What makes a game hardcore?
- Thread starter endtherapture
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's an entirely subjective appreciation based on our level of investment in the face of difficulty.
The problem with this debate is that "hardcore" is not defined in any real way. I find the idea of "hardcore" being tied to a time/difficulty requirement to be ridiculous. My answer on what "hardcore" means in a gaming context has been that it is about the exploration of the medium. So a "hardcore" game would be a game that explore the possibilities of the medium.
Hardcore is simply when game requires you to use or plan out a strategy throughout the majority of the game, rather than just pick up playing and making everything up on the fly. It requires to to invest time, effort and thought.
Dark Souls for example is considered Hardcore because you run into something die (a few times) then have to come up with strategy to overcome it, over and over again. It's unlikely you'll find someone who just winged the entire game and managed never to die.
New Vagas's Hardcore made requires you to keep up Food/H2O/Sleep throughout the entire game which causes player to have to plan out their travelling and mission timing in order to stay alive (Though this can be cheaply overcome easy enough).
Dead Space 2's Hardocre mode only gives you 2 saves and no checkpoints, so it requires to plan to avoid dying altogether and when you use those critical saves because you know you might die.
Dark Souls for example is considered Hardcore because you run into something die (a few times) then have to come up with strategy to overcome it, over and over again. It's unlikely you'll find someone who just winged the entire game and managed never to die.
New Vagas's Hardcore made requires you to keep up Food/H2O/Sleep throughout the entire game which causes player to have to plan out their travelling and mission timing in order to stay alive (Though this can be cheaply overcome easy enough).
Dead Space 2's Hardocre mode only gives you 2 saves and no checkpoints, so it requires to plan to avoid dying altogether and when you use those critical saves because you know you might die.
Grace_Omega said:
You're conflating two separate things. Just because you can get good at something and just because something can be competitive it doesn't mean it's inherently hardcore or that it's designed that way. You can be super duper good at Angry Birds too.
The issue with online being as you describe is a fault with the matchmaking system. If the system worked and indeed paired players of similar skill together, you could have a whole host of matches where completely terrible players are enjoying themselves playing against other such players. Stuff like the noob tube or more recently the Smart Pistol in Titanfall also reinforce the game's non-hardcore nature.
Hardcore in the way I use it means a game where the average player needs to put effort just to be able to enjoy at a basic level. Games that handhold the player lean more towards casual.
It's kind of gotten murky nowadays because most designers try to aim their games to all skill levels even though many games are inherently difficult.
I would call myself a casual / core gamer whose tastes lean towards the hardcore (I feel daft typing this out)
It's kind of gotten murky nowadays because most designers try to aim their games to all skill levels even though many games are inherently difficult.
I would call myself a casual / core gamer whose tastes lean towards the hardcore (I feel daft typing this out)
If someone asked me what I consider "hardcore" in a video game, I would say perma death. That is when I feel things are truly taking it to a crazy level. How everything you do could be pointless if you die just once, I love it. I always turn on hardcore on games that allow it, like Terraria or XCOM. Makes things more interesting for me. I know it isn't for most people though. I have never once in my life reloaded a save of a game, I only ever make one save profile and the choices I make I stick with them. So even games that don't have perma death, I tend to try to make them harder for myself in that way.
Yup.
Yup.
A game is hardcore when filthy casuls and scrubs have to git gud and have mad skillz in order to not get rekt.
Right, right, I jest. Hardcore is just a stupid term that a bunch of obnoxious gamers tend to paste on everything that they don't like, that's about it.
But, not minding that, I would consider a game "hardcore" when it refuses to hold your hand and your actions (or lack of action) have actual repercussions (ex. dying in DS means you lose all your humanity and souls).
Right, right, I jest. Hardcore is just a stupid term that a bunch of obnoxious gamers tend to paste on everything that they don't like, that's about it.
But, not minding that, I would consider a game "hardcore" when it refuses to hold your hand and your actions (or lack of action) have actual repercussions (ex. dying in DS means you lose all your humanity and souls).
