Topic: "Hardcore", "mature", "casual", "kiddy"

[tendoboy1984]

Remember when people used to call Nintendo games "kiddy", and PS2 / Xbox games were called "mature"?

When the Wii came out, people started calling Nintendo games "casual", and PS3 / Xbox 360 games were called "hardcore".

Do the terms "hardcore" and "mature" mean the same thing?


Do the terms "casual" and "kiddy" mean the same thing?

[Ymeegod]

"Remember last gen when people called Nintendo games ""  LOL where have you been?  Sega was calling nintendo kiddie since the NES days :0.

Mature/Hardcore has to deal with "content" more than blood and guts.  Sometimes it's a deeper story other times it might be more complex gameplay. 

Nintendo has some more "core" games but usually NOA doesn't bother bringing them stateside, Fire Emblem series, Advance Wars, ect. 

Kiddie games are usually simple games that anyone can play, Lego series for example, very kiddie because you can die and just respawn as much as you want.

[tendoboy1984]

"Remember last gen when people called Nintendo games ""  LOL where have you been?  Sega was calling nintendo kiddie since the NES days :0.

Mature/Hardcore has to deal with "content" more than blood and guts.  Sometimes it's a deeper story other times it might be more complex gameplay. 

Nintendo has some more "core" games but usually NOA doesn't bother bringing them stateside, Fire Emblem series, Advance Wars, ect. 

Kiddie games are usually simple games that anyone can play, Lego series for example, very kiddie because you can die and just respawn as much as you want.

No no, I was asking do the terms "mature" and "hardcore" mean the same thing? Do the terms "casual" and "kiddy" mean the same thing?

[S-U-P-E-R]

I believe they are different. It is entirely possible to have a mature casual game. I think hardcore is mutually exclusive from casual and kiddy though.

I feel like a game being hardcore implies a certain complexity to the nuts & bolts of the gameplay, whereas mature doesn't necessarily.

Casual seems to mean to me, easy to pick up and play even if you've never played a video game before. Kiddy is, you know, for children.

I think even using the term hardcore is kind of... dated, now?

[BeautifulShy]

Hmm this topic...

No the terms don't mean the same thing tendoboy.

Personally for me the terms "hardcore" and "casual" are a state of mind or a gaming mood. I mean you can really get into something and you are in the zone where you are just doing things on instinct and you are in a the zone and that can be applied for any game.

For Casual I take it to mean that it is just laid back and just having fun and not all serious like.

The terms have changed over time I think and that has caused confusion on what is really is the correct definition.

For mature I could have sworn it meant to be fully developed in all faucets of oneself or in relation to games to be perfect in everything in all fields for a game. Not sure we have gotten there yet.

As for kiddy. I think SUPER covered it.

[lolmonade]

I've never used any of these adjectives to describe games other than "casual", and I usually am referring to games that are easily accessible, simple, and don't take a considerable time investment to play (iOS games, some puzzle games, etc).
 
Also, I get the feeling "kiddie", "mature", "hardcore", and "casual" to an extent are more marketing terminology used to detract from another console/game series, then console "fanboys" (more slang for you) trumpet that same wording that the company uses.

[Ian Sane]

"Kiddy" and "mature" are superficial and relate to the game's style and tone.  Well I guess they would a good way to describe a game's style but the implication is often that the style determines if the game is good or not.  A game can have cartoony kid-friendly visuals and be awesome, while a game with mature subject matter can be crap.  The two terms don't relate to quality.

"Casual" and "hardcore" refer to gameplay.  A casual game has simplictic and unambitious gameplay to accomodate beginners and non-gamers.  A game is more hardcore the more it asks of the player whether it relates to complexity or challenge.  I think the two terms are extremes and realistically most games fall more in the middle.  When I talk about "core" games I really just mean "not casual".  It doesn't have to be something incredibly hardcore like R-Type.  Since these terms relate to gameplay I would argue that they do provide some indication of quality.  "Kiddy" only refers to the visuals while "casual" means the actual game itself is dumbed down.

Of course I'm probably letting my personal bias affect things.  I had no problem when Nintendo made "kiddy" games since I would play Super Mario 64 and it would kick ass.  I didn't want EVERY Nintendo game to be family friendly, mostly because I want variety, but the games were still great.  I turned on Nintendo big time when they started making "casual" games.  A "kiddy" game looks like it's for babies but then you try it and it has all sorts of depth and complexity that you wouldn't necessarily expect.  A "casual" game looks like it's for babies and then you try it and it IS for babies with dumbed down simplistic gameplay that gets tiresome quickly.

Since I'm not a beginner playing videogames for the first time I have no interest in videogames that cater to that sort of player.  That's just logical.  A baseball player is going to be bored shitless by T-ball.

[MegaByte]

Nintendo actually differentiates this type of stuff in their eShop ratings, though they pick less loaded words:

Who do you think this title appeals to?
Everyone / Gamers
What kind of play styles is this title more suited for?
Casual / Intense

[ShyGuy]

I want the term to Extreme to make a come back like the 90s. Extreme! Snowboarding! Mountain Dew! No Fear!

