Forum › In the Closet discussion

Purple Library Guy
Kare%20kano%20joker
joined Mar 3, 2013

Wow. Ch. 9 was, like, half the yuri manga ever in synopsis form.

540089
joined Feb 3, 2016

Wow. Ch. 9 was, like, half the yuri manga ever in synopsis form.

It was still pretty good, though a lot of cliches' thrown in, I'll give it that.

%20%c3%93%c3%83%c2%a4
joined Feb 24, 2016

I'm not into tomboy but... I can deal withit, somehow is cute, the ch9 in special

Kachinsky
joined Oct 12, 2016

Casual Games (Witcher 3, Bloodborne, Fallout 4)

How the fuck are any of those "casual games"? Casual games are game like Wii Sports. Those a story driven RPGs.

I've seriously never heard even the most dedicated gatekeepers describe any of those as "casual games", even when they're defining "casual" as "stuff women like" or else trying to brag about them being so good that those games are nothing.

That's cuz I don't define casual that way. First "stuff women like" is super sexist. Casual has nothing to do with difficulty either because casual games can be really hard. Nintendo is a great example. When I say casual I mean games that are played casually (lol duh!) which is too play only for the sake of play. No bigger goal.

Sure games like CSGO have a casual mode but that is not what the core of the game is. At its core, it is a competitive game that people play with the aim to improve. It's a sport.

At the same time though, casual games can potentially be less casual. The most prominent example is speedrunning. Super Mario and Legend of Zelda is a casual game because the focus is on casual play. That does not stop people from building some other non casual scene around it.

Also I want to apologize for making the mistake of only putting in RPGs because a lot of the recent big titles were RPGs. I would include stuff like Metal Gear, Total War, Half Life, Portal, and Civilization too.

last edited at Nov 13, 2016 11:41PM

Nezchan Moderator
Meiling%20bun%20150px
joined Jun 28, 2012

This seems to be a definition of "casual" limited to only one person, so not such a surprise that people don't get what you mean.

Commandershepard13
1071350_639308102760295_1399509523_o
joined Mar 24, 2014

Casual Games (Witcher 3, Bloodborne, Fallout 4)

How the fuck are any of those "casual games"? Casual games are game like Wii Sports. Those a story driven RPGs.

I've seriously never heard even the most dedicated gatekeepers describe any of those as "casual games", even when they're defining "casual" as "stuff women like" or else trying to brag about them being so good that those games are nothing.

That's cuz I don't define casual that way. First "stuff women like" is super sexist. Casual has nothing to do with difficulty either because casual games can be really hard. Nintendo is a great example. When I say casual I mean games that are played casually (lol duh!) which is too play only for the sake of play. No bigger goal.

Sure games like CSGO have a casual mode but that is not what the core of the game is. At its core, it is a competitive game that people play with the aim to improve. It's a sport.

At the same time though, casual games can potentially be less casual. The most prominent example is speedrunning. Super Mario and Legend of Zelda is a casual game because the focus is on casual play. That does not stop people from building some other non casual scene around it.

Also I want to apologize for making the mistake of only putting in RPGs because a lot of the recent big titles were RPGs. I would include stuff like Metal Gear, Total War, Half Life, Portal, and Civilization too.

If that's your definition of "casual", then every game is "casual" and thus the term loses all meaning. I understand that everyone seems to have a differing definition of what the term "casual gaming" actually means but defining it as "games you play for the sake of playing" is far too broad and too subjective.
The exact definition of the term may be fought over but it is generally agreed upon that to define a game as "casual", it requires a certain level of "pick up and play-ness", that is, the games require no long term commitment, for any reason,to be enjoyable. As such, none of the three games you initially listed (as well as Metal Gear) qualify, because all four require some form of commitment in order get anything out of them. You need to play games like Fallout and The Witcher for hours to get anything really good out them both story and gameplay wise and games such as Metal Gear have veritable Kudzu plots that require paying attention to every cutscene and dialogue piece and finding all the hidden collectibles for them to make any sense. As such, you cannot just "pick up and play" them as you must immerse yourself in them and really experience them or else you're missing out.
By comparison, games like Civilization, Call of Duty and Overwatch can played on and off without having to worry about breaking immersion, as they lack any strong story elements or world building and as such can be just be "picked up and played".
As such, we can define "casual" games as being games that that do not require any real commitment of time or emotion, while "hardcore" games are defined as such because they require a commitment of both.
Ultimately, both groups are enjoyable, just in different ways to different people or possibly in different ways to the same people, as few gamers ever truly limit themselves to one category or the other, even if many of them do favor one category or the other
Ergo, your definition of "casual games" as "games played solely for the purpose of fun" is inaccurate; ALL games are played largely for purpose fun, its just what kind of fun you're looking for. Do you want something you can play whenever you have free time and which require little emotional commitment or do you want a game that is going to consume your entire week and make you cry by the end of it?

Kachinsky
joined Oct 12, 2016

If that's your definition of "casual", then every game is "casual" and thus the term loses all meaning. I understand that everyone seems to have a differing definition of what the term "casual gaming" actually means but defining it as "games you play for the sake of playing" is far too broad and too subjective.
The exact definition of the term may be fought over but it is generally agreed upon that to define a game as "casual", it requires a certain level of "pick up and play-ness", that is, the games require no long term commitment, for any reason,to be enjoyable. As such, none of the three games you initially listed (as well as Metal Gear) qualify, because all four require some form of commitment in order get anything out of them. You need to play games like Fallout and The Witcher for hours to get anything really good out them both story and gameplay wise and games such as Metal Gear have veritable Kudzu plots that require paying attention to every cutscene and dialogue piece and finding all the hidden collectibles for them to make any sense. As such, you cannot just "pick up and play" them as you must immerse yourself in them and really experience them or else you're missing out.
By comparison, games like Civilization, Call of Duty and Overwatch can played on and off without having to worry about breaking immersion, as they lack any strong story elements or world building and as such can be just be "picked up and played".

