The article “Video Games can be Highly Effective Training Tools“, published by Science Daily, incorporates both conversations about casual gaming and games as a representation of reality. Galloway categorizes video games into “fantasy world” games and realistic games. The article published in Science Daily is about realistic games because the purpose of the study is to determine the effectiveness of video games as a training mechanism. Interactive games have been used by Cold Stone Creamery, a Brewing Company, and the Department of Defense as a way to enhance the workers’ performance and ingrain a particular task into the employees’ brains. Nevertheless, the games for each company or agency differed greatly, but there was a common element within each training game. For example, the game for Cold Stone taught its employees the correct amount of ice cream that should be used in each scoop; the Department of Defense used video games to teach soldiers and sailors how to react to disaster scenarios. Each of these games were created with reality in mind because the information one learns within the games were going to be applied to real life scenarios. Also, the Cold Stone and Brewing Company games were meant to be casual games because the level of difficulty is significant in the repetitive play by employees. One of the study’s results found that the game as a training tool is more effective if the game is primarily interactive, rather than instructional. This study demonstrates the realistic application of video games, for it was found that “organizations using video games to train employees end up with smarter, more motivated workers who learn more and forget less”.

While reading the chapter by Juul, I couldn’t help but ask myself, by Juul’s definition, what kind of gamer I actually am.  Although the elements outlined in the chapter (Positive/Negative fiction preference, game knowledge, time investment, and attitude towards difficulty) definitely affect gameplay and the overall experience of the player, I do not believe that one can generalize players into two categories, that of “casual” and “hardcore”.  Personally, as a gamer, I hold no preference for negative/positive fiction, game knowledge, or difficulty.  Although time is certainly an element (some games I can play for a few minutes, while others I won’t play unless I have 20+ minutes) which dictates what kind of game I play, it does not dictate me as a gamer, as I play games of both shorter and lengthier time requirements.

When it comes to games, I believe the game knowledge and level of difficulty are dictated by the time investment factor.  Games that are designed to be used in shorter amounts of time intervals typically do not require vast game knowledge or complex controls to learn, thus the difficulty comes from advancement through levels rather than complexity within the core coding of the game.  Games designed for longer intervals of time typically can expand and require greater game knowledge, and present challenges outside of the basic game motive, thus creating a more complex game with more options and controls.

Within game design, it is important to consider to whom you are marketing a game, but perhaps it is of greater value to know and fully understand what you hope to achieve through the game and the player’s reaction itself (e.g. a tool for relaxation or stress relief, a game to stimulate certain emotions (fear, excitement, happiness, etc.), a puzzle to stimulate thought or to challenge oneself, etc.).  It all comes back to the question, “why do people play video games?”  For some of us, it might be a way to pass time while waiting in line to pick up a package, for others, it might be a way of life; to relieve the stress and have fun at the end of the day (used as a hobby), or to just stop thinking about one or more aspects of one’s life.  For many of us, however, it may a mixture of the two, depending on an individual’s priorities in life.

While reading Juul’s article I couldn’t help but agree with a majority of his ideas about the casual gamer. Most importantly, I believe that his idea about the difficulty of a game is key to the casual gamer’s experience. As I consider myself a casual gamer, the difficulty and time spent playing a game are the fundamental problem I have with many videogames. I dislike spending hours trying to unlock the new level, mission, item, or world and become frustrated and eventually quit playing the game

Expanding on this issue, I believe casual gamers despise the stress and time spent playing the game that “hardcore” games require. The reason for this may be that stress and time use parallel real life feelings that people experience in the workplace and classroom. I personally experience the exact same stress and pressure level while playing a “hardcore” game as I do while writing a paper before a deadline or studying for a big test.

This could certainly be similar for adults in the workplace. The demands they face throughout the day may feel the same as those involved in game play and the reward they receive by being able to go home is similar to that of beating a level in a “hardcore” game. When a game parallels the stress to reward ratio of real life I think casual gamers do not enjoy it. Instead, casual gamers want to achieve a feeling of accomplishment quickly without the long term sense of being weighed down.

I found it interesting that Juul starts by describing games as being casual or hardcore.  I disagree with this, in the matter that it is the players that are either hardcore or casual.  I do agree with some of the examples he gave as being “games for the rest of us,” which are even more common today.  These games include name brands or games from movies, but I don’t think we can categorize them as casual games.  Even if they are played mostly by casual players, it doesn’t mean that hardcore players might invest a lot of time into the game.  Juul then in facts shifts his focus to casual and hardcore players.  He quotes a line from Fils-Amie that I do not agree with, “casual players are not so interested in graphics and they desire quick fun.”  I think that this is a typical stereotype which Juul goes on to later disprove in the chapter.

Juul later goes on to describe interruptability, which  I think is really important in defining the difference between hardcore and casual players.  I have always thought of casual players as ones who can put the game down at any time and do something else.  They are people who enjoy the game, but are not deeply invested in how well they play it, unlike hardcore players.  A good example of a game that is for hardcore players in terms of interruptability is League of Legends.  Normal games can last anywhere from 20 to 90 minutes.  While playing, you have to offer your complete attention, or else your team will suffer.  There is not really a point where you can pause or stop playing to do something like check a text message or other activity.  League of Legends is not a game for casual players solely because of it is unable to be interrupted.  Juul has a graphic that shows that the phone is players’ number one distraction during games.  Hardcore players are the ones who can block out those distractions while gaming, even something simple like a text message.

In the second chapter of his book, A Casual Revolution, Jesper Juul describes five major traits that are prominent in casual games—fiction, usability, interruptibility, difficulty and punishment, and juiciness. He argues that casual games contain positive fiction, are generally easy to use and play, are capable of being interrupted, have lenient punishment for mistakes, and contain very juicy gameplay. I agree with the first four arguments, but his opinion about the fifth point sharply contrasts with mine.

Juul mentions that hardcore games like Gears of War have a large amount of juicy content, including massive gunfights and explosions. As a frequent player of the Gears of War games, I believe that it is necessary to mention that the game includes obscene amounts of evisceration and disembowelment—two things which one could arguably call “juicy.” I agree wholeheartedly that such games are quite juicy.

However, the description of casual games, such as Pacman or Bejeweled, as “juicy” is something with which I disagree. Perhaps this is because my definition of “juiciness” differs from that of Juul. While his definition of “juicy” is “giving excessive amounts of positive feedback to the player in response to user input,” my definition is simply “evoking exorbitant amounts of emotion, including—but not limited to— excitement or pleasure.” Being the huge fan of first-person shooters that I am, I believe that games like Gears of War (which is actually a third-person shooter—minor details can be ignored) and Call of Duty are very juicy. Intense games such as these fit my definition very well, because they stimulate strong feelings of excitement and exhilaration.

On the other hand, casual games like Pacman are not exactly what I would call “juicy.” While Juul may view them as such, I certainly do not. Whenever I play casual games that aren’t particularly exciting or adrenaline-pumping, I don’t receive nearly the same emotional stimulation that I receive from playing a shooter game. In my opinion, Pacman or Bejeweled are both fun, quick games that offer the player a bit of a challenge, but they lack substance. This lack of substance is directly responsible for the failure of these games to be classified under my definition of “juicy.”

I’m not denying that casual games are fun; on the contrary, I frequently play sports games on the Wii very competitively. The problem is that the simplicity of such games is simply incapable of arousing the same feelings of fervor that more intense games are capable of delivering.