choose to.
Example... you start out on roof 1 on one side of a park that is surrounded by skyscrapers. you get the ability to jump between roofs. you can try to get there, you get tons of visual fun and you feel challenged if you want to. Otherwise, you can walk down the stairs into the park, maybe have a conversation with some park people, then eventually get to the other side. building 10 (the last one) is really hard to get into from the bottom (lets just say it is a restaurant hotel, and you have to book a room to get up there. You can try convince the person there to let you on the roof somehow). The place next door is much easier to get into (lets just say it is a museum with really lazy security guards. you can make it to the roof there easily) and all you need to do is a simple jump (rather than the more difficult ones from starting at the top of the 1st building). Players enjoy 4 things (for the most part) in games: being challenged, being able to complete things, being able to appreciate the game (in its visual design, gameplay, quirkiness, story, etc), and feeling important.
This allows different paths for different people. unfortunately, you can't make an infinite amount of paths, so you do have to lump people together a bit early on.
If people appreciate a challenge, they take path A. They also get some scenery from the rooftops, perhaps some interaction when they get to the destination, and a nice reward for completion (reward for completion also acts as completion)
If people want to get it done, they can find the simplest path for them and do that. they get some scenery going through the park, they do some interacting to determine the best path, and they take it, get their reward, and move on.
If people want to just appreciate the game, they can try jumping between buildings, finding weird routes, talking with people in the park chasing after a squirrel in the park, etc. this one is really just the user trying to see how well the visual design, gameplay, and strategy were set up. if they were done well, they will appreciate the game, depending on what they want to appreciate.
If people want to feel important, use illusion of choice (as described in a previous video of EC's). This can even be applied to how to get from roof 1 to the target roof.
I think yours could work better for more tactical "lets get this done" sort of games, that have singular focuses (fighting, racing, strategizing, etc), especially level based ones. Mine is pretty much just yours applied to multiple areas of a game to satisfy different types of players based on the path they want to take. My sort of idea could work for more open world sort of games (sort of like Fallout 4. IDK many great examples of this since I don't play too many games) where the player decides less how seriously they want to play, but how they want to actually *experience* (not play) the game, such as appreciating artwork, interacting with NPC's, going all rogue assassin hitman killer, getting it done strategically well and efficiently, or just going for that instant gratification of doing something that looks cool (building hopping still since another example doesn't really need to be here for how this idea works).
game freak is the best at captivating this whole spectrum of players imo
Pokemon is simple enough for a 6 yo to play and complex enough for a thriving competitive scene
I feel that Gamefreak's issue is just how they present all the competitively aspects of the game, mainly with how they lock the majority of said competitive items and abilities like checking IVs after you beat the game. They could do well by introducing them slowly so people know how to prepare themselves for the complexities of competitive battles, as well as making competitive players more interested in the CPU matches.
Thank you for this video! I've been feeling like a "dirty casual" in the Destiny community lately because I'm a student with a job and just can't invest all the hours that some other players do, so I'm behind the "core" players in my leveling. But I love the game and I've put hundreds of hours into it and I enjoy playing all of the game modes even though it's taking me longer than most to complete all the content. I've been working on the same two games for almost a year now (Assassin's Creed: Black Flag being the other one), with about ten in the queue to get to later. After watching this video I feel less bad about being behind all my friends who have more time to invest in various games (or who have been playing them longer).
"Who is this Steve people keep talking about? What was up with the Pokemon in this episode?" Watch the latest episode of artist Dan Jones attempting the Pokemon Nuzlocke challenge to find out! ruclips.net/video/pO1F12gJVrg/видео.html
+Extra Credits Steve is definitely one of the top 5 Pokemon in your team.
+Extra Credits Listening to this video I'm wondering: what do you guys at Extra Credits think of Chris Bateman's DGD1 Model?
Sooooooo...
About that Voice Acting episode...
+Extra Credits Speaking of pokemon, isn't casual/core also seen in pokemon where the casual players might just beat the Elite four/pokemon league while the core players try to fill their pokedex and catch them all?
R3Testa Leagues are for casuals. Real men strive to be the best there ever was.
Those two frames of the player getting pushed in front of the giant demon might be the funniest thing I've ever seen on EC by a long shot. It was brilliant.
