For instance, if a game is something that anyone can pick up and play for a good hour without spending half that time doing tutorials or requiring previously-acquired gaming skill, regardless of genre, and feel that they have had their money’s worth, then I would call that “casual”.

Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Raving Rabbids, Warioware, hell, even the first Super Mario Game – in my eyes, all casual.

Now, if a game requires skills only a long-term gamer has, has intricate controls, is something that takes more than an hour or so to play through, and offers reasons to replay it either on harder difficulties or by taking different in-game routes, then I call it “hardcore”.

Games that are a mixture of the two, I simply call “games” as they take traits from both styles.

But thats just me. No doubt the next poster would feel different. Although knowing my luck, the next poster will agree, thereby making me look like a liar. A LIAR I SAY!

This is not a description of gamers, but games you understand. Gamers are more usually self (or situationally) defined. I myself who play many games would not consider myself ‘hardcore’ on forums as I tend not to be competitive in the online space. But out with most of my friends that opinion would change.

Thats why I would consider this casual for the ‘hardcore’ (or skilled) gamers. But you are right I didn’t express that well here. My point was more aimed at the fact the game is forgiving, and the control set while not single mouse clicks is familiar to all who have played any game in a 3D environment (even casually).

To address your comment here there for, yes there are many more ‘casual’ (or as I have been saying recently ‘hardcore casual’) games currently on the market. They are the popcorn action movie of gaming, and often fun. And maybe that is how this was billed, but I was thinking there would be more depth to it. As I said, this was probably my mistake.