"Hardcore" gamers are hipsters.

[tlozoot]

Personally, I'm immediately suspicious of anyone who calls themselves a 'hardcore gamer', and I myself don't really like describing myself as a 'gamer'. Not because of that out-dated 'gamer' stereotype that's been floating around for decades (y'know...sad...fat...lives with parents) but because I think it's marginalising and damaging.

I'd call myself a person who enjoys videogames alongside music and literature. 'Gamer' seems too exclusive a label, and I want anything but for videogames to be considered marginalised, other and exclusive.

I love videogames, and like many of you grew up with a controller of some kind in my hands. I spend more time with them than any other media, try my best to experience all kinds of games, keep up on industry news, and turn my pen to writing reviews and short essays on them when I have the time. However, the term 'hardcore gamer' to me is the picture of a backwards looking individual who is scared of gaming going too mainstream. Yeah, I understand that people can get worried that as gaming becomes a bigger market companies will cater more to this demographic than to us, but I personally believe this to be false.

'Casual gamers' - as many people pronounce with a mouthful of bile - are an inevitable result of the industry taking its place along side the already socially accepted mediums of literature and film. This doesn't mean all games in the future are going to be Farmville or Nintendogs, it just means that as the industry grows to attract more people, we'll see games made for customers of all tastes.

 

[Twilight_guy]

To quote inception "we need to go deeper"
Your comparison is not enough yet. If you extend it to reveal the entire parallel structure of video gamer and art canon then you'll note that the same factors that are used to judge art (critics, magazines, etc.) actually exist in games. There is a canon of good and non-good items in both as well as experts and art snobs. There are even different "classes" in both. Rich people like certain art while poor people like other art. The rich tend to like obscure art. The same with games. replace "rich" with "hardcore" and you have an equal comparison. Hardcore like obscure or little known games while "poor" or casual like well known games. I'd like to go into more detail but I'm still figuring it all out myself.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

To be honest I'm a little tired of the term "hardcore gamer", as prescribed as that definition anyways. And here's why.

I think that since gaming has become more popular that term isn't really necessary anymore. Sure, there are hardcore fans of certain games or genres, but as a whole? Not so much. Personally I think it's ridiculous when my fellow gamers decide what is hardcore and what isn't, but I'm not saying I don't do that, I still roll my eyes when I hear someone playing whatever-ville. Per that definition.

I think a hardcore gamer is someone that's been gaming for years and will do multiple replays just to see if they can do a run through without taking damage or some other set of rules that they placed on themselves. A hardcore gamer is someone that wants a challenge and will try their damnedest to beat that challenge. Playing Dead Space 2 on the hardest difficulty comes to mind, fucking ridiculous, but I digress. They are nothing like Hipsters, you did say it was an unfair comparison but that comparison is there, they are the people that will tell their fellow gamers to try a certain game, and they want their game to do well.

That's a hardcore gamer, in my opinion anyways.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

How on earth do you define a hardcore gamer? Someone who spends alot of time playing? What if they are crap? are they still hardcore? and then if they are playing one game non stop do they really have any right to control the industry since they dont look at any variety of games. It's such a strange idea.

Also what's a hardcore game? :s Something that's hard to play or what? That's totally relative aswell.

How does skill factor in this? You don't need to be good at something to be hardcore about it. Most film buffs aren't professional directors or actors, in fact they outright suck at being good at what they enjoy. You're sorta being ridiculous here.



Also, you're imagining someone said that just one person controls the industry, that's wrong. That person only affects his specific niche, not the whole of gaming.


Lastly, I gave a couple of examples of a hardcore game, Starcraft was the perfect example. If you want more, games like Blazblue or Guilty gear. If you're not into fighting games or strategy, something like Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne should do.