The big problem that isn't talked about here is that many great games that had excellent depth have been destroyed in favor of making the game pointlessly easy for casuals.
Skyrim is the first that comes to my mind as the combat slightly improved in ease of use but everything else suffered drastically for it. Fallout 4 is the same, and just about every game series I used to love is getting shallower and shallower. Soon I won't even be able to drown in their virtual worlds.
Being a Hardcore player doesn't have anything to do with time investment in any video game, it has to do with player mentality and a thirst for quality and depth.
When I get into a game, I REALLY get into it. I want to see all the little details that the devs worked so hard to put in. I want to scale the highest reaches and delve into the deepest chasms. I don't care about how much time I spend in a game but how much of that time was well spent.
I can tell you, the shallower an RPG is, the worse it is in terms of quality. Truly good RPGs allow players to explore freedom within even their own character designs, whereas so many RPGs these days are being "streamlined" to the point of ruining them.
More and more I find there are no games really left for people like me. Dark Souls is probably the last series I will ever fall in love with.
Series that I used to love:
Elder Scrolls
Mass Effect
Halo
Assassin's Creed
Fallout
Fable
And now I don't care at all about the next installments in those series. I wish I did, I wish I could, but they are dead to me, and nothing is gonna change about that. The devs/publishers have made their choice for profits over substance.
As someone who frequently pushes games back in the queue for reasons such as "I'm going to want 2-4 hour slots of playtime for this and I have between 1 and 2 at most so maybe later" but also someone who frequently likes to dig in a bit of power gaming with stuff, I can relate to the topic of this video
Persona 4's early fights are probably the best version of this I've seen, as they teach the depth early.
Conversely, Persona 4 also takes a damn long time to get to the actual gameplay and plot.
True.
+Pickled Gremlin I think the real problem is people are so used to hand holding tutorials that when xenoblade Chronicles X came out they where overwhelmed because they actually had to learn it themselves or read the manual.
Xenoblade X was very much created in line with old school JRPGs in terms of insane depth and mechanics that the game throws at you and makes you learn. The first game is a very long time I fully read the manual. I don't think Xenoblade was ever intended to be accessible. It's a 100+ hour RPG with layers upon layers of mechanics with hundreds of sidequests. In saying that, I know people who picked up the game, played the main story missions in 50 or so hours, and couldn't tell me what an overdrive was or how the resource system worked or didn't know about affixes and skell customization. None of that extra depth is necessary for a good experience but if you want to seek it out, you can. Nothing is forced on you and I appreciate the lack of in game tutorial (which sounds odd to say) but those players that don't care for mechanics won't feel overwhelmed. And those that want to dig deeper can read the manual and figure it out for themselves. I liked to challenge myself in this game and the first Xenoblade to create builds to defeat enemies at the lowest possible level. Other players just want to level up enough so they can defeat enemies without knowing how to abuse combos and buffs and overdrives etc.
oh no, its more a hard core rpg, man the grinding is real in that game.
I'm definitely in the "want a deep experience but doesn't have the time" boat. So many games have come out that I want to get into, but I've never bought them because of the necessary time commitment. It's hard to mix a job with a love of epic RPGs. Great episode!
This is why we need to not gate core gameplay with grinding. We need more games that, like Dota 2, Starcraft 2, EU4, or Minecraft, just let me play the damn game I bought instead of slowly revealing mechanics and bringing me up to the level of normal players over hours and hours of agonizing grinding. Get rid of straight powerups to players who have played longer, don't gate your multiplayer experience unless you absolutely HAVE TO (to keep smurfs and the like out), and don't introduce level up mechanics that persist across multiple playsessions unless that is the ABSOLUTE FOCUS of your game.
JUST LET ME PLAY
JUST LET ME PLAY THE GAME
I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR 'CURATED EXPERIENCE'
JUST LET ME ACCESS THE CORE GAMEPLAY AND HAVE FUN WITH MY FRIENDS AT THEIR LEVEL
+Bobo The Talking Clown EU really doesnt belong on that list. Casuals dont play that game. You need like 10 horus of tutorials to get a good grip on what is going on.
