Why do you people complain about casuals?

The problem with "casuals" is the the fact they often want developers to include features without considering the balance of said feature. Rather than the game being enjoyable for everyone, it's only enjoyable for those who play non-competitively.
---
Perfection. Where everyone fails.
If you expect nothing you can be happy for everything.

SterlingFox posted...

I mean the "elitists" on this board do the same thing, only in reverse for themselves. Rather than the game being enjoyable for everyone, they want it to be only enjoyable for those who play competitively.

Experience shows this isn't true. Starcraft, pre-Reach Halo, League of Legends, the majority of fighting games, etc. all show that competitively focused games are still enjoyable for casuals.

Casuals care only about engaging gameplay. Competitive gamers care both about engaging and balanced gameplay. If the gameplay isn't engaging, no one is going to play it just because it is balanced (a prime example is chess, which a significant majority of people do not find engaging, despite its extreme balance). By their very nature, competitive games are still attractive to casual players because the game's gameplay is engaging.

The problem is that casuals most often do not consider balance when asking for additional engaging content. Halo can have all of these unbalanced bells and whistles, as long as they stay out of the core gameplay so that competitive gamers can still enjoy the game. Last I checked, no competitive gamers were complaining that action sack has a bunch of gimmick gametypes. And that is because action sack is not a core playlist.

Both of the "Board factions" (so to speak) are the same, except generally the elitist are more prone to treat people as inferiors and complain a lot.

They treat people as inferior because people refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of their arguments. I won't justify their actions, but you shouldn't expect anything else when you try to vilify them. And both "sides" seem to complain equally as much if you ask me.

For example, I'm a "casual" because I play Halo Reach. I don't have to make a comment on the features being included or what I want in Halo 4, the elitists still harp on me and mock me just for playing Halo Reach.

Half of the "elitists" here play Reach. They harp on you because you suggest that vanilla Reach is better than other Halos, which indicates a lack of understanding of competitive gamers' plight.
---
Perfection. Where everyone fails.
If you expect nothing you can be happy for everything.

PharoahPelican posted...

Still up to the developers. And if casuals outnumber competitive players by that much then yeah, they should listen to them. It's common business sense. If competitive players are the clear majority then it makes sense to cater to them. And I think you'll find a lot more people fall under the elitist's definition of casual than people fall under competitive.

As stated in my previous post, catering to competitive gamers is unlikely to turn away casuals, while catering to casuals is very likely to turn away competitive gamers.

Starcraft 2's multiplayer development revolved around making sure the competitive South Korean market would pick it up over the original Starcraft, yet 2 is still one of the most popular PC games in existence right now.
---
Perfection. Where everyone fails.
If you expect nothing you can be happy for everything.