What makes those games more hardcore exactly more than other games? Isn't it kind of egotistical to impose some sort of magical podium for the games that you personally think make you better than another gamer for enjoying them? And I don't think skill is a strange thing to refer to, a 'hardcore' wow player is usually someone who is in a top raiding guild. For me a hardcore gamer would be someone who plays computer games regularly and with skill and can tell you alot of the gaming industry. I don't think it has anything to do with niche.

Well, I personally have never touched Sarcraft (which was my main example) so your theory falls flat right away.



Skill is something some people simply have or don't, you can be skilled at something without being hardcore about it thus to have skill be a criteria of hardcore-ness is simply a bad idea.


Skill is about talent, about the ability to learn and about the ability to execute. Being hardcore about games is about how much of yourself you devote into them, how much they affect, define and enrich you. "Deep and meaningful involvement" would be the term and to achieve that one needs to spend healthy chunks of time in getting immersed.


When was the last time you heard anyone getting immersed in their i-phone games that they play for 15 minutes a time while on public transportation? I've never heard of such a tale.


You simply can't equate a gaming experience like that with one the likes of, I don't know, having played final fantasy 9 for 7 consecutive hours. I did that today, haven't touched the game in over 10 years, the experience was a blissful mix of nostalgia and reacquainting oneself with an old love. It was deep and meaningful and I'm still thinking about it while chomping on my risotto .


So, again, like I said in my initial post in this thread, no matter what the game, you can be both hardcore and casual about it, there's nothing wrong with casual games, only casual gamers are the problem.

 

[Jessta]

The difference is that when a game attempts to appeal to everyone it begins to become a bit watered down. levels become easier, tutorials become needy, they start to explain stuff over and over... Think of if rock and roll band/rap band decided to try to appeal to the larger audience so they start to slow down their songs so that more people can understand what they are saying.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The difference is that when a game attempts to appeal to everyone it begins to become a bit watered down. levels become easier, tutorials become needy, they start to explain stuff over and over... Think of if rock and roll band/rap band decided to try to appeal to the larger audience so they start to slow down their songs so that more people can understand what they are saying.

Well, you just about covered the most mainstream game out there lol. It's a game about pretending to be a rockstar, an actual dream actual people have and one that you don't need to be into games at all and can still comprehend. Those games obviously have more to gain from ultra simplistic stuff but as long as those things don't come at the expense of the more challenging and compelling elements then they hurt nobody.


Though to be honest, this to me is not the kind of game that can inspire or immerse you, it's partially a sport when you go into expert mode but it's depth stems from pure execution, it's less a game and more a quick time event...without an actual game around it to help it make sense.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

How on earth do you define a hardcore gamer? Someone who spends alot of time playing? What if they are crap? are they still hardcore? and then if they are playing one game non stop do they really have any right to control the industry since they dont look at any variety of games. It's such a strange idea.

Also what's a hardcore game? :s Something that's hard to play or what? That's totally relative aswell.

How does skill factor in this? You don't need to be good at something to be hardcore about it. Most film buffs aren't professional directors or actors, in fact they outright suck at being good at what they enjoy. You're sorta being ridiculous here.



Also, you're imagining someone said that just one person controls the industry, that's wrong. That person only affects his specific niche, not the whole of gaming.


Lastly, I gave a couple of examples of a hardcore game, Starcraft was the perfect example. If you want more, games like Blazblue or Guilty gear. If you're not into fighting games or strategy, something like Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne should do.

What makes those games more hardcore exactly more than other games? Isn't it kind of egotistical to impose some sort of magical podium for the games that you personally think make you better than another gamer for enjoying them? And I don't think skill is a strange thing to refer to, a 'hardcore' wow player is usually someone who is in a top raiding guild. For me a hardcore gamer would be someone who plays computer games regularly and with skill and can tell you alot of the gaming industry. I don't think it has anything to do with niche.

Well, I personally have never touched Sarcraft (which was my main example) so your theory falls flat right away.



Skill is something some people simply have or don't, you can be skilled at something without being hardcore about it thus to have skill be a criteria of hardcore-ness is simply a bad idea.


