Sections

Don Daglow: "I'm calling bullshit on core, mid-core and casual"

Veteran developer believes restrictive marketing language stems from industry's outdated veneration of difficulty

Veteran game designer Don Daglow used the stage at Berlin's Quo Vadis conference to mark an end to the use of three familiar but insidiously restrictive terms: core, mid-core, and casual.

Daglow illustrated his point with a slide depicting three animals: an elephant, a horse, and a mouse. Which of these animals, Daglow asked the somewhat bemused audience, most resembles a cat? The crowd's silence was deafening, but it was also expected.

"Lots of games are not like core, lots of games are not like mid-core, and lots of games are not like casual," Daglow said. "But we keep on trying to force them into these terms, and then we can't discuss our own craft. That's why I'm calling bullshit on, 'core, mid-core and casual.' We need to find other ways to talk about our games. We need to open up the discussion beyond our three animals."

"We keep on trying to force the games into these terms, and then we can't discuss our own craft"

Daglow's career as a game designer stretches back to the early Seventies, and he worked in prominent roles at some of the industry's pioneering companies. He was director of game development for the Intellivision at Mattel in 1980, for example, and joined EA a year after its foundation. However, at a time when the industry's products have never been so diverse, the language used to describe its audience is as restrictive and reductive as at any point in his career.

Specifically, the hard line between "core" and "casual" players was drawn around a decade ago, when the emergence of the Wii, the iPhone and social games presented a challenge to the fundamental assumptions on which the entire world of game development was based. By the era of PlayStation 2 and Xbox, publishers could, "predict what games would sell. You could sell large numbers of games for the first time. You could have series and franchises that would sell year after year. People who were trained in the business [at that time] were being trained in this stable world order.

"We went from peace and security, where we felt we knew what was going to happen, and we transitioned to this period where suddenly we didn't feel that way... We weren't used to seeing games with those characteristics be hits."

The most fundamental of the assumptions undermined by those new platforms - an assumption that, Daglow said, goes back to, "the very roots of game design" - is that all games should be difficult. For those accustomed to making games under that way of thinking, "what makes a game a game - the fact that it is a challenge - was under attack." In fact, Daglow said, the need to satiate a "core" audience with challenging games had been problematic for the industry for more than a decade.

"We would sit at lunch - and this went on for years - and say, 'Here's the problem we have: the magazine reviewers, who had so much influence on gamers, are very expert players, and they want very challenging games. Our own teams are expert players who want to make challenging games. The people in retail want very challenging games. And the first 100,000 people who will buy a game on a console want very challenging games.' So when the people who control your economic success, and your first customers, all want very challenging games, you'd better give them those games.

"But there was a problem. You'd sell your first 100,000 copies to those faithful players, yes, but as the Nineties went on, 100,000 copies was not enough to keep your job... If you made the game challenging enough to please the first 100,000 people, it meant you couldn't get to 1 million." But if you made a game too accessible, it wouldn't get enough support from the (at that time) all-powerful games media to sway the die-hard fans. "It felt like a trap," Daglow said, one that motivated publishers to start experimenting more than ever with partitioning games into difficulty levels.

"We get to the point where we are so preoccupied with the issue of difficulty that we stop talking about everything else"

It also prompted publishers to alter the language they used to describe the audience, switching from "hardcore" to just "core" when the "hard" part was no longer considered a desirable message. "Because core sounds very friendly... Core sounds very reassuring. Core sounds like you're going for the centre." By the time the Wii, Facebook and the iPhone emerged less than a decade later, Daglow said, the ensuing debate around casual games altered the perception of what "core" meant. "The term 'core' began to mean, 'Dammit, you're not going to take away our games.'

"The way we talk about core and casual [now] refers to only one thing: difficulty. We get to the point where we are so preoccupied with the issue of difficulty that we stop talking about everything else. We end up classifying our audience by the difficulty of the games they want to play."

