I've always been somewhat scornful of the idea that chess is a sport. I mean all it involves is sitting in a chair. You need only a minimum amount of dexterity, and you can play chess while instructing someone else to physically move your chess piece with the same results and the chess board is merely a convenient way of manifesting the state of the game; people can - and do - play in their heads.
The idea of e-sports - video games that are billed as 'sports' has baffled me even more, although unlike chess, you can make a point about fast reflexes and mashing buttons at the right time and in the right sequence demanding physical skills.
I'll come back to that.
On the games front, as someone who only eats when people buy games we *love* social gamers. Yes, the tournaments are for the hardcore, but the vast majority of the gaming public is our bread and butter - literally.
My hackles rose immediately. Not because the term 'social gamer' is necessarily derogatory (though often used as such), but because 'social gaming' describes a particular *type* of game, where people collaborate. They're often resource management and -exchange games; very often mobile or browser games, etc etc. And by framing it as 'hardcore vs social' we're coming to the core of my problem with much of 'gaming culture': I'm a gamer, but neither descriptor is appropriate for me.
I do not like social games; and while I play some mobile games they fulfil a different function for me than desktop games; I also play a number of different types of desktop games.
Bioware is one game company that does suggest the easy difficulty setting for those who just want to explore the story, though not in exactly the way you worded it. You might enjoy their games. Twitch games have a twitch culture, but not everyone makes twitch games - because we want to sell to those who enjoy a slower, more thoughtful experience too. I'm sorry you feel unwelcome in the gaming space, but please know that this is not by design of at least a lot of us in the industry. We try to think about the entire potential customer base for each game, and do our best to expand it as much as possible.
This is incredibly good to hear. I've been thinking about what makes games better for me. It's kind of important to me as someone who is designing a game engine: lots of people (I hope) will eventually use my system TO make games, and if there are things I can bake into the application that will make it harder to design non-inclusive games, I'm all for it. Given that there won't be a real-time combat system (I'm still working out what kind of combat system will work for this), it is unlikely that hardcore gamers will flock to it; I'm looking more towards the Twine end of the market.
So here's my personal list of things that make games better (or worse):
( Gameplay and more )
So, yes. For me, a 2h uninterrupted gaming session is a rare thing. On the other side of the scale there's a student learning to play Dota 2
... and here she is again, after 93 hours logged.
( Time Investment )
The idea that you have to be good at something to enjoy it feels pretty toxic overall. (See also ursulav's "permission to make bad art") If no-one gets hurt (which when it comes to physical exercise and pastimes involving animals is not a given), then people making bad art don't diminish great artists, people jogging in the park don't take anything away from marathon runners, and people who sing in the shower don't ruin the whole genre of opera.
Which brings me to the point of this post. Let me start off by saying that I don't think the words 'game' and 'sport' are the best, or even the most useful terms here, but I have no better ones, and I want to get on with the concept.
( Games you play and games you have to beat )
So that's something that I hadn't realised until I started writing this post: maybe the reason that I don't get on with some video games isn't that I'm bad at them, it's that they want a different _type_ of person sitting in front of them than I am. And while you can change the rules for a boardgame easily (and I have done so in almost every instance) and decide to play chess with a handicap or replay a particular situation or solve a puzzle someone else has set, video games - unless the designer provides those settings - tie you into playing as you're told to. Large and open-world games and games that you can finish in a myriad of ways allow you to play (do this quest first, use those kinds of troops); games that have one single solution (first you beat this enemy then you get the key to that door) and games that you need to be on top form to survive in _disallow_ play, and you can't take your ball and go home.
I'm still not happy with 'games vs. sport' - I am still looking for a better term, but it might be useful TO have a term for 'video games you need to beat and that can only be played in one way' vs. 'game that allows you to experiment.'