Skill is about talent, about the ability to learn and about the ability to execute. Being hardcore about games is about how much of yourself you devote into them, how much they affect, define and enrich you. "Deep and meaningful involvement" would be the term and to achieve that one needs to spend healthy chunks of time in getting immersed.


When was the last time you heard anyone getting immersed in their i-phone games that they play for 15 minutes a time while on public transportation? I've never heard of such a tale.


You simply can't equate a gaming experience like that with one the likes of, I don't know, having played final fantasy 9 for 7 consecutive hours. I did that today, haven't touched the game in over 10 years, the experience was a blissful mix of nostalgia and reacquainting oneself with an old love. It was deep and meaningful and I'm still thinking about it while chomping on my risotto .


So, again, like I said in my initial post in this thread, no matter what the game, you can be both hardcore and casual about it, there's nothing wrong with casual games, only casual gamers are the problem.

Well I didn't mean you personally I meant hardcore gamers in general. I just don't see how someone can consider themselves better than someone else because of what they find fun. It's ridiculous. I pretty much am a hardcore gamer but I don't look down on my big sister just becuase she likes to play bejeweled, mostly becuase I know she could kick my arse at any game if she wanted. She has two kids and she doesn't have time to be 'hardcore' I guess in your opinion that makes her a 'problem'.

 

[Funkysandwich]

Isn't there something hipster about the very act of pointing at someone and calling them a hipster?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

How on earth do you define a hardcore gamer? Someone who spends alot of time playing? What if they are crap? are they still hardcore? and then if they are playing one game non stop do they really have any right to control the industry since they dont look at any variety of games. It's such a strange idea.

Also what's a hardcore game? :s Something that's hard to play or what? That's totally relative aswell.

How does skill factor in this? You don't need to be good at something to be hardcore about it. Most film buffs aren't professional directors or actors, in fact they outright suck at being good at what they enjoy. You're sorta being ridiculous here.



Also, you're imagining someone said that just one person controls the industry, that's wrong. That person only affects his specific niche, not the whole of gaming.


Lastly, I gave a couple of examples of a hardcore game, Starcraft was the perfect example. If you want more, games like Blazblue or Guilty gear. If you're not into fighting games or strategy, something like Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne should do.

What makes those games more hardcore exactly more than other games? Isn't it kind of egotistical to impose some sort of magical podium for the games that you personally think make you better than another gamer for enjoying them? And I don't think skill is a strange thing to refer to, a 'hardcore' wow player is usually someone who is in a top raiding guild. For me a hardcore gamer would be someone who plays computer games regularly and with skill and can tell you alot of the gaming industry. I don't think it has anything to do with niche.

Well, I personally have never touched Sarcraft (which was my main example) so your theory falls flat right away.



Skill is something some people simply have or don't, you can be skilled at something without being hardcore about it thus to have skill be a criteria of hardcore-ness is simply a bad idea.


Skill is about talent, about the ability to learn and about the ability to execute. Being hardcore about games is about how much of yourself you devote into them, how much they affect, define and enrich you. "Deep and meaningful involvement" would be the term and to achieve that one needs to spend healthy chunks of time in getting immersed.


When was the last time you heard anyone getting immersed in their i-phone games that they play for 15 minutes a time while on public transportation? I've never heard of such a tale.


You simply can't equate a gaming experience like that with one the likes of, I don't know, having played final fantasy 9 for 7 consecutive hours. I did that today, haven't touched the game in over 10 years, the experience was a blissful mix of nostalgia and reacquainting oneself with an old love. It was deep and meaningful and I'm still thinking about it while chomping on my risotto .


So, again, like I said in my initial post in this thread, no matter what the game, you can be both hardcore and casual about it, there's nothing wrong with casual games, only casual gamers are the problem.