Hardcore games as a term has never really made sense to me. I suppose if I had to define what I think is a hardcore game, I would say a game that's deeply developed, not something that was slapped together. Now, don't get me wrong, slapped together games can still be fun--and are often times much more fun--but they don't strike me as hardcore in that sense. They are the type of games that people play in short little burst, usually on their phone, or quick cast grab games, usually tied to movies. A hardcore game stands apart from that.
I can confirm Fifa requires some skill. If you go into Fifa with no skill you will have a crap time and get absolutely mullered by your opponents.Grace_Omega said:
The hardcoreness of a game is the level of smugness and self satisfaction that the existing fanbase has.
Other key indicators are:
The level to which new players who haven't got the hang of it yet, are treated with hostility and abuse by the existing fanbase;
The fact that no one seems to be able to play without telling everyone else they should;
The amount of crucial information that needs to be (or inevitably will be) looked up on gamefaqs instead of communicated to the player within the actual game itself;
Brown and grey colour scheme;
Joy, enthusiasm, whimsy or any emotion that isn't steely determination, cocky cynicism or violent aggression;
I suppose there's also the slightly hipstery angle meaning that anything which sells well outside a niche audience will be automatically casual;
To be honest I think hardcore vs. casual has the potential to be a useful way of understanding games but it only ever seems to be used to insult games that people don't like;
Other key indicators are:
The level to which new players who haven't got the hang of it yet, are treated with hostility and abuse by the existing fanbase;
The fact that no one seems to be able to play without telling everyone else they should;
The amount of crucial information that needs to be (or inevitably will be) looked up on gamefaqs instead of communicated to the player within the actual game itself;
Brown and grey colour scheme;
Joy, enthusiasm, whimsy or any emotion that isn't steely determination, cocky cynicism or violent aggression;
I suppose there's also the slightly hipstery angle meaning that anything which sells well outside a niche audience will be automatically casual;
To be honest I think hardcore vs. casual has the potential to be a useful way of understanding games but it only ever seems to be used to insult games that people don't like;
Easy to tell if the game is hardcore. While playing the game do you get the clearly communicated impression that the game designer does in fact hate you? I mean an apparent deep seated loathing and a desire to cause you pain and suffering? If yes than you have a "hardcore" game.
It simple really to define a hardcore game.
Does your e-penis get hard to the core while playing? Then its hardcore. (fumbles with sunglasses while trying to put them on)
The term is all about separation. Its about why you are a better gamer than others. Its about why you should get more gamer cred because of how you play then others. It is only an ego thing.
Does your e-penis get hard to the core while playing? Then its hardcore. (fumbles with sunglasses while trying to put them on)
The term is all about separation. Its about why you are a better gamer than others. Its about why you should get more gamer cred because of how you play then others. It is only an ego thing.
I've been playing this mod for Mount and Blade: Warbands called The Last Days of the Third Age, it's a total conversion mod that makes it Mount and Blade: Lord of the Rings.
I went to the Mines of Moria as a Mirkwood elf and it took me about 40 minutes of wandering through the maze before I found Durin's bridge. It took me 40 minutes to find the way in! Then you have to fight several groups of Orcs by yourself to get to The Chamber of Mazarbul. Then you have to find your way out a different way then you came in, I spent two hours exploring before I fell down a chasm and was captured by Orcs. While all of this was happening it was so dark that I could literally only see ten feet in any direction, I pretty much had to feel my way through, I still felt motivated to find my way out, but it was so dark and huge that I actually felt some despair, which is exactly what I should feel when lost in the Mines of Moria.
That's hardcore to me, a game that makes me feel motivated to succeed even though the game has set an incredibly high standard on what succeeding actually is. A game that just wants me to quit because the developer is an asshole isn't a hardcore game to me, it's a very thin distinction, but it's what makes the difference between a fun hardcore game and an interactive punishment.