Ergo, your definition of "casual games" as "games played solely for the purpose of fun" is inaccurate; ALL games are played largely for purpose fun, its just what kind of fun you're looking for. Do you want something you can play whenever you have free time and which require little emotional commitment or do you want a game that is going to consume your entire week and make you cry by the end of it?

Overwatch and Call of Duty are not casual. They can be played casually, but they're competitive.

It is not true that every game would be casual. NEARLY every game would be casual by my definition. The whole point of the definition is that it encompasses just about every game except as I said, games like Starcraft and CSGO which is known to be a competitive game. Competitive and Casual.

Time commitment. Difficulty. Emotional investment. Who cares?

But when a game is competitive, it's no longer just about fun.

last edited at Nov 27, 2016 3:41AM

Nezchan Moderator
Meiling%20bun%20150px
joined Jun 28, 2012

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

When you use your own unique definitions of words, when those words are already in common use with a different definition, don't expect people to either know what you're talking about.

Johanliebert
joined Dec 15, 2015

Since we're getting off-topic, I direct you here, which is the best place to discuss about video games.
Don't forget that you still can post here whenever you feel like debating on any off-topic related stuff.

Commandershepard13
1071350_639308102760295_1399509523_o
joined Mar 24, 2014

If that's your definition of "casual", then every game is "casual" and thus the term loses all meaning. I understand that everyone seems to have a differing definition of what the term "casual gaming" actually means but defining it as "games you play for the sake of playing" is far too broad and too subjective.
The exact definition of the term may be fought over but it is generally agreed upon that to define a game as "casual", it requires a certain level of "pick up and play-ness", that is, the games require no long term commitment, for any reason,to be enjoyable. As such, none of the three games you initially listed (as well as Metal Gear) qualify, because all four require some form of commitment in order get anything out of them. You need to play games like Fallout and The Witcher for hours to get anything really good out them both story and gameplay wise and games such as Metal Gear have veritable Kudzu plots that require paying attention to every cutscene and dialogue piece and finding all the hidden collectibles for them to make any sense. As such, you cannot just "pick up and play" them as you must immerse yourself in them and really experience them or else you're missing out.
By comparison, games like Civilization, Call of Duty and Overwatch can played on and off without having to worry about breaking immersion, as they lack any strong story elements or world building and as such can be just be "picked up and played".

Ergo, your definition of "casual games" as "games played solely for the purpose of fun" is inaccurate; ALL games are played largely for purpose fun, its just what kind of fun you're looking for. Do you want something you can play whenever you have free time and which require little emotional commitment or do you want a game that is going to consume your entire week and make you cry by the end of it?

Overwatch and Call of Duty are not casual. They can be played casually, but they're competitive.

It is not true that every game would be casual. NEARLY every game would be casual by my definition. The whole point of the definition is that it encompasses just about every game except as I said, games like Starcraft and CSGO which is known to be a competitive game. Competitive and Casual.

Time commitment. Difficulty. Emotional investment. Who cares?

But when a game is competitive, it's no longer just about fun.

As we are getting off topic, I feel I should not continue this argument, however I feel the need to do so as you are grammatically incorrect. You are using these words, casual and competitive, as they are exclusively defined by you.

"Casual" means "careless" or "employed irregularly", as in it is without commitment. Therefore, you should care about time, difficulty and emotional investment when defining games as "casual" or not, as casual implies a lack of these attributes.

Furthermore, you are over simplify the gaming community by dividing it into two categories of game, this so-called "casual" definition you have created based on your misuse of that particular word and "competitive", a kind of game that doesn't even EXIST. Games are not inherently "competitive" by design. Some games may be played competitively but there is no such thing as a "competitive game" in sense of which you define, i.e. a game played for the purpose of beating other players at that game and winning awards rather than for fun. There is no game on the market designed exclusively for that kind of high level competitive play. All games played in competition (Starcraft, CoD, Street Fighter, Halo, Overwatch, et cetera) have significantly larger fan bases of gamers who have no interest in playing these games for any reason other than amusement ("fun") and burning time, thus these are casual games; they may be played competitively, but they are ultimately casual games as they are primarily played in a careless or irregular fashion, thus meeting the definition of casual. Even CS:GO, possibly the closest any game comes to a dedicated competitive game, has a significant casual player base. Competitive games do not exist, only competitive players.

Nezchan Moderator
Meiling%20bun%20150px
joined Jun 28, 2012

Nez Note

We're pretty much going in circles at this point, I'd say. Commandershepard13 and captainfail and that Nezchan loser as well, time to pack up our bags on the topic and move on.

Further, as a bit of advice, when you type "I feel I should not continue this argument..." that's usually a sign that you shouldn't. Trust your first instinct.

Anyway, back to the lesbians.

540089
joined Feb 3, 2016

anyone else check out the Mulan mug in chapter 9?

Just me?

Mk...

To reply you must either login or sign up.