Well I didn't mean you personally I meant hardcore gamers in general. I just don't see how someone can consider themselves better than someone else because of what they find fun. It's ridiculous. I pretty much am a hardcore gamer but I don't look down on my big sister just becuase she likes to play bejeweled, mostly becuase I know she could kick my arse at any game if she wanted. She has two kids and she doesn't have time to be 'hardcore' I guess in your opinion that makes her a 'problem'.

If she just sticks to things like that game and doesn't try actually deep games and then proceed to badmouth them for not fitting into her life she's not a problem herself. Though she is part of a collective problem in a way, since it would be better for gaming as a whole if things like bejeweled weren't profitable, since their being profitable causes other games like them to be made instead of better, deeper and more meaningful ones.


The problem is that as games slowly start to be recognized as a mainstream way of having fun, they also begin to change in pursuit of the quick buck, which is a process that diminishes what actually made them stand out initially in favor of mass appeal and maximum paletabillity.


One could argue this is a necessary evil and that it couldn't happen any other way, even if that it so we still need to be against it, it is the only way to ensure once this wave has passed that we have maintained a semblance of the identity and core of what made games good.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

If she just sticks to things like that game and doesn't try actually deep games and then proceed to badmouth them for not fitting into her life she's not a problem herself. Though she is part of a collective problem in a way, since it would be better for gaming as a whole if things like bejeweled weren't profitable, since their being profitable causes other games like them to be made instead of better, deeper and more meaningful ones.


The problem is that as games slowly start to be recognized as a mainstream way of having fun, they also begin to change in pursuit of the quick buck, which is a process that diminishes what actually made them stand out initially in favor of mass appeal and maximum paletabillity.


One could argue this is a necessary evil and that it couldn't happen any other way, even if that it so we still need to be against it, it is the only way to ensure once this wave has passed that we have maintained a semblance of the identity and core of what made games good.

It's not that she doesn't want too, she loves computer games. She doesn't have time to play a game for 9 hours but she still likes to play games because she finds it fun. Why should she be any less entitled to being able to play a game than someone that has loads of free time? If you take things like bejeweled out of the market she won't have anything to play at all. How is that fair.

I love rpg's as you can see by my avatar but I just don't see how developing games like bejeweled affects that at all. There is plenty of room in the industry for indie triple AAA games and imports. Penny Arcade have even said that small games like that are good for the industry becuase they help to generate genres and get us out of the staleness. Dwarf Fortress is one of the most in depth games I've played and that's a free ASCII game.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

If she just sticks to things like that game and doesn't try actually deep games and then proceed to badmouth them for not fitting into her life she's not a problem herself. Though she is part of a collective problem in a way, since it would be better for gaming as a whole if things like bejeweled weren't profitable, since their being profitable causes other games like them to be made instead of better, deeper and more meaningful ones.


The problem is that as games slowly start to be recognized as a mainstream way of having fun, they also begin to change in pursuit of the quick buck, which is a process that diminishes what actually made them stand out initially in favor of mass appeal and maximum paletabillity.


One could argue this is a necessary evil and that it couldn't happen any other way, even if that it so we still need to be against it, it is the only way to ensure once this wave has passed that we have maintained a semblance of the identity and core of what made games good.

It's not that she doesn't want too, she loves computer games. She doesn't have time to play a game for 9 hours but she still likes to play games because she finds it fun. Why should she be any less entitled to being able to play a game than someone that has loads of free time? If you take things like bejeweled out of the market she won't have anything to play at all. How is that fair.

I love rpg's as you can see by my avatar but I just don't see how developing games like bejeweled affects that at all. There is plenty of room in the industry for indie triple AAA games and imports. Penny Arcade have even said that small games like that are good for the industry becuase they help to generate genres and get us out of the staleness. Dwarf Fortress is one of the most in depth games I've played and that's a free ASCII game.

