作者:Daniel Steckly

当下最普遍的一个话题是，由于iPhone、Android和Facebook游戏市场的爆炸式发展，硬核游戏（游戏邦注：这里的硬核指的是需要投入大量时间的游戏）衰弱了。这是一个简单的思路：当人们在自己已有的设备上玩到便宜或免费的游戏时，他们就不去会玩大型、花钱的游戏。乍一看，这个说法很有逻辑，除非你再好好想想。

call of duty-angry birds(from tequinox.wordpress.com)

《使命召唤》不会与《愤怒的小鸟》竞争，这很明显。《神秘海域》不会与《Temple Run》竞争；《刺客信条》不会与《水果忍者》竞争；《Prometheus》不会与《Marble Hornets》竞争；《马达加斯加3》不会与《Homestar Runner》竞争；《黑暗骑士崛起》和《The Amazing Spiderman》不会与《Baman Piderman》竞争。现在，你大概烦我只是妄下定论，所以我解释一下自己的论断：

人们玩硬核与休闲游戏完全出于不同的原因。

这一条是对硬核游戏和休闲游戏之争的最根本的回击。虽然都满足了玩家游戏的愿望，但就基本吸引力来说，二者实在没有共同点。硬核游戏吸引的是那些把电子游戏当作主要娱乐形式的人。如果你认为自己是个游戏玩家，那么扪心自问，你看了多少电视？基本上不会太多。游戏才是你度过假日的方式，游戏才是你结束一天工作后的放松方式。

现在我们来比较一下休闲游戏：当硬核游戏占领了专用游戏设备如主机之时，休闲游戏却也可以在原来的非游戏设备（如智能手机）上兴旺发达起来。PC和平板电脑则居于主机和智能手机之间的中间带，但我们先回过头来说说智能手机。

为什么休闲游戏占据了超过99%的手机游戏市场？这是因为人们玩休闲游戏不是为了投入时间，而是为了消磨时间。人们玩休闲游戏是因为“嘿，火车还有15分钟才来，我有iPhone，玩会儿《Temple Run》先”。玩硬核游戏是一种活动，而玩休闲游戏是填补活动之间的空隙。虽然总有例外，但基本上这个说法是对的。

那《Farmville》怎么说？ Zynga的游戏虽然可能很简单，但就我在上文中提出“硬核”定义来说，我们很难将它们称为休闲游戏。不过我承认 Zynga游戏可以当作是硬核和休闲的混合体，问问你自己，你真的认为《Farmville》和《荒野大镖客》的基本吸引力是一个水平上的？它们瞄准的是同一类玩家群体？

硬核和休闲游戏之间几乎没有重叠之处。

这多少是一个误导性论断。更准确的说法是，休闲和硬核游戏玩家之间的重叠是单向的，这就是为什么你没有注意到这一点。大多数人多少会玩一点休闲游戏，而导致休闲游戏市场爆发的最大原因是我们更容易在手机平台上得到休闲游戏。玩硬核游戏的人仍然是一类不同的群体。这就是为什么你在休闲游戏中看不到无偿的粉丝服务：为了成功，休闲游戏必须吸引尽可能多的受众，并且对于手机游戏，所有人都是潜在受众。

今天的休闲游戏市场能发展成这样，要归功于智能手机的普及，将电子游戏的大门向非游戏玩家敞开。现在只玩休闲游戏的人不玩硬核游戏，要么是没有那个念头，要么是没有那个能力。休闲游戏和硬核游戏之间存在竞争的说法的理论基础在于，如果休闲游戏不存在，人们就会玩硬核游戏——但这太可笑了。人们不会在休闲游戏和硬核游戏之间作选择；他们只会在休闲游戏和不玩游戏之间作选择。

休闲游戏和硬核游戏没有共同点。

在游戏行业中，最无聊的争论之一就是“游戏是什么？”虽然无聊程度比不上“什么是有趣？”，但也接近了。我们成功解决的一个争论是“游戏是艺术吗？”我们的回答是响亮但稍微有抵抗的“是！”但休闲游戏不是艺术，从来就不是艺术。如果你打算把休闲游戏做成艺术，那你基本上脱离休闲游戏的要点了。休闲游戏玩家寻找的不是新体验和新感悟，而是消遣。

如果硬核和休闲之间有什么严格的区别的话，那就是：所有硬核游戏都与角色扮演有关。当你玩一款硬核游戏时，无论你是披上玩家角色的外衣，做一些不同于你本人会做的事；还是玩家角色变成为另一个你，硬核游戏都会带给你全新的体验，让你成为游戏世界的一部分。这就是游戏的魔力。

休闲游戏当中没有角色扮演的成分。它们只是一种测试，看看你是否能完成挑战。我举个类比：《质量效应》是我们这一代人的《星球大战》；《愤怒的小鸟》则相当于我们这一代人的纵横填字游戏。

结论

休闲游戏和硬核游戏不会互相竞争。所以，问题是：为什么休闲游戏要受到责难？

最有可能的原因是，休闲游戏是只替罪羊。如果休闲游戏市场影响了AAA游戏的销售额，那就不是制作AAA游戏的人的错。任何错误和失误都可以轻易地扣到万恶的休闲游戏的头上。

另外还因为大量硬核游戏玩家之前已经很鄙视休闲游戏了，他们立场坚定，态度坚决——现在休闲游戏不只是比硬核游戏低级，还威胁到了硬核游戏的生存。

说得再可信一点，（们都是游戏，休闲游戏在上，硬核游戏在下，所以逻辑上说，这是一个零和局面，你基本上有了完美的替罪羊。

所以别再说休闲游戏会消灭AAA游戏这种话了。否则就是忽略本质问题，愚弄自己。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

The Myth of Casual Competition

by Daniel Steckly

For my first post, I’m going to address a hot-button issue that’s as topical and relevant as it is non-existent and absurd. Whoops, I think I just gave away my thesis.

