Rant: Sick of the purist(elitist) gamer.

Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#1
You know what I'm sick and tired of? These self appointed and self righteous gaming purists(read: ELITISTS) that like to tell every and any gamer what a "true gamer" is all about.

I'm sorry, but since when was playing games some sort of exclusive club? If I buy something...screw that, If I lay my eyeballs upon something I have as much right to critique it as you do to praise it.

I have rarely, and I mean VERY RARELY seen anyone on these boards complain about graphics completely ruining a game. Most times I see any of the following:

"There's clipping"

"The textures are...crappy/average/decent/ok, etc."

"The lighting is...^"

The list goes on and on, to cover polygon counts, screen tearing, particle effects, water, and various others. RARELY do the words "and I think that will totally ruin the game", but the purist gamer won't have it, He/she will outright TELL you that you said that, and you better apologize for it, because you're in the wrong, sir! Regardless of the level of extremity, you see the bandwagon jumpers coming down upon whoever says such things with a multitude of tirades and insults. It sickens me.

The worst part of it is that these holier than thou PS3 elitist SCUMBAGS like to put words into peoples mouths, insinuating that either hating, disliking, or being genuinely unimpressed with graphics means that you think the game will suck. By my fathers grave I can not remember a single member or a single post EVER claiming that bad graphics guarantees equally bad gameplay. The ministry of playstation zealots won't hear that though, any negative about their holy messiah's visuals and the storm of furious anger is unleashed upon thee.

Yet you see these same overzealous maniacs slandering other games. So then it is revealed that being a true gamer in your judgments is a selective thing. Let's not forget that claiming "graphics don't matter" mean that praising them is hypocritical. You never hear that, though. Those of you that love peddling your petty little "I don't care about graphics" tirades, well then you better **** well mean it. If you don't care about graphics, stop saying your precious games look good, and stop saying that certain apparently unworthy games are allowed to be torn down. Sounds stupid, doesn't it? Well so does each and every one of you that spout that nonsense.

I see the elitists making a bigger deal out of graphics than the supposed graphics whores and "untrue gamers", whatever the HELL that is.

You know what one of the worst parts about it is? What this says to the artists out there. Anytime I see "graphics don't matter" or something along those lines, I consider it like a big fat F-U to all of the artists that work so hard to make these games that we love so beautiful. Yet here we are telling them that their hard work is useless and in vain. It's the most disgusting crutch I've heard in regards to the petty defenses the fanboys like to pitch.

***No serious person will tell you that graphics matter more than gameplay. Find me a serious quote saying exactly this and I'll retract this statement***

Stop coming up with CRAP labels to classify and further divide our community. It's bad enough that journalism for the most part mirrors celebrity tabloids, let's not let that tripe resonate throughout the community. That us vs. them mentality has got to go, we're all just playing games and trying to have fun here. Please also stop trying to invalidate someone's opinion with these garbage cop-outs. Every opinion here is just as worthy as yours, not agreeing with it doesn't mean it's irrelevant, and if you think that, you need to learn how to debate.

I've got a challenge for all of you so-called true, real, purist, or whatever kind of gamer you pretentious cretins like to call yourselves these days.

If you've ever said that graphics don't matter, then NEVER praise the visuals of a game again.

Before you decide to call this proposal stupid, then then be advised: it's meant to be such to show you how foolish your preaching about graphics really are, and is not meant to be taken seriously.
 

WonsAuto

New member
Mar 12, 2007
8,338
0
0
32
www.myspace.com
#2
Bu bu bu... how can EDGE say that Super Mario Galaxy has better grafix than Uncharted (even though the award was for VISUAL STYLE, which is different)???