I went to the Mines of Moria as a Mirkwood elf and it took me about 40 minutes of wandering through the maze before I found Durin's bridge. It took me 40 minutes to find the way in! Then you have to fight several groups of Orcs by yourself to get to The Chamber of Mazarbul. Then you have to find your way out a different way then you came in, I spent two hours exploring before I fell down a chasm and was captured by Orcs. While all of this was happening it was so dark that I could literally only see ten feet in any direction, I pretty much had to feel my way through, I still felt motivated to find my way out, but it was so dark and huge that I actually felt some despair, which is exactly what I should feel when lost in the Mines of Moria.
That's hardcore to me, a game that makes me feel motivated to succeed even though the game has set an incredibly high standard on what succeeding actually is. A game that just wants me to quit because the developer is an asshole isn't a hardcore game to me, it's a very thin distinction, but it's what makes the difference between a fun hardcore game and an interactive punishment.
To clarify, I don't really like referring to games or gamers as hardcore. It has a lot of baggage implying pretentious elitists and what they do with their time.
However, as the other end of the scale beginning with Casual, it does have a use. Naturally it's subjective. I don't know why half the posts I've read equate this with being meaningless. There are a lot of things that are subjective and still useful as terms or concepts. I'm not very good at explaining what I take it to mean, but basically that it is challenging, it has depth, requires thought, knowledge and practice to play, and doesn't compromise these for the enjoyment of anyone who may want to play it without putting any effort in. While I haven't played Dark Souls 2 yet, Dark Souls definitely fulfills these criteria. For a start, the variety in builds and weapon sets make for an outstanding level of customisation and creativity. The level design was also (generally) very good, with places like Sen's Fortress having many traps that could be detected and avoided without death through observation (and then there's Lost Izalith which is a mess of bloom and tedious walking but we don't talk about that). The combat is physically challenging (and I've heard moreso in Dark Souls 2 with backstabs and ripostes being more difficult to execute and not getting I-frames), particularly with parry timing and against multiple enemies (for this reason Ornstein and Smough is one of the most exhiliarating boss fights I've ever seen), and as far as the plot and direction, it allows you to go basically wherever you can in the map and the information you get is from NPCs and can be cryptic. Another thing in its favour is the possibility of fighting in harder areas from the beginning, which is certainly a hardcore feature meant to appeal to veterans and those who like a challenge, although if you're only trying to progress through the game, the map doesn't leave a lot of question. Another huge thing is that there is a lot of content you could easily miss in a playthrough, so it takes exploration and thought to actually find all the content in the game. There is also quite high stakes for dying, the possibility of losing all your souls which are really the all-purpose agent of progression, but, with skill and care you can regain them.
That turned into essentially a mess, and was more about things in Dark Souls that are hardcore rather than what hardcore independantly is, but really I think that's the only way to do it. Just play the game and decide for yourself. There is so much variation in games that it seems silly to say "a hardcore game must have these things". And furthermore, games can have hardcore elements and casual ones as well, along with everything in between. For example, Dark Souls does not have a weighted inventory. I have little doubt that had it had some sort of item weight to every stone and arrow you can acquire and they opted to remove it in DkS2 there would have been a cry of casualisation, so that is a part of Dark Souls that does not require effort or thought. But there is a very clear distinction between Farmville and Dark Souls and I suggest that the people who play them are largely different markets. A remainder from another argument to ward off criticism, you can minmax in casual games, and you can employ strategy, but it still doesn't require the effort that it does to play harder games well, and if you didn't want to minmax, you could still progress anyway really without punishment.