I actually think that God Hand did a pretty decent job of this. Like it's certainly harder than most games, but it went out of its way to tailor its difficulty to your skill level and reward you for plumbing the depths of its core experience. Also, the first level introduced basically every general concept you'd need to know, but gave you very surmountable challenges that you could nonetheless come back and smoke later on when you were just better.
In my recommended side bar:
"Extra Credits: Fallout Shelter - How a Casual Game Won Over Hardcore Players"
Oh the irony.
+Christian Hansen
In the beginning of the video: "Only a few weeks ago..."
+Christian Hansen that's not irony, it goes to show how the core-casual aproach on game design is BS
Juan Moreno (One of many) Definition of Irony: "a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result."
I never expected Extra Credits to fall victim to a fallacy they later made a video against. Then again, it has been a while since I've seen that Fallout Shelter video, so maybe it mirrors what was said in this video.
Either way, saying that this was an ironic occurrence AND also saying that "it goes to show how the core-casual approach on game design is BS" are not mutually exclusive statements. I wasn't trying to say it wasn't still BS, just that I also found it amusing they fell into the trap.
I asumed you were more ignorant than that. My apologies. I simply misunderstood your true meaning. This is because they stated at the beginning their realisation, and thus have learned from their past mistake. I thought that you were trying to make fun of them in a negative way, which is very common on RUclips, or the internet in general, these days.
BlackStone187 Eh, no biggie, it happens.
This is very much an issue I've had rattling around in my head with modern games; thank you for addressing it.
Not having time to play... That's me right there. That shall change, though, as soon as my daughter is old enough to start playing with me. Mwahahaha
Having a child is the best way to turn someone into a nerd from scratch lol
Yeah. I guess with my job and my hobby's, I've become the "casual" gamer.
So while I have less time to put in a game than when I was still at school, I enjoy games that bring me into the game from the get-go. It's the reason why I love click-and-point adventure games, like the Telltale games. For those games, story is more important rather than hours of dedicated gameplay.
But that doesn't mean that I won't spend hours on games I love. Because I do. When I have the time, I can really dive into ageless games, like XCom, Civilization or even simple things, like Plants Vs Zombies.
Also, the fact that I often have limited time to play games, I tend to prefer games that offer short bursts of gameplay, like typical Facebook / mobile games. Play a few levels, then let the meter charge your energy back up while you do stuff that's actually important; like cooking, hobby's, your financial stuff or going out IRL.
This is actually my primary issue with the new Doom. I don't dislike it mind you, I think it's fantastic. That being said, why the hell am I stuck with just the Shotgun for the first 2 levels? The levels in the new Doom are much longer than the old ones. Within the same timeframe in the old games I could easily also get the Chaingun and Rocket Launcher. Furthermore, why is the speed of weapon switching and mod swapping gimped until far later into the game? The fun of Doom's combat is rapidly switching between different weapons to flow between multiple unique encounters within one giant chunk of combat. Swapping to Rocket Launcher to take out a Hell Knight coming at you before jumping up a ledge and pulling out the Super Shotgun on a Mancubus and then turning and sniping a Summoner with the Gauss Rifle as you run in to switch back to the Super Shotgun to finish it off.
I'm not saying the game needs to throw all of that on you from the start, but it's a Shooter, not an RPG. Why do I need to upgrade my way into making both weapon mods equally useful, into having enough ammo to handle extended shootouts, into swapping between three different guns in the run up to one enemy, and into swapping between Alt Fires in the middle of a fire fight in a decent timeframe?
I miss the days games used to specialize on their genres, not shove other genres into one. An open world game? Don't forget to add a leveling system too!
+NiGHTSnoob I haven't played the original Doom since I was like 8 so I don't remember, but I like the progression system in the new Doom. Character progression, unlockables, skill trees etc are some of my favorite parts of games in general. Doom doesn't have a particularly rich story to drive your motivation (as the player). If everything was unlocked from the start, why am I playing? Just for the fun of killing demons? That won't motivate me enough to go through the whole game. Why would I ever explore away from the main objective if there weren't armor upgrades and stuff to find? From a tutorial standpoint, I don't mind getting some practice with a weapon before unlocking its alternate fire, but I suppose it's not necessary. I can understand your point of the weapon switching being too slow for such a fast game though.