There was some of that going around the thread about the awards EDGE gave for this year's games.
 

old_school_gamer

Superior Member
Nov 8, 2006
751
0
0
41
#3
Gameplay is the most important factor in a game, but GRAPHICS is what immerses you in the game and makes things believable or not. They both go hand in hand to make a game great. If graphics didn't matter, then no one would care about PS3 or the PS4. Companies don't make next gen systems for better gameplay(unless you are Nintendo) they make them to set the graphical bar higher. Fortunately with games like Guitar Hero and RB, gameplay is making a comeback. Whether it be graphics or gameplay, the game has to immerse you somehow.
 
I

IRONMAIDEN

Guest
#4
all i know is im older than a big portion of these complainers. what im getting sick of is how EPIC a game has to be. most of these EPIC games coming out you can beat in a few hours. sure they look pretty but they're kind of bone dry. thats why im an abid fan of NGS. its just a straight shootin adrenaline rush. keep your screwy stories and give megreat gameplay
 

clean515

Elite Guru
Oct 11, 2007
5,553
17
0
#5
To be honest it's not always gameplay that is most important to me, games like silent hill needs great visuals and sound but i dont care much about the bad combat as the game really scares you.

While sport games like football/soccer i just want good gameplay and not to bothered with graphics.
 

kryton101

Dedicated Member
Sep 12, 2006
1,333
1
0
44
#6
Graphics aside I agree that labels are a curious and hideously misused term thrown around the gaming community as a whole. We tend to use two slop buckets of classical distinction: -

1/Hardcore
2/Casual

When you think about it these have very little meaning. Try applying them to other activites and you'll see why. A casual driver perhaps? even though they have been doing it for for years, well I'm hardcore! which means what exactly? I drive fast? get paid for it? go the wrong way down one way streets?

What about a little hardcore cleaning or hoovering? Better than all that 'casual' domestic cleanliness other people bander about. casual TV viewing? HARCORE TV viewing! (of course totally different!)

I can hear a thousand replies already....a casual gamer is someone who plays puzzle games about once a week and a hardcore gamer plays lots of FPS to a 'high' standard and for much longer time periods with the obligoratory "I consider myself to be hardcore of course because I play all my games with the lights out at 1am. Thats HARDCORE BABY!!!!"

If you want to put people into little boxes it's usually a sign you want to go in a box yourself. Fact is modern gaming is a diverse cross section of people and you cannot apply such crass and blunt labels to the modern gaming community. We insult ourselves and each other every time we do so. Time to move on and up people.
 
Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#7
[QUOTE="kryton101, post: 0]Graphics aside I agree that labels are a curious and hideously misused term thrown around the gaming community as a whole. We tend to use two slop buckets of classical distinction: -

1/Hardcore
2/Casual

When you think about it these have very little meaning. Try applying them to other activites and you'll see why. A casual driver perhaps? even though they have been doing it for for years, well I'm hardcore! which means what exactly? I drive fast? get paid for it? go the wrong way down one way streets?

What about a little hardcore cleaning or hoovering? Better than all that 'casual' domestic cleanliness other people bander about. casual TV viewing? HARCORE TV viewing! (of course totally different!)

I can hear a thousand replies already....a casual gamer is someone who plays puzzle games about once a week and a hardcore gamer plays lots of FPS to a 'high' standard and for much longer time periods with the obligoratory "I consider myself to be hardcore of course because I play all my games with the lights out at 1am. Thats HARDCORE BABY!!!!"

If you want to put people into little boxes it's usually a sign you want to go in a box yourself. Fact is modern gaming is a diverse cross section of people and you cannot apply such crass and blunt labels to the modern gaming community. We insult ourselves and each other every time we do so. Time to move on and up people.[/QUOTE]
Post of the YEAR. Brilliantly said, this should be the forum disclaimer. +rep
 

PS3|MSE

Dedicated Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,041
0
0
33
www.myspace.com
#8
I like my games to be like movies. Even if it's short it has to entertain. Which is what gaming is all about. Graphics and gameplay these days do go hand in hand as old_school_gamer said. If you want to be totally immersed and feel like it's completely real then graphics are important. But you can still enjoy a game if it doesn't have Uncharted like graphics.

BTW, where has this rant come from?
 