One of the most pervasive ideas today is that hardcore (here defined as a game which represents a significant investment in time) games are doing poorly because of the exploding iPhone, Android, and Facebook game market. It’s a simple idea; people aren’t playing big expensive titles when they can play cheap or free games on devices they already own. It’s a logical idea unless you think about it for even one second.

Call of Duty isn’t competing with Angry Birds. This should be obvious. Uncharted isn’t competing with Temple Run, Assassin’s Creed isn’t competing with Fruit Ninja, Prometheus isn’t competing with Marble Hornets, Madagascar 3 isn’t competing with Homestar Runner, The Dark Knight Rises and The Amazing Spiderman aren’t competing with Baman Piderman. By now you’re probably sick of me just asserting things, so I’ll try to explain why this is the case:

People play hardcore and casual games for completely different reasons.

This is the most fundamental objection to the idea of competition. While they both satisfy a desire for play, they have little else in common in terms of their basic appeal. Hardcore games appeal to someone who wants to use video games as their primary form of entertainment. If you consider yourself a gamer, ask yourself, how much TV do you watch? Most likely not very much. Games are how you spend your downtime; it’s how you unwind when the day is done.

Now let’s compare casual games: where hardcore games dominate dedicated gaming equipment like consoles, casual games flourish on devices that have been co-opted for gaming, like smartphones. PCs and, to a lesser degree tablets form a weird middle ground between these two categories, but let’s go back to smartphones.

The reason why casual games are over 99% of the mobile gaming market is because people don’t play casual games to invest time, but to kill time. People play casual games because, hey, I’ve already got an iPhone and my train isn’t coming for 15 minutes, I’ll play some Temple Run. Hardcore gaming is done as an activity; casual gaming is done between activities. There will always be exceptions, but this generally holds true.

But what about Farmville? Zynga’s games, while they may be simplistic, can hardly be called casual in the sense of the way I’m using the term. While I concede that Zynga games could be considered a hybrid of hardcore and casual, ask yourself if you honestly believe that Farmville and Red Dead Redemption have the same basic appeal, that they both target the same audience. This brings us to the second point:

There is very little overlap between hardcore and casual gamers.

This is a somewhat misleading statement. A more accurate one is that the overlap between casual and hardcore gamers usually goes one way, and that’s the reason why you don’t notice this. Most people play casual games to some degree, their ease of access on mobile platforms is the biggest reason why the market is exploding. People who play hardcore games, meanwhile, are still a distinct demographic. This is why you don’t see gratuitous fanservice in casual games: to be successful, a casual game needs to appeal to the widest possible audience, and for mobile games, the possible audience is nearly everyone.

The casual gaming market as it exists today was created by the preponderance of smartphone access, opening up videos games to non-gamers. The people now exclusively playing casual games either had no desire or ability to play hardcore games. The idea that hardcore and casual games are in competition rests on the idea that if casual games did not exist people would play hardcore games instead. This is patently absurd. People are not choosing casual games instead of hardcore games; they are choosing casual games instead of not playing games at all. This brings us to the third point:

Casual games and hardcore game are barely even the same thing.

One of the most interminable and useless debates in the industry has got to be “What is a game?” It’s not quite as interminable and useless as “What is Fun?” but it’s close. One debate we’ve managed to settle, though, is “Are games art?” which we’ve answered with a resounding and slightly-defensive “Yes!”. Casual games are not art. They will never be art, if you wanted the casual game you’re making to be art you’d be grandly missing the point of casual gaming. Casual gamers aren’t looking for new experiences and ideas, they’re looking for a distraction.

If there is a hard distinction between hardcore and casual, it’s this: all hardcore games involve roleplay. When you play a hardcore game, either you take on the guise of the player character, and in doing so become someone different from who you are; or the player character becomes a projection of you, to transport you into a whole new experience and let you become part of a world not your own. This is the magic of games.

There is no element of roleplay in casual games. They are a test to see if you, Billy Simmons (insert your own name here, unless you’re already Billy Simmons, in which case, you’re welcome), have the skill to complete a challenge. I’ll try to explain with an analogy: Mass Effect is our generation’s Star Wars. Angry Birds is our generation’s newspaper crossword.

Conclusions:

I honestly feel like I just spent six paragraphs saying the same thing, and it’s silly that I even have to say it, but sometimes I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Casual and hardcore games don’t compete. So, the question is: why does casual gaming get blamed?

The most likely reason is that it’s a convenient scapegoat. If the casual market is choking sales of AAA titles, then it’s not the fault of the people who make AAA games when sales drop. Any mistakes and missteps can easily be deflected onto the boogeyman of casual gaming.

And, since lots of hardcore gamers already have animosity towards casual games, they’ll buy it hook, line and sinker, since it reconfirms their already held beliefs, and even justifies them, because now casual games aren’t just inferior to hardcore games, they’re a threat to the very existence of hardcore gaming.

Add to this a surface credibility (they’re all games, and casual games are on the up while hardcore games are on the down, so logically it’s a zero-sum situation), and you have basically the perfect scapegoat.

So stop saying that casual games are killing AAA titles. You’re distracting attention from the real issues, and you’re just making yourself look stupid.(source:gamasutra)