gman72 wrote:I see, but does that also mean that if you simply dont like casual games and much prefer a challenge that you are automatically a gaming snob?
See, that's the thing about them though, the bit that annoys me whenever I hear people talking like this:
Many of these "casual" games *are* challenging. Often, they're MUCH harder than the usual generic FPS crap or other big-name AAA titles that hit the big consoles. They're "casual" only because they have a simple ruleset and usually no story. Beyond that.... they're still just games as much as anything else.
Though I'll be the first one to say that physics puzzlers, the ones where you can always try for 3 stars per level, are a bit EXTREMELY OVERDONE, they're only one facet of this type of game.
Jetpack Joyride is a great example.
It's probably definable as a "casual" game. It's simple.... there's only one....er, "button", and the game is just about dodging stuff and collecting coins.
That being said, it's tough. Really tough. Go on, try to pass 10,000 km without special items (gadgets are fine though). Cant do it, can ya? Yeah. It's a TAD extremely difficult.
Or how about Super Crate Box? Unlock Ambush mode, and score at least 50 in it. In the temple stage. .....little tough, isnt it?
Stuff like that is what I always want to say to anyone I know that's saying things like "feh, REAL gamers dont play casual games, they're too easy", and the funny part is, they CANT argue with me, since I'm the one that plays games that are SO difficult the rest of them wont even TRY them because they think (probably correctly) that they'll lose almost immediately.
Think of these in this way: Alot of the games we know and love from the Golden Age of arcades, if they were made today, would be considered "casual". No doubt about it.