8

89Ripp3rDK

Guest
#9
Skip all of that, I hate people that are emotionally attached to a VIDEO GAME MEGA-INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION.

Too many times when I don't drink the Kool-Aid I'm getting tacked as an Microsoft fanboy or something like that, I don't even have a MS PRODUCT FFS, not even my PC runs Windows.
 

WonsAuto

New member
Mar 12, 2007
8,338
0
0
32
www.myspace.com
#10
[QUOTE="kryton101, post: 0]Graphics aside I agree that labels are a curious and hideously misused term thrown around the gaming community as a whole. We tend to use two slop buckets of classical distinction: -

1/Hardcore
2/Casual

When you think about it these have very little meaning. Try applying them to other activites and you'll see why. A casual driver perhaps? even though they have been doing it for for years, well I'm hardcore! which means what exactly? I drive fast? get paid for it? go the wrong way down one way streets?

What about a little hardcore cleaning or hoovering? Better than all that 'casual' domestic cleanliness other people bander about. casual TV viewing? HARCORE TV viewing! (of course totally different!)

I can hear a thousand replies already....a casual gamer is someone who plays puzzle games about once a week and a hardcore gamer plays lots of FPS to a 'high' standard and for much longer time periods with the obligoratory "I consider myself to be hardcore of course because I play all my games with the lights out at 1am. Thats HARDCORE BABY!!!!"

If you want to put people into little boxes it's usually a sign you want to go in a box yourself. Fact is modern gaming is a diverse cross section of people and you cannot apply such crass and blunt labels to the modern gaming community. We insult ourselves and each other every time we do so. Time to move on and up people.[/quote]

Great post, but I don't completely agree with it. While of course it would be absurd to be a "hardcore cleaner", things like that aren't actual hobbies, whereas video games are.

Think about it this way: you would consider someone who's a season-ticket holder for their favorite team to be a hardcore sports fan, whereas someone that enjoys the sport but doesn't watch many games to be a more casual fan. Same can be said for TV; some people just watch when they don't have anything better to do, others collect boxsets for all of their favorite shows.

The difference I see in the field of video games is that for some (dumb) reason hardcores feel that they are somehow more qualified to enjoy video games than their casual counterparts.

Sure, the hardcore can spot a lot of the technical details that a casual probably wouldn't (be it sports, video games or otherwise), but that doesn't mean the casual player can't enjoy it.
 

kryton101

Dedicated Member
Sep 12, 2006
1,333
1
0
44
#11
[QUOTE="WonsAuto, post: 0]Great post, but I don't completely agree with it. While of course it would be absurd to be a "hardcore cleaner", things like that aren't actual hobbies, whereas video games are.

Think about it this way: you would consider someone who's a season-ticket holder for their favorite team to be a hardcore sports fan, whereas someone that enjoys the sport but doesn't watch many games to be a more casual fan. Same can be said for TV; some people just watch when they don't have anything better to do, others collect boxsets for all of their favorite shows.

The difference I see in the field of video games is that for some (dumb) reason hardcores feel that they are somehow more qualified to enjoy video games than their casual counterparts.

Sure, the hardcore can spot a lot of the technical details that a casual probably wouldn't (be it sports, video games or otherwise), but that doesn't mean the casual player can't enjoy it.[/quote]

It's all degrees of seperation which is what you are trying to say I think. Ok, so the season ticket 'may' be hardcore. What about the fan who collects sticker albums, and the one who does that and has signatures from the players. What if you play your sport at a high standard as well? Or play well and dont actually watch it that much. Whose the more qualified in this rabble? Blimey, two labels are looking a bit weak already. Can't quite fit in those boxes.....

The problem is that these labels have no real DEFINED meaning to gaming and more importantly no consensus of agreement except in a very loose and contradictory way in the gaming community. The contrast would be say a political party where by joing say the Labour party or democrats you become a supporter of that party and the goals and defining elements of that party are (in the whole!) clear to all. It's written down and definable.

