Interruptability has so far been considered, as in Juul’s book and mcovingt’s post as an indicator of a whether a given game or gamer is casual or hardcore, but this may not be entirely accurate. While I agree with mcovingt’s distinction between casual vs. hardcore gamers as opposed to games, there’s another aspect of interruptability that comes into play–namely, the level of interest of the player in the game.

Normally, one would assume that if there was a high level of interruptability in the game (less consequences if you stop in the middle), it would probably be more casual, and vice versa. Mcovingt takes this a step further, arguing the depth of investment of the players defines if the play or player is casual or hardcore.

But what if the player simply doesn’t care about a given game at all? Consequences for losing or quitting in the game are always subjectively experienced and valued, and if the player doesn’t value the game experience high enough, the game virtually has infinite interruptability. For example, suppose a player playing League of Legends suddenly decides that he/she no longer values the game experience and quits in the middle of the game with huge in-game consequences to him/herself and the team. The game, through no act of its own, just became the most interruptible game possible, even though it could be considered as falling into the hardcore category due to it’s lack of built-in interruptability and the player considered hardcore due to previously blocking out other distractions. Thus low interruptability is usually an indicator of the players’ level of interest in the game, but interruptability can be infinite at any moment if the values of the player change.