Gargen
02-13-2007, 03:36 AM
**NOTE** While I'll try to avoid it, I'm sure at times my own personal preferences will shine through. It's not intended to talk down about anyone in particular, it's just really hard to accurately write from a perspective you don't have (there is one exception, but it's pretty obvious).
First, I want to dispel the idea that "casual" is the opposite of "hardcore" (at least for this article). I see three separate spectrums that are all associated with hardcore vs casual, and only two of them are even represented by those two terms. Most casual vs hardcore debates quickly turn in to flame fests as one person sees the existence of one trait and assumes the existence of traits from the other two spectrums that are often not there. There are some correlations. Hardcore and casual (as I define them here) would generally not mix very well.
The first spectrum is the one that contains the word casual. I would consider the opposite of casual as serious and will therefore call this spectrum seriousness. If you like to jump off bridges because the crunching sound when you splat at the bottom is funny or if you love NPCs with names like Bashum Gud (the ogre), that's casual. At its worst, low seriousness causes unnecessary wipes and frustration. At its best, it's good light hearted fun. A high level of seriousness is characterized by strict adherence to RP naming policies, serious focus on the task at hand, and an expectation of others to give the same level of seriousness. At it's worst high seriousness is rude and condescending. At its best, high seriousness is efficient, effective, and immersive. The varying levels and subcategories of seriousness could be a lengthy post of its own. Suffice it to say that somebody could be very casual in some ways and very serious in others at the same time.
The next spectrum is the amount of time that somebody has to play the game... or rather the amount of time a person intends to spend playing the game. Most people have more time for MMOGs than they actually spend playing them, and some people spend more time playing them than they really have to dedicate. I will use the term frequency to describe this spectrum. This could be further subdivided by number of play sessions and length of play sessions, but I'll leave it bundled together as it's not my main focus.
Finally there is the last spectrum, the "core" rating. Since the term casual is already taken, I'll use the term softcore to describe a lower core rating. I see core as the description of how forgiving you want your game world to be. Hardcore would be mechanics like difficult individual mobs, huge death penalties, slow exp, fast moving mobs, no teleporting, tightly packed mobs, and often lack of soloability. Softcore would be the opposite... easy individual mobs, little to no death penalty, fast exp, mobs are easy to outrun, easily accessible teleports, easy pulls, and abundant solo content. To simplify, the core rating is the challenge level. "Core gamers" would then represent people that prefer the middle ground. It is people that want some challenge while stopping short of masochist. Defining the middle ground is subjective and about as easy is defining the middle ground in politics. The best way is to imagine the most whacked out extremes and then create the spectrum between them. There is also the following question: if the majority of the people are at one end of the spectrum, is the middle ground the middle of the spectrum or the middle of the population? I would say that the middle of the spectrum is still the middle ground, you just happen to have an imbalanced population.
A sense of achievement is the most common reason hardcore players prefer the type of game that they do, but it's not the only reason. Teleporting, for example, has an effect on the economy, grouping dynamics, and player concentration. Others support high death penalties for the Darwinian affect it can have on player advancement. Some people don't want a game where people can solo because of the affect on finding and building groups.
Softcore players realy need to be divided in to two categories. I will refer to them as Type A and Type B. Type A players are people that want to play to relax and just don't want to be tied up with time commitment requirements or frustrated by a bunch of unforgiving game mechanics. Type B softcore players are the players that want easy mechanics because they just don't have the life skills (e.g. patience, tact, or ingenuity) to deal with with adversity. I'm sure all softcore players consider themselves Type A, and most are right, but the Type B players give them all a bad name. If a Type A dies at the bottom of a dungeon, they sigh heavily and decide if they want to go back and get it or take the summon penalty. If it happens enough times they'll decide the game doesn't fit their style and move on. If a Type B person dies at the bottom of a dungeon, it completely ruins their day (possibly on the verge of rage) and they head straight to the nearest message board to rant about the horrible mechanics of the game... or perhaps they'll get frustrated with the pace of advancement rather taking the time to explore all of the content at their level. Type A players wouldn't be too worried about slow advancement as long as there was enough content to keep them entertained. I hope to see Type A players in Vanguard as they definitely add to the community, but could do without the Type B.