So are we talking about hours invested in gaming? ability? number of consoles owned? number of games owned? ability to recall obscure technical facts? dont know really. Different things to different people and there in lies the problem. Towards the end of your post you actually use the terms as if I have an agreed standard to define what they are? (Which I dont so I dont know what you mean,...devils advocate..)

At the end of the day we are just a bunch of 20 to 30 year old blokes sitting on our tods at home playing games. I'd love to know where these terms were first used and why and in what context?

Today, I am going to be mostly Hardcore.......
 
Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#12
old_school_gamer[/URL] said. If you want to be totally immersed and feel like it's completely real then graphics are important. But you can still enjoy a game if it doesn't have Uncharted like graphics.

BTW, where has this rant come from?
My building and pent up frustration with the elitism I see around the internet from time to time.
 
A

Anbu_Evolution

Guest
#13
I'm going to say this once but will probably go unnoticed anyways.

Everything is an OPINION. People say gameplay always matter over graphics vice versa blah blah blah. Everyone has a mind of their own and everyone play games differently. My gawd we are so freaking spoiled this generation that we are freaking being blinded by reviews and what not on the Internet
I will say this again. Everything is an opinion. When I think of a 'hardcore' gamer, I usually envision someone playing video games for 6+ hours on a daily basis.

You know what is the biggest influence on a lot of people? FANBOYS. They have literally changed this generation of gaming.
 

WonsAuto

New member
Mar 12, 2007
8,338
0
0
32
www.myspace.com
#14
[QUOTE="kryton101, post: 0]It's all degrees of seperation which is what you are trying to say I think. Ok, so the season ticket 'may' be hardcore. What about the fan who collects sticker albums, and the one who does that and has signatures from the players. What if you play your sport at a high standard as well? Or play well and dont actually watch it that much. Whose the more qualified in this rabble? Blimey, two labels are looking a bit weak already. Can't quite fit in those boxes.....[/quote]

That's what I meant with my post- no one is really any more qualified at all when it comes to enjoyment. It's when it comes to nitpicking details or knowing technicalities where one could see one group as more "qualified" over the other.

So are we talking about hours invested in gaming? ability? number of consoles owned? number of games owned? ability to recall obscure technical facts? dont know really. Different things to different people and there in lies the problem. Towards the end of your post you actually use the terms as if I have an agreed standard to define what they are? (Which I dont so I dont know what you mean,...devils advocate..)
You're correct about me playing devil's advocate towards the end of my post. Even though a line isn't clearly defined in terms of separating gamers, it's still there. You put it perfectly at the end, however:

At the end of the day we are just a bunch of 20 to 30 year old blokes sitting on our tods at home playing games. I'd love to know where these terms were first used and why and in what context?
 
M

MEMEROOT

Guest
#17
"If graphics didn't matter, then no one would care about PS3 or the PS4."

thats why the ps3 is outselling the wii and ps2.....

On the subject of hardcore gamers. the only people who seem to realy fit the bill are korean online gamers (willing to die) japanese arcade fighters (and lets face it they aren't graphics whores given the big love still to 2d) and competition PC gamers (because they are professionals (lol))

I can't realy see ps3,360 or wii being 'hardcore' as they are just kids toys.
 

Hexadecimal

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2006
1,595
0
0
32
#18
I disagree with the part about being impressed with visuals and believing that visuals don't matter...They're not mutually exclusive. I drive an old junker, and I'm fine with it, but that doesn't mean I can't be wowed by a Ferrari. I love my boyfriend to death, and wouldn't trade him for any guy, but doesn't mean I can't find uber attractive guys to be attractive (guys are really bad for this with girls). I see all these amazing looking games, but I still think they're garbage. So yeah, people can say visuals don't matter and be impressed with visuals at the same time, and they would not be contracting themselves, because there are things that supersede visuals.
 
Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#19
[QUOTE="Hexadecimal, post: 0]I disagree with the part about being impressed with visuals and believing that visuals don't matter...They're not mutually exclusive. I drive an old junker, and I'm fine with it, but that doesn't mean I can't be wowed by a Ferrari. I love my boyfriend to death, and wouldn't trade him for any guy, but doesn't mean I can't find uber attractive guys to be attractive (guys are really bad for this with girls). I see all these amazing looking games, but I still think they're garbage. So yeah, people can say visuals don't matter and be impressed with visuals at the same time, and they would not be contracting themselves, because there are things that supersede visuals.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, but when the use of the expression is contrived to fit their hollow points, that's when I question it. I fully agree and support your stance.

My problem lies with the individuals that are hypocritical in their use of the term, and only tend to use it when it conveniently fits their bias.

For example: Gamer A is anticipating Game X. Gamer B says that they aren't impressed with the visuals. Gamer A retorts with any of the following: "That series isn't about graphics! Graphics don't matter! You're out of your mind! Graphics whore! You're not a true gamer!" etc.

What we all don't know is that Gamer A will denounce other games in spite of his/her saying that graphics don't matter. That's what I have a problem with.

You can say graphics don't matter, but then you either shouldn't make such a statement or you shouldn't criticize another game, you can't have it both ways. Yeah, you can say looks don't matter and still appreciate good looks, but if they really don't matter...should you criticize something for not having good looks? After all, they don't matter, right?
 

seebs

Elite Sage
Dec 29, 2006
11,822
0
0
47
#20
I like to think that anyone who's learned new programming languages just to get a little more fun out of a game ought to be considered "hardcore".
 

schwan

Dedicated Member
Jan 7, 2007
1,063
0
0
29
#21
[QUOTE="IRONMAIDEN, post: 0]all i know is im older than a big portion of these complainers. what im getting sick of is how EPIC a game has to be. most of these EPIC games coming out you can beat in a few hours. sure they look pretty but they're kind of bone dry. thats why im an abid fan of NGS. its just a straight shootin adrenaline rush. keep your screwy stories and give megreat gameplay[/quote]
good point, thats why i loved ngs
I do love the occational epic though :)
 

Skyforger

Apprentice
Dec 23, 2005
205
0
0
#22
i care about graphics, i care about them ALOT, since we're promised something that, a handfull games aside, hasn't been delivered yet.

Heavenly Sword went from being my most anticipated game of the year to a dud, given how horrible the framerate/screen tearing issues are.

but i have hope those promised 60fps at 720p in every game will come tru eventually.
 

Staticneuron

Sublimely Static
Feb 3, 2007
9,991
75
0
36
Vekta
#23
[QUOTE="kryton101, post: 0]It's all degrees of seperation which is what you are trying to say I think. Ok, so the season ticket 'may' be hardcore. What about the fan who collects sticker albums, and the one who does that and has signatures from the players. What if you play your sport at a high standard as well? Or play well and dont actually watch it that much. Whose the more qualified in this rabble? Blimey, two labels are looking a bit weak already. Can't quite fit in those boxes.....

The problem is that these labels have no real DEFINED meaning to gaming and more importantly no consensus of agreement except in a very loose and contradictory way in the gaming community. The contrast would be say a political party where by joing say the Labour party or democrats you become a supporter of that party and the goals and defining elements of that party are (in the whole!) clear to all. It's written down and definable.

So are we talking about hours invested in gaming? ability? number of consoles owned? number of games owned? ability to recall obscure technical facts? dont know really. Different things to different people and there in lies the problem. Towards the end of your post you actually use the terms as if I have an agreed standard to define what they are? (Which I dont so I dont know what you mean,...devils advocate..)

At the end of the day we are just a bunch of 20 to 30 year old blokes sitting on our tods at home playing games. I'd love to know where these terms were first used and why and in what context?