This division, Daglow said, has always been a simplification, regardless of which words are used to describe the opposing sides. The games industry has grown far beyond the size and scope of the Nineties, and yet its products are still frequently grouped under terms that originate from that era - and only applied to a relatively small number of very skilled players even then.

Rather than propose new terms to replace core, mid-core and casual, though, Daglow simply asked the audience to consider new ways of thinking about their audience, and the often personal nature of their experiences. When he meets people that love games he worked on in the past, he said, "Never do they tell you about the graduation of play mechanics between the first and the second hour. I've never had that comment, or anything like it. But they will say where they were in their lives, both geographically and the age they were; who they were playing it with; and why it was so important that they still remember, that they still care. That 'Why?' always matters... We're trying to create not just a thought, but a feeling.

"We have to give that room [to the player]. We have to create that environment, instead of us telling our players why they play. That's the part we have to leave for them... It is not only our objective, but our obligation as artists. Sometimes the words get in the way of doing that very important work."

GamesIndustry.biz is a media partner for the Quo Vadis conference. Our travel and accommodation costs were provided by the organiser.

Related stories

Sonic the Hedgehog film delayed

Paramount Pictures pushes back Sega mascot's live-action film as it overhauls character design

By Brendan Sinclair

No show floor booth for Activision at E3

E3 floor plans reveal another big player has left the LACC show floor; EA returns with private meeting room

By Brendan Sinclair

Latest comments (5)

James Berg Games User Researcher, EA Canada3 years ago
For those interested, a great talk by Nick Yee providing more information in a similar vein:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZwiQd-0xqQ
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Greg Wilcox Creator, Destroy All Fanboys! 3 years ago
'Here's the problem we have: the magazine reviewers, who had so much influence on gamers, are very expert players, and they want very challenging games..."

Well, I actually stink at certain games (faster paced MP-geared FPS stuff, any MOBA, and I have an intense dislike for MMO's that don't consider a future as offline games, meaning they're DEAD once the servers go down), so I slightly disagree with Don's otherwise excellent words. I prefer games where I can stop and look around at what's made and marvel in what works as I find the bits that don't. I'm the guy playing Fallout or an Elder Scrolls game killing every monster on a map just so I can hike around and see what's in that corner of the map.

But yeah, this over-lumping of games into categories is silly and has been for years.
5Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Eyal Teler Programmer 3 years ago
I'm calling bullshit on this kind of talk.

It's very easy to argue that certain semantics are wrong, which is why people do it all the time, but if you don't have a better simplification in mind, then your point is worthless. We all know that certain terms are a simplification, but if that simplification still works for a large enough percentage of the audience, then it's much better than no simplification, since that works for zero percentage of the audience.
9Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Show all comments (5)
Hugo Trepanier Game Designer, Behaviour Interactive3 years ago
It's true these categories have been misused over the years but they can still be useful to some degree. For instance, in my job we typically refer to core experiences as games with more depth and especially complexity, not necessarily more difficult per se, whereas casual ones will generally be more accessible and appeal to a wider (or less specific) audience.

In a way, this can translate to the number of options we'll present to the player, or the number of variables to work with (for instance having a single linear upgrade path versus a more detailed tech tree).

Casual games can still be very demanding in terms of player involvement and we know some of our players become very addicted. Just because it is deemed casual does not make it necessarily light or superficial in content. They can be very engaging. Casual gamers can also be very demanding, so making good casual experiences is likewise not any easier.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Alfonso Sexto Lead Tester, Ubisoft Germany3 years ago
Players, or "P(l)ayers"; the final customers, are often the ones using this term. It may be logical or no, but I would not dare call it "bullshit" when they are the ones using said term to define products (and their purchases). The moment your game is labeled as "casual" or "hardcore" by the audience you already have a clue of which portion of the market your product will be placed into.
I can't call that bullshit, at least on a practical context.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply

Sign in to contribute

Need an account? Register now.