Looking at the history of MMOGs in this context shows how the MMOG community got where it is today. When EQ and UO were the only choices, players played a relatively hardcore game or nothing at all. Players were forced to adjust their seriousness to survive. For the most part, the games that followed had at least a mid level core rating. FFXI probably had the highest core rating of the major MMOGs... then WoW came out. WoW has one of the lowest core ratings and therefore also doesn't require very much seriousness. Now here we are with Vanguard, its mid level core rating, and the required seriousness that goes with it. The targetted customers are the old-school players that found WoW unfulfilling, the new players that want more challenge than WoW provides (sound familiar?).
CSF Rating
While I'm at it, I decide to create a system (ala the Bartle Test) to show where you (or a game) falls on the spectrum. Maybe some day a test will follow it up. The CSF raitng is a three digit number that rates each of Core, Seriousness, and Frequency (in that order) on a scale of 0-9. 0 represents softcore, casual, and infrequent while 9 represents hardcore, serious, and frequent. Just think of a 1-10 scale and subtract 1 (I used 0-9 so it will always be three digits)
Vanguard would be a have a core rating of 5, seriousness of 6, and a frequency requirement of 2 for a CSF rating of 562. From my limited WoW experience and what I've heard, WoW would be somewhere near 111. It shoots for the low end of each without going too extreme. I would put original EQ at 887. I would put current (end-game raiding) EQ at 786, but has high ratings for different reasons (EQ raiding from Gates of Discord/Omens of War and beyond is brutal).
My personal preference is about 662. As you can see, Vanguard fits my taste quite well. There is more to it than CSF rating, but IMO CSF is what determines if a game is "right for you" and everything after that is just how well the developers do. Now if Sigil can iron out the bugs, finish up all the features, and flesh out the fluff content we can convert a whole new generations of core gamers. (re: fluff content -- I absolutely love the LOTR bard skill to actually play songs with their keyboard... I'm glad Sigil didn't focus on those kinds of features and instead made a huge world, but a few of those would be great down the road)
First, I want to dispel the idea that "casual" is the opposite of "hardcore" (at least for this article). I see three separate spectrums that are all associated with hardcore vs casual, and only two of them are even represented by those two terms. Most casual vs hardcore debates quickly turn in to flame fests as one person sees the existence of one trait and assumes the existence of traits from the other two spectrums that are often not there. There are some correlations. Hardcore and casual (as I define them here) would generally not mix very well.
The first spectrum is the one that contains the word casual. I would consider the opposite of casual as serious and will therefore call this spectrum seriousness. If you like to jump off bridges because the crunching sound when you splat at the bottom is funny or if you love NPCs with names like Bashum Gud (the ogre), that's casual. At its worst, low seriousness causes unnecessary wipes and frustration. At its best, it's good light hearted fun. A high level of seriousness is characterized by strict adherence to RP naming policies, serious focus on the task at hand, and an expectation of others to give the same level of seriousness. At it's worst high seriousness is rude and condescending. At its best, high seriousness is efficient, effective, and immersive. The varying levels and subcategories of seriousness could be a lengthy post of its own. Suffice it to say that somebody could be very casual in some ways and very serious in others at the same time.
The next spectrum is the amount of time that somebody has to play the game... or rather the amount of time a person intends to spend playing the game. Most people have more time for MMOGs than they actually spend playing them, and some people spend more time playing them than they really have to dedicate. I will use the term frequency to describe this spectrum. This could be further subdivided by number of play sessions and length of play sessions, but I'll leave it bundled together as it's not my main focus.
