'Hardcore' games, 'Hardcore' consoles, and a think about the hardcore gamer

[Taerdin]

-snip-

I can see where you are coming from, I do (predictably) disagree, but I can see where you are coming from.

You disagree with me that games have different levels of accessibility?

I guess theres no point in posting in here anymore then... :S

Hardcore can literally mean uncompromising. A game that doesn't compromise itself to make itself more accessible to nongamers is hardcore... just as a game that is accessible is casual... it makes complete sense to me and I don't see how it doesnt to you, in fact I'm more than a little confused.

 

[m_jim]

*snip*
There is no 'hardcore console' or 'casual console', there are just consoles, just like there are no 'hardcore games' there are just games, and you can only be hardcore at games in particular. The PS3 is in no way shape or form more 'hardcore' a console than the 360 or the Wii, and vice versa, as well as the Wii not being any more of a 'casual' console, and it annoys me when any consoles are labelled as such.

This seems very similar to what you are I were talking about earlier. You made some good points, and I agree that most games are not inherently "hardcore," rather it is the level at which you play the game which can make it hardcore (with the notable exceptions of Geometry Wars and Ninja Gaiden, which are as hard as Chinese algebra no matter what). The Peggle world champ would absolutely be hardcore because she beat the best players in the world, even though Peggle's audience is likely a non-competitive bunch.

Predictably, though, I'm going to disagree with you on whether or not a console can be "hardcore." I would consider a console hardcore if the experience that its games provide tend to cater to the crowd that you mentioned, the folks that beat all challengers at Call of Duty. The majority of PS3/Xbox 360 titles have online multiplayer modes along with ranking/matchmaking systems. As you climb the ladder, you face off against increasingly skilled players from around the world. Most Wii titles on the other hand lack the ranking system, which means that after 100 hours of online play, you could still be playing a 6 year old who is online for the first time. Many of the party games in the Wii's library introduce a chance aspect that negates skill and puts hardcore players (ones who might play games competitively) on an even footing with people who just wave the remote around. Because of this, I believe that the Wii caters less to the hardcore crowd, despite the fact that there are some potentially hardcore games on the console (SSB, Mario Galaxy, etc.).

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

-snip-

I can see where you are coming from, I do (predictably) disagree, but I can see where you are coming from.

You disagree with me that games have different levels of accessibility?

I guess theres no point in posting in here anymore then... :S

Hardcore can literally mean uncompromising. A game that doesn't compromise itself to make itself more accessible to nongamers is hardcore... just as a game that is accessible is casual... it makes complete sense to me and I don't see how it doesnt to you, in fact I'm more than a little confused.

So, if a game that doesn't compromise itself to make itself more accessible to non-gamers is hardcore, and a game that is accessible is casual, where is the middle ground? Does this exist? What is simply a game? By this logic the majority of video-games are hardcore. Am I correct in saying that Call of Duty 4 and Zelda: Ocarina of time are hardcore games, two games that cannot be played by someone who hasn't played games before, while Super Mario Galaxy and Smash Brothers Brawl are casual games, because they can be picked up and played by anyone, despite their optional levels of high difficulty, which many labelled casual games do not have?

 

[Taerdin]

-snip-

I can see where you are coming from, I do (predictably) disagree, but I can see where you are coming from.

You disagree with me that games have different levels of accessibility?

I guess theres no point in posting in here anymore then... :S

Hardcore can literally mean uncompromising. A game that doesn't compromise itself to make itself more accessible to nongamers is hardcore... just as a game that is accessible is casual... it makes complete sense to me and I don't see how it doesnt to you, in fact I'm more than a little confused.

So, if a game that doesn't compromise itself to make itself more accessible to non-gamers is hardcore, and a game that is accessible is casual, where is the middle ground? Does this exist? What is simply a game? By this logic the majority of video-games are hardcore. Am I correct in saying that Call of Duty 4 and Zelda: Ocarina of time are hardcore games, two games that cannot be played by someone who hasn't played games before, while Super Mario Galaxy and Smash Brothers Brawl are casual games, because they can be picked up and played by anyone, despite their optional levels of high difficulty, which many labelled casual games do not have?

Anything in between is just neither, its just a game. I dont think call of duty is that complicated, but I havent played 4... I'm also not too sure about Zelda, its probably pretty close though. As for games that can be picked up and played, most would be casual, if they have optional higher difficulties then I'd think they still would be. :S

 

[Gyrefalcon]

*Respawn in 5...4...3...2..."

Name some "hardcore" games and I'll bet the thread will have to be shut down for a flame war. Why, because the terms "hardcore" and "causal" are indeed being used as swear words, just as they were when they were created.

The term was spawned by people who kept getting hit with the "well, while you were doing that, I was out having sex with girls" arguement.

If they're a 'hardcore' gamer, then it sounds like they're the Rambo of button-pressing. It's basically announcing themselves king of those with a hollow social life, rather than a failed attempt at leading a great social life.

While at the same time people started using 'casual' gamer as a way of saying "Yeah, I like games, but only casually, I have a life too." so they didn't feel as geeky.

These 2 quotes sum up the origins. "Hardcore" meant you were a rabid game fan who couldn't talk about anything irl. While "casual" meant you liked games but you could talk about the weather or the stock market too.

Then "hardcore" meant blood and lots of it while "casual" meant games with gentler themes and often puzzles.

Next "hardcore" meant difficult games that a new or average player couldn't easily master and "casual" meant it was more user friendly or at least had a gentle learning curve.

Now "hardcore" means "involved" while "casual" means "easy to pick up and put down"...I think!

But it is all a lie! Fun is not determined by difficulty. "Hardcore" is just an excuse for bad controls and camera angles or poor plot in some cases. Nor would someone who really loves their games appreciate being put into the "casual" category for a beloved title that they log more hours on than on an MMO.

Since most games offer difficulty settings these days so that both the "casual" gamer and the "hardcore" gamer can both enjoy it, shouldn't these terms be retired??