Remember I wrote "ONLY". If you ONLY play tablet or phone games I don't consider you a gamer. This is my personal opinion. If you are a gamer, then you have genuine interest in games. Meaning: You should probably know about the history of games. Knowing that games have generally been played on either a console or on a PC.
Say you started on tablet or phone but you're really into games, then at one time you'll start exploring pc or console games. If not, well then, you're not a gamer!
I didn't write that phone/tablet represent a "weaker" option. I wrote that "Casual gamers" play simpler and less impressive games.. Because that's what casual games are. They should be quick to get into and have simple rules. Tetris is a good example of a casual game. Word-games... Guess the song-games. These kind of games.
The FF6 for tablet/phone is an abomination for the eye to behold. May it get remade in a better fashion one day I hope.
Any real gamer should have a little interest in seeing what the next Doom looks like, what the next Warcraft looks like, what the next Super Mario looks like. All of these games are not available on phones or tablets for the reason that they simply aren't powerful enough and the fact that the they don't have the necessary input devices out of the box which a console or a pc usually has. I'm sure this can change in the future, but I don't see it changing anytime soon.
Then again, I'm an old fart enjoying retro games
I could go long and this may end up going there but in the end I shall start with I disagree with basically all of that and whatever might have been accurate in that, be it in more absolute terms or in terms of general distribution, is rapidly going away.
"They should be quick to get into and have simple rules."
That is the aspiration of many a game, however simple rules does not mean simple strategies and in that lies complexity. For instance the word games would in turn have "spelling and grammar of the language(s) used", a seldom simple subject and definitely more complex (and probably more abstract) than any... war game that also allows you to play a character/squad like a action game that is also a RPG or something.
Would it be accurate to say that to you "tablet or phone games" is more of a genre/gameplay type than simply the device it is used to play it?
Anyway it looks like we have considerably different definitions of the terms involved, coupled with my dislike of terms like real and casual in this regard. Such things seldom make for great places to start a debate.
"either a console or on a PC"
No arcades? That is not what I wanted to bring up there though -- for me the lines and general computer science would probably call that fairly meaningless in the broad discussion here.
"[phones] aren't powerful enough and the fact that the they don't have the necessary input devices out of the box"
Phones are powerful enough to render full 3d (a fairly new development in the history of games), do proper 2d scrolling and other options, slideshow style screen to screen things, display text and work a logic engine behind it all. For my money everything beyond that is just a matter of coding prowess and
Input devices is an interesting one. I would argue that as such things can take real time and precise and/or binary input that everything else is just software.
"Any real gamer should have a little interest in seeing what the next Doom looks like, what the next Warcraft looks like, what the next Super Mario looks like. "
Though such a thing probably will not hurt, and may even be a reasonable strategy if you want to buy things sight unseen, various phrases like "art and not the artist" start creeping into my head -- a good game can come from anywhere.
