To me, I feel like it's always been more accurate to say that there are "casual" gamers, it's not so much about whether or not a game is casual. There are titles that are being marketed to try and find this elusive market, of course.

(This often feels like a case where the fanbase has decided this terminology exists/has always existed, and now is struggling to define a word that doesn't necessarily apply - which strikes me as some real bottom-up design. Usually you coin a phrase to define a situation or explain a trend you've noticed. This feels more like we've co-opted a word and are now trying to create circumstances where we can use the word in a meaningful way.)

I feel in some circumstances games have been streamlined (I hate the term "dumbed down.") There's certainly been a financial impetus in lowering the barrier to entry for these games. Overall I don't think that's necessarily a terrible thing really. In my view, the best games are simple to grasp yet difficult to master - like Chess. I can tell you how to play the game in ten minutes, but we're going to spend a lifetime mastering it's intricacies. If anything, the graphics arms race has done more to "simplify" games than anything else, I think. Just due to the sheer amount of resources you have to throw into that to stay competitive in that area - and that also generally means smaller levels, less intricate designs, etc.

Agreed. Games like Torchlight are probably casual to me. Games lacking in story and having generally repetitive (but not necessarily boring) gameplay would be considered casual.

Do i smell skyrim butthurting here The first two definitely feel like it, hah.