The motivation is to beat the game. You go exploring to find health, armor, and ammo pickups alongside new weapons and temporary powerups to help you beat the game. In the original Doom having enough ammo to fire the BFG or having the Mega Armor could very easily be the difference between a tough fight and a near impossible one, and oftentimes you'd only get those tools if you explored a bit. Not to mention many of the levels are generally designed in such a way as to require you to double back across the central area at least once to complete the level your first time through promoting exploring a bit and seeing important rooms from multiple angles.
My problem isn't unlocking new weapons, mods, or tools. My problem is in unlocking basic features central to the core experience. I shouldn't have to unlock better controls because that's just making the game objectively worse at the beginning than it needs to be, and Imps may become easier to take down when I have better weapons and am more familiar with the game but they shouldn't become less of an offensive threat because I've upgraded my maximum health and armor. I don't need an abstraction to show my character's growth, my ability to take them out consistently without getting hit should be proof enough, you don't need to abstract a refinement of motor skill and understanding of patterns in real time in a game based around refining motor skill and understanding patterns in real time, it's something that should be reserved for games where such things are abstracted out for strategic manipulation of values.
4:20
That's "Bravely Second" in a nut shell. Its a traditional JRPG but they allow you to chain battles if your able to wipe out the other side in one turn, and for each battle you add to the chain the more EXP, Job Points, and money you get
So core and causal should both be treated with respect?
*****
Must be really hard to plz both crowds
+The Otaku Dragon Slayer respect??? were either being disrespected???
its about the idea that you can only pick one and devs oversimplifying for not wanting to alienate casuals
and the example he gave was how to keep it engaging for both
"treated with respect" what????
That bit about RPGs rewarding you for faster enemy takedowns reminded me of something, and it took me a while to remember which game it was. Bravely Default! They have mechanics built in from the get go where if you finish a battle in one turn/don't take any damage/finish the fight by killing all enemies at once you get bonus experience/money/job points. And if you keep that streak going battle to battle you'll get greater rewards! It's not quite as gradual as EC described, but even in such a simple form it really does liven up the battles for me.
When you use the Pacha meme just right
The examples of depth you talk about kinda remind me of Sonic Mania and its "Cool Bonus" system, which rewards you with extra points at the end of a level based on how many times you got hit during the level. It's a nice little addition that most Casual players won't notice all that much, but for the people that play well it's a huge reward for knowing the mechanics and level design.
Casuals grab a Pidgey, Cores grab a Zubat. Zubat is more rewarding, but trickier to use. Pokemon's depth at 0~1 badges.
wrong, actual core players catch every Pokemon. you filthy casual.
+XistenceX1 Lol, I think he was saying which one the player uses.
+Ked Viper Exactly. Core players would try to find depth in a Pokemon that a casual player would likely overlook.
+Kohdok Fuck that. Casuals catch whatever Pokémon they feel like. Cores catch one of each, and only once they've determined that its stats are in the upper tiers of those available. Casuals use whichever mon looks cutest. Cores use whichever one has the greatest statistical advantage, OR alternatively, one that has a massive type disadvantage that they deliberately spent ages overlevelling in order to humiliate the opposition.
+SotiCoto "Spent ages overlevelling"? Don't you know to run a team of less than six pokemon so that they get more exp and wind up overlevelled WITHOUT spending ages on them?! Filthy Casual...
This is part of what makes me love Planetary Annihilation so much, so much depth right at your fingertips right from the start, but you don't need to use it right away if you aren't ready, play against ai that aren't that strong or play the galactic conquest where you have to work for the depth and don't get it all dumped on you right away.
+Roscoe Kane Very similarly Arma 3. The whole game is ready and available, no obnoxious leveling or kill-grinding so you can get Standard Issue Rifle #2.
How can you call it a fallacy when you prove it in your video?
+Harrison Wade Fallacy means flawed logic. It doesn't mean incorrect conclusions.
Chris McCartney how exactly did they prove the conclusion to be incorrect? If anything they proved the conclusion
Harrison Wade re read my comment. I'm agreeing with you. Fallacy is arriving at a conclusion using faulty logic. It doesn't mean that the conclusion is wrong, but that the argument for the conclusion is wrong.
The conclusion can still be right, but the "math" (so to speak) is wrong.
Ah I get what you were saying now, sorry about that.