We can't do everything in life. That's not my decision, that's just reality. In choosing to do one thing we choose to also not to every other thing we could be doing at that particular instant. If your life doesn't provide enough time for you to properly enjoy something, then no matter how much you proclaim you may like it, it's still not enough if it hasn't forced you to rearrange your life to suit it. That's just the way things are.

Some people have husbands, kids, homes and pets in their lives, some people solve million dollar equations in solitude. It's all about choices made based on how much things mean to you. It's always about sacrifice, when one makes such a sacrifice it is unfair of them to expect the sacrificed thing to morph itself into a convenient new package just for them. Just think of the crazy old lady with the cats who uses them as a way to pretend she's something she is not instead of just accepting her being all alone and making something out of it, this is pretty much the same type of situation, only with less cat urine .




Oddly enough, my first point ties in to this second question too. There's finite resources in this world, there's only so many games that will be made. For every game like bejeweled that's made there's one potential RPG down the drain. For every rpg down the drain there's one potential best game ever made down the drain. This matters.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

There's finite resources in this world, there's only so many games that will be made. For every game like bejeweled that's made there's one potential RPG down the drain. For every rpg down the drain there's one potential best game ever made down the drain. This matters.

Sorry but I don't think that's true at all. Developers like Zynga have no intention of making big rpg's like Bioware or Square it's just a different type of company. My friend asked me once if I felt stupid for playing The Sims 3 and I said no becuase some of the money it generates probably goes into Mass Effect and Dead Space and to Maxis who have made Darkspore an awesome diablo type game. That can't be a bad thing

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

There's finite resources in this world, there's only so many games that will be made. For every game like bejeweled that's made there's one potential RPG down the drain. For every rpg down the drain there's one potential best game ever made down the drain. This matters.

Sorry but I don't think that's true at all. Developers like Zynga have no intention of making big rpg's like Bioware or Square it's just a different type of company. My friend asked me once if I felt stupid for playing The Sims 3 and I said no becuase some of the money it generates probably goes into Mass Effect and Dead Space and to Maxis who have made Darkspore an awesome diablo type game. That can't be a bad thing

You don't know what intentions they had, if rpgs weren't as complex and demanding to make they'd probably would have made them. Zynga just tapped a whole other source of gaming which as it's own thing is fine but the effects of it spilling over is what's troubling.


As for the sims...eh...if you like the game say you like it, no need to justify yourself. I myself never tried it, I'm not much of a fan of non-combat-related micromanagement.

 

[Ace of Spades]

I consider myself a hardcore gamer because I define 'casual gamer' as someone who enjoys playing things like Bejeweled and other less complicated games, the kind that I play on my iPod Touch, whereas hardcore games are longer, more complicated, and generally have some sort of narrative structure to work as a framing device for the gameplay. What bothers me is when people define hardcore as meaning ludicrously complicated and unintuitive, which is generally my problem with all the people who hated Dragon Age II for moving away from the classic PC model, because the more vocal and less reasonable PC gamers tend to cry foul whenever an RPG isn't catered specifically to their demographic. I would argue that 'accessible' and 'casual' are not the same thing.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I consider myself a hardcore gamer because I define 'casual gamer' as someone who enjoys playing things like Bejeweled and other less complicated games, the kind that I play on my iPod Touch, whereas hardcore games are longer, more complicated, and generally have some sort of narrative structure to work as a framing device for the gameplay. What bothers me is when people define hardcore as meaning ludicrously complicated and unintuitive, which is generally my problem with all the people who hated Dragon Age II for moving away from the classic PC model, because the more vocal and less reasonable PC gamers tend to cry foul whenever an RPG isn't catered specifically to their demographic. I would argue that 'accessible' and 'casual' are not the same thing.

Origins was damn simple though, you could play the game almost like an action game, it was already too accessible, that's why people complain about DA2. (this is coming from a strictly console-rpg player btw, no pc elitists here)

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Hah, that's cute. It's funny how #23 has the least unique characteristics about him.


It really is either weird or boring with us humans, isn't it?