Dr. Media

Earlier this week, Nintendo Europe's senior marketing director, Laurent Fischer,
weighed in:
"For me, you are a gamer or non-gamer," he said. "I think most of you
know that you can spend ten or twenty hours on an Internet flash
game... The guy who plays these games regularly - he's a core gamer."
And then the next
day, Electronic Arts Mobile's European Marketing Director, Tim
Harrison,
followed suit:
"I think the big difference in terminology here is that when people say
'casual games' they assume a certain type of game, or a certain kind of
person," he told GamesIndustry.biz. "The reality is that it's a
lot
more complex than that - there are certain types of people in certain
types of need states, and a gamer in one environment will have a very
different set of criteria to a gamer in another environment."

There's definitely some truth in what both execs say. A lot of
marketers make assumptions about casual gamers based on the data that's
available. While casual gamers are, on average, older and female, that
certainly doesn't mean that
they're all older and female -- and it absolutely doesn't mean all
casual games should be designed for that audience.

But despite the odd bad assumption, there's still a use for the "casual" game distinction that shouldn't be lost.

One part of the definition that Fischer and Harrison both attack is the
idea that casual games should be quick and easy, and this is where I
personally take issue. The key trait of a casual game is that it's
simple to learn its primary
mechanics -- that while it may be possible to play for hours upon
hours, such intense play is not required to make progress. These
qualities are what attract a broad audience, and what convert nongamers
into gamers -- the essence of casual
gaming.

But that's just my take. Leave a comment and tell us what you think
makes a casual game casual, or if you think the whole classification is
just bunk.