Finally there is the last spectrum, the "core" rating. Since the term casual is already taken, I'll use the term softcore to describe a lower core rating. I see core as the description of how forgiving you want your game world to be. Hardcore would be mechanics like difficult individual mobs, huge death penalties, slow exp, fast moving mobs, no teleporting, tightly packed mobs, and often lack of soloability. Softcore would be the opposite... easy individual mobs, little to no death penalty, fast exp, mobs are easy to outrun, easily accessible teleports, easy pulls, and abundant solo content. To simplify, the core rating is the challenge level. "Core gamers" would then represent people that prefer the middle ground. It is people that want some challenge while stopping short of masochist. Defining the middle ground is subjective and about as easy is defining the middle ground in politics. The best way is to imagine the most whacked out extremes and then create the spectrum between them. There is also the following question: if the majority of the people are at one end of the spectrum, is the middle ground the middle of the spectrum or the middle of the population? I would say that the middle of the spectrum is still the middle ground, you just happen to have an imbalanced population.
A sense of achievement is the most common reason hardcore players prefer the type of game that they do, but it's not the only reason. Teleporting, for example, has an effect on the economy, grouping dynamics, and player concentration. Others support high death penalties for the Darwinian affect it can have on player advancement. Some people don't want a game where people can solo because of the affect on finding and building groups.
Softcore players realy need to be divided in to two categories. I will refer to them as Type A and Type B. Type A players are people that want to play to relax and just don't want to be tied up with time commitment requirements or frustrated by a bunch of unforgiving game mechanics. Type B softcore players are the players that want easy mechanics because they just don't have the life skills (e.g. patience, tact, or ingenuity) to deal with with adversity. I'm sure all softcore players consider themselves Type A, and most are right, but the Type B players give them all a bad name. If a Type A dies at the bottom of a dungeon, they sigh heavily and decide if they want to go back and get it or take the summon penalty. If it happens enough times they'll decide the game doesn't fit their style and move on. If a Type B person dies at the bottom of a dungeon, it completely ruins their day (possibly on the verge of rage) and they head straight to the nearest message board to rant about the horrible mechanics of the game... or perhaps they'll get frustrated with the pace of advancement rather taking the time to explore all of the content at their level. Type A players wouldn't be too worried about slow advancement as long as there was enough content to keep them entertained. I hope to see Type A players in Vanguard as they definitely add to the community, but could do without the Type B.
Looking at the history of MMOGs in this context shows how the MMOG community got where it is today. When EQ and UO were the only choices, players played a relatively hardcore game or nothing at all. Players were forced to adjust their seriousness to survive. For the most part, the games that followed had at least a mid level core rating. FFXI probably had the highest core rating of the major MMOGs... then WoW came out. WoW has one of the lowest core ratings and therefore also doesn't require very much seriousness. Now here we are with Vanguard, its mid level core rating, and the required seriousness that goes with it. The targetted customers are the old-school players that found WoW unfulfilling, the new players that want more challenge than WoW provides (sound familiar?).
CSF Rating
While I'm at it, I decide to create a system (ala the Bartle Test) to show where you (or a game) falls on the spectrum. Maybe some day a test will follow it up. The CSF raitng is a three digit number that rates each of Core, Seriousness, and Frequency (in that order) on a scale of 0-9. 0 represents softcore, casual, and infrequent while 9 represents hardcore, serious, and frequent. Just think of a 1-10 scale and subtract 1 (I used 0-9 so it will always be three digits)
Vanguard would be a have a core rating of 5, seriousness of 6, and a frequency requirement of 2 for a CSF rating of 562. From my limited WoW experience and what I've heard, WoW would be somewhere near 111. It shoots for the low end of each without going too extreme. I would put original EQ at 887. I would put current (end-game raiding) EQ at 786, but has high ratings for different reasons (EQ raiding from Gates of Discord/Omens of War and beyond is brutal).
My personal preference is about 662. As you can see, Vanguard fits my taste quite well. There is more to it than CSF rating, but IMO CSF is what determines if a game is "right for you" and everything after that is just how well the developers do. Now if Sigil can iron out the bugs, finish up all the features, and flesh out the fluff content we can convert a whole new generations of core gamers. (re: fluff content -- I absolutely love the LOTR bard skill to actually play songs with their keyboard... I'm glad Sigil didn't focus on those kinds of features and instead made a huge world, but a few of those would be great down the road)