[Guitar Smasher]

Strictly, no, I don't think they mean the same thing.  However, the sentiment behind them is typically the same.  Almost always their usage comes from a sense of elitism, with one term indicating a superior game (mature, hardcore), and the other indicating an inferior game (kiddy, casual).  If people were able to remove these judgments from the discussion, then I think I'd be able to treat these terms with respect.  To be honest, I've always felt that most 'casual' games are what we used to call 'arcade' type games.

[Ian Sane]

To be honest, I've always felt that most 'casual' games are what we used to call 'arcade' type games.

Yeah but arcade games are fucking hard so as to get as many quarters out of the player as possible.  They have a simple style of gameplay that is easy for anyone to get into but the challenge is such that an inexperienced gamer is going to lose very quickly.

I think complexity and challenge are what indicates if a game is casual.  A casual game is easy to get into and easy to succeed at.

I think it also depends on how the game will hold up if played by a core gamer.  A casual gamer will play a game for an evening and then put it away for months until friends are over and then they'll play it again.  They don't sit down every night and game for a few hours like a more dedicated gamer will.  If you put that kind of time into a game it can get boring really fast.  With a good challenge this can be avoided because even if the amount of content is small it takes time and effort to succeed at the game and see it all.  With complexity the game can just be big enough that it takes a fair amount of time to cover everything.  A casual game would be short on content and low in difficulty so that after only a couple of dedicated playthroughs it has worn out its welcome.  I got bored of Wii Sports after a few days of playing because I put like 10 hours into it in one weekend and felt I had seen it all.  A casual gamer might have taken months to put in that same amount of playing time.  Large breaks between playing can also make something you've done before feel new again and that is easier for a casual gamer to do.

And on the flipside a casual gamer would probably not want a game they have to put 80 hours into because they play games infrequently enough that it could take years for them to get everything out of that title.  If you only play in infrequent short spurts a game that requires too much commitment from the player may be seen as a waste of money.

I actually don't have a problem with casual games existing.  I have a problem with companies that made their bread and butter on core games making casual games.  I don't give a **** if Pop Cap and Zynga make casual stuff but I do care when Nintendo does because their whole business used to be making games for MY core gamer tastes.  They compromised a whole console to appeal to casuals with third-party-support-killing last gen hardware and inaccurate gimmick controls.  My videogame world is thus "invaded" by the casuals.  It's the difference between pop bands existing and your favourite band changing their sound to attract a new audience.  It doesn't matter until you lose something.  I don't lose **** from Angry Birds' existence but I do from Wii Sports'.

Thinking about it the Wind Waker graphics controversy was the same thing.  It wasn't that it was a game that looked like a cartoon, it was that it was ZELDA looking like a cartoon.  Zelda was not considered "kiddy" like Mario or Pokemon were.  They had shown "mature" Zelda at Spaceworld.  Then they switched it to a "kiddy" style.  Zelda fans lost "mature" Zelda when Wind Waker was shown and that is why their was backlash.  No one cares until something is taken from them.

[tendoboy1984]

Thinking about it the Wind Waker graphics controversy was the same thing.  It wasn't that it was a game that looked like a cartoon, it was that it was ZELDA looking like a cartoon.  Zelda was not considered "kiddy" like Mario or Pokemon were.  They had shown "mature" Zelda at Spaceworld.  Then they switched it to a "kiddy" style.  Zelda fans lost "mature" Zelda when Wind Waker was shown and that is why their was backlash.  No one cares until something is taken from them.

Wind Waker wasn't the first Zelda game to have a cartoony art-style.


A Link to the Past
Link's Awakening
Oracle of Ages/Seasons


Those games came out long before The Wind Waker, and they all had a bright and colorful art-style with cartoony-looking characters.


Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, and Twilight Princess were the only Zelda games that adopted a grittier look and feel.


After The Wind Waker came out, we got even more cartoony Zelda games...


Minish Cap
Four Swords (GBA and DSiWare)
Four Swords Adventures
Phantom Hourglass
Spirit Tracks
Skyward Sword (basically a mix of Twilight Princess' character models and Wind Waker's cel-shading)

[Ian Sane]

Wind Waker wasn't the first Zelda game to have a cartoony art-style.

That's debatable and that's the whole point.  No one offended by the change felt that Wind Waker's graphics were the same style as A Link to the Past.  Otherwise, why would they have cared?

[Sarail]

Wind Waker wasn't the first Zelda game to have a cartoony art-style.


A Link to the Past
Link's Awakening
Oracle of Ages/Seasons

I highly disagree with this viewpoint. I don't find any of those three listed games as "cartoony" - just 16-bit or 8-bit graphics. You can only do so much with what you're given. I thought ALttP was an incredibly mature, stylized game back in the day when I first played it.