Use of the term "Casual" (No inflammatory thread titles please)

Listen, if you don't want to be considered casual then don't play in a casual manner. In other words: Git Gud.

Geezz. Who **** in your pasta this morning. Its just a word.

By using casual no one means to insult you.

"Who **** in your pasta" is now a trademarked by the someonewhoisnobody foundation llc

If you think it's an insult, there's not much I can do to help you. Read the context of our various comments. This is about helping people label and find games. Sorry for the eye roll comment, but this does, in fact, seem like a ridiculous thing to get worked up about. If you're that offended by the label - don't use it. The labels, our lobbies, and game finding will continue to evolve.

Learn to play the game. Being defined as a casual usually isn't a bad thing, meaning that outside of the context of facebook games you play games noncompetitively. Basically, trolling in BF3 vs playing it seriously.

Whoa of all the things ppl can complain about, you choose this

Dude, the easy solution would be to come and practise for a bit with us. Then you got a good chance to fight and you can label to competitive and be fine i assume.

I've never used it and I never will. I mentioned that in the OP. But this is making my progression in the game harder, and it also makes the games of better players boring when they play against me. And I doubt we are the only group of people who refuse to label our games casual even though we suck.

And if you could take my request into account in this process, I would be eternally grateful. If the wording of my request is too aggressive for your liking, and for the tastes of many people in this forum, it is only because, as a videogame and art theorist, I feel very passionately about these things. Just consider that I've been writing essays against the casual trend since 2008!

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/casual_reviews_are_for_no_one/

This is a matter of principle for me, and I don't know who would feel more passionately about principles than a theorist.

We always take feedback into account, but.. if I can provide some advice - your approach, and how worked up you are about the topic actually works against you. It comes across as inflammatory rather than well reasoned. And I seriously doubt that's your intent.

Provide feedback, and get discussions going, but use less hyperbolic and inflammatory language, and just focus on the concerns, and more importantly, alternatives that we can all consider.

No. I'm pretty sure you are.

I focused on the alternatives. I said Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced is a better distinction.

You've asked me before to tone down my writing style, but I just can't do it. I am 36 years old and I've written hundreds upon hundreds of pages on videogames and art criticism already. I can no more change the way I write than the way I think or breathe. I am sorry. If you find my posts so offensive, let me know and I'll stop posting.

What clan are you in actually i wouldn't mind at all practising some 1v1 or teamgames. In terms of labels, i have no idea what your talking about. Casual label is fine for me since im so casual but actually im playing pretty hardcore.

this.

Letting you know.

I don't agree with the reasons he gave for it for it, but i kind of like the terminology beginner, intermediate and advanced.

Cause I usually wanna play casual games, but i wanna play them with people of my own level (witch i think is intermediate if you ask me), but sometimes I'm stuck in matches with players who are in their second game, they are completely lost and get trampled.

I think that sorting the game based on player level (even if it is their own perceived level) instead of objective might be a better call.

That way, if I'm playing a lot of intermediate games and always winning i can try my hand at advanced, it gives a sense of progression, instead of a responsibility to do well on a competitive game.

You're never too old to change. Whatever you've written is irrelevant; the future can always change.

So far all you've done is selectively quote garat and ignore community members replying to you. I've reported various posts I think aren't helping, but at this point it looks like you don't want to be helped.

Casuals arent a bad word. Its not about skill. Its about time and dedication.

Why do many casuals play Call of duty instead of Counter Strike?. Well because in COD you have a very low skill ceiling, hitbox scan weapons. controller makes turning hard, you get it. It doesnt take very much time and effort to be just as good the the average and majority of the players.

Where as in Counter Strike, you will get your butt handed to you sideways like no tomorrow, even after you played for 10-20 50-100 hours. Because that game has a high skill ceiling. And it takes a lot of time and dedication to get good and stay good, and thats not a bad thing.

Personally im semi casual atm, but i dont see game that takes effort and time to become good as bad. Im tired of games that is like fastfood where everyone should be equal.

Im pretty sure that planetary annihilation will have a high skill ceiling as well, because there is so much micro you can do atm. I will admit my puny brain starts to make smoke out of my ears, when i have bases on a few planets and multiple places on those planets, and trying to manage orbital and moving units from the teleporter. MIND BLOWN.

So no casual isnt a bad word and they arent to blame for the dumbed down games. The problem is developers who give in, like they want their game to be fastfood, sell to max number of people. Because someone obviously thinks that higher sales = better product right?. If that was the case, the world would be a sad place, because i wouldn touch fastfood with a 10 foot pole. and yet no food on the planet sells more every day than that.

The solution to having a game that requires dedication, have a high skill ceiling, is to have a good MMR also know ans Ranking system that matches players together, that is something games has always sorely lacked. I believe this is the most important thing today in gaming, and many games still dont have it. Because if people get matched with people of more or less equal skill, then you can have a game like Counter strike that is hard. because its not like in the 90's where you get into a server with these guys that can literally headshot your entire team no problem lol oh yeah ive seen that happen back in the day, and that is no small feat considering no weapons in any game to my knowledge has the same amount of recoil as the weapons in counter strike. tbh that game might have more recoil that real weapons, because in real life nobody would die, if the weapons were that hard to aim lol.

Team Fortress 2, is suffering atm because of no matchmaking system that tries to give you a skill rating. In all the 500 if not 1000 hours ive played that game, its ALMOST never ever a close match. its always team blu stream rolls team red. and repeat and then team auto balance, then team red streamrolls team blu and repeat. and it sucks. because i love that game, but the horrible skill unbalance between players ruins in. Those games where you just win, just barely by the skin of your teeth, like control point maps with 5sec left on the opponent timers. Thats the moments that makes it all worth it. because that feels like a well worth earned victory.

Instead companies started to add farming weapons, leveling up. farming scopes for said weapons. and hats and you name it. Because then even when you get owned and owned and owned like no tomorrow hey at least you got some exp and some hats

Rising above being a casual requires time and dedication and i admire the people who do it. Its awesome to watch Starcraft 2 players that are godlike, and you know these guys spends 20-40-60-80 hours each week praticing.

When people talking about casual games, i gotta say back when Plants Vs Zombies 1 released "no the ruined shitty sequel". I was surprised how this socalled "casual" game could be this fun, have this much depth and be hard. I played that game like no tomorrow for over 100 hours, it had so much content.

TLDR casuals arent bad, but i hope uber allows for high skill ceiling and adds a ranking and match making system, so you play skills of equal to or close skill. Its not fun getting owned or steamrolling somebody, at least not for me. I feel bad when i just roll over someone.

Bleh, I hate people who don't know the definition of it. I was labeled somehow a casual by a couple of guys I know... Now it wouldn't be bad if I were- but I'm not. Anyway to me a casual gamer is someone who just plays for fun/doesnt really put super effort and hours into a game. There are also casual games- such as Mario, these games you can just pick up the controller/mouse/whatever and just instantly get it however that does not mean that anyone who plays it instantly becomes a casual gamer, and there are hard core players on such games as well. Like speed runners for instance.

To me a casual gamer is not a gamer, and no one on the PA servers is casual. PA is one of the most hardcore games in existence, simple as that.

So it should be fairly obvious that this is not the definition they are using.

"To me..."
You said earlier that this was based on principles, but how can you have principles that aren't based on objectivity and universality. *Modded*