However, as the other end of the scale beginning with Casual, it does have a use. Naturally it's subjective. I don't know why half the posts I've read equate this with being meaningless. There are a lot of things that are subjective and still useful as terms or concepts. I'm not very good at explaining what I take it to mean, but basically that it is challenging, it has depth, requires thought, knowledge and practice to play, and doesn't compromise these for the enjoyment of anyone who may want to play it without putting any effort in. While I haven't played Dark Souls 2 yet, Dark Souls definitely fulfills these criteria. For a start, the variety in builds and weapon sets make for an outstanding level of customisation and creativity. The level design was also (generally) very good, with places like Sen's Fortress having many traps that could be detected and avoided without death through observation (and then there's Lost Izalith which is a mess of bloom and tedious walking but we don't talk about that). The combat is physically challenging (and I've heard moreso in Dark Souls 2 with backstabs and ripostes being more difficult to execute and not getting I-frames), particularly with parry timing and against multiple enemies (for this reason Ornstein and Smough is one of the most exhiliarating boss fights I've ever seen), and as far as the plot and direction, it allows you to go basically wherever you can in the map and the information you get is from NPCs and can be cryptic. Another thing in its favour is the possibility of fighting in harder areas from the beginning, which is certainly a hardcore feature meant to appeal to veterans and those who like a challenge, although if you're only trying to progress through the game, the map doesn't leave a lot of question. Another huge thing is that there is a lot of content you could easily miss in a playthrough, so it takes exploration and thought to actually find all the content in the game. There is also quite high stakes for dying, the possibility of losing all your souls which are really the all-purpose agent of progression, but, with skill and care you can regain them.
That turned into essentially a mess, and was more about things in Dark Souls that are hardcore rather than what hardcore independantly is, but really I think that's the only way to do it. Just play the game and decide for yourself. There is so much variation in games that it seems silly to say "a hardcore game must have these things". And furthermore, games can have hardcore elements and casual ones as well, along with everything in between. For example, Dark Souls does not have a weighted inventory. I have little doubt that had it had some sort of item weight to every stone and arrow you can acquire and they opted to remove it in DkS2 there would have been a cry of casualisation, so that is a part of Dark Souls that does not require effort or thought. But there is a very clear distinction between Farmville and Dark Souls and I suggest that the people who play them are largely different markets. A remainder from another argument to ward off criticism, you can minmax in casual games, and you can employ strategy, but it still doesn't require the effort that it does to play harder games well, and if you didn't want to minmax, you could still progress anyway really without punishment.
the term "hardcore game" is nebulous. by my own definition it is a game that requires lots of dedication and that is vaguely as hell. Even said definition was narrowed down it would still be very subjective what a hardcore game is.
by my own vaguely definition I guess I count as a "hardcore gamer"
I beat the first witcher game I am willing to bet anyone who has played and beaten will tell you it takes time and lots of patience to get into this game. I don't blame any one for thinking the witcher is crappy game because it's a very slow burner that has some big flaws.
I learned how to properly mod fallout new vegas, heavy modded it, I and roleplay characters. According to steam I played over 900 hours of new vegas in total.
learning how to mod heavily new Vegas while minimizing potential problems and having a stable game is easier then you may think.
disclaimer-Using mods that increase stability is recommended in order to achieve desired results.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0E5E8CA384409B11
by my own vaguely definition I guess I count as a "hardcore gamer"
I beat the first witcher game I am willing to bet anyone who has played and beaten will tell you it takes time and lots of patience to get into this game. I don't blame any one for thinking the witcher is crappy game because it's a very slow burner that has some big flaws.
I learned how to properly mod fallout new vegas, heavy modded it, I and roleplay characters. According to steam I played over 900 hours of new vegas in total.
learning how to mod heavily new Vegas while minimizing potential problems and having a stable game is easier then you may think.
disclaimer-Using mods that increase stability is recommended in order to achieve desired results.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0E5E8CA384409B11
It doesn't really matter if it's vague as hell and doesn't really need to be defined any further. It's an adjective, which means it's only really useful as a relative term anyway. "Fast" one the face of it is utterly useless. Compared to even the crappiest of crappy cars Usain Bolt is a fucking snail. Compared to a Fighter Jet Usain Bolt may as well have just stayed in bed this morning. None of that means it's confusing, or wrong, or useless, to say that Usain Bolt is fast, because we (should) have an understanding of contextual use of language.Reincarnatedwolfgod said:
I think people are looking far too closely into what are just normal adjectives. Yes, some people turn them into insults, doesn't make the meaning of the word null and void.