Today, I am going to be mostly Hardcore.......[/quote]

The game developers care. Because in their eyes the hardcore are the lifeline of this industry while the casual market is the quick buck. Without a doubt I am sure most gamers that are considered "hardcore" take gaming as a very serious hobby and actually own multitudes of titles.

Sure you can call yourself hardcore because you played every game by either renting it or borrowing from a friend but the truth is..... no one cares about those people. This industry is like every other. There are two distinct masses that the industry try to cater to and they are best defined by something.

If you are really paying attention then you would have realized that gamers aren't the ones that created these terms, the industry did.


But to drive home the point even more, all the examples you say follow the same frame of thinking. Take for instance baseball. You might consider yourself to be the biggest fan of baseball but if they do not see any money from you the industry wouldn't call you one nor care if you did. The most important thing would be to put people into the seats at the games so the customers who purchase a seasonal ticket and shows up to these games, would be considered more of a fan than those who collect trading cards.

And to OP, I understand your dislike of elitist but truth be told they are everywhere, an in every hobby you can imagine. You just have to tolerate those types. On another not I disagree with people talking about graphics and gameplay as seperate entities in the game. There coms a point where the graphics can be so bad that it hinders gameplay and then there can be gameplay so bad that it makes the graphics worth it. We call those..... bad games. It doesn't matter where the focus is on as long as we have a healthy amount of both.

[QUOTE="IRONMAIDEN, post: 0]all i know is im older than a big portion of these complainers. what im getting sick of is how EPIC a game has to be. most of these EPIC games coming out you can beat in a few hours. sure they look pretty but they're kind of bone dry. thats why im an abid fan of NGS. its just a straight shootin adrenaline rush. keep your screwy stories and give megreat gameplay[/quote]

Man, you really hate stories don't you? I do not understand it. Most games that come out aren't even focused on the story, so why is it a big issue to you that a few of them do? Is it because of their fanbase? I love NGS to death ( I am still playing sigma) but there still is alot of puzzle solving and backtracking in that game. The EPIC yet shorter Uncharted provides more of an adrenaline rush because the pacing was nonstop. If you really cared about going full steam ahead you would have noticed this. My favorite fast paced action games DMC and NGS are fast paced on gameplay but not on progression while Heavenly sword and Uncharted adds a fast progression through the game while including that fast gameplay. I respect those games more because they are not creating circles for no reasons. I have been playing games for a long time and then I start to feel a little annoyed when I am sent on a sidequest to find a key to open a door just so I can get to another sidequest. Gamers that have played as long as I have should be wanting more of a reason to complete a game.
 

Cuguy

Elite Sage
Mar 9, 2007
11,622
116
63
45
www.psu.com
#24
[QUOTE="89Ripp3rDK, post: 0]Skip all of that, I hate people that are emotionally attached to a VIDEO GAME MEGA-INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION.

Too many times when I don't drink the Kool-Aid I'm getting tacked as an Microsoft fanboy or something like that, I don't even have a MS PRODUCT FFS, not even my PC runs Windows.[/quote]


It's quotes like that that ALSO spur debates... you will be branded a Sony fanboy since NOTHING MS is good enough.

Goes both ways.
 

kryton101

Dedicated Member
Sep 12, 2006
1,333
1
0
44
#25
[QUOTE="Staticneuron, post: 0]The game developers care. Because in their eyes the hardcore are the lifeline of this industry while the casual market is the quick buck. Without a doubt I am sure most gamers that are considered "hardcore" take gaming as a very serious hobby and actually own multitudes of titles.

Sure you can call yourself hardcore because you played every game by either renting it or borrowing from a friend but the truth is..... no one cares about those people. This industry is like every other. There are two distinct masses that the industry try to cater to and they are best defined by something.

If you are really paying attention then you would have realized that gamers aren't the ones that created these terms, the industry did.


But to drive home the point even more, all the examples you say follow the same frame of thinking. Take for instance baseball. You might consider yourself to be the biggest fan of baseball but if they do not see any money from you the industry wouldn't call you one nor care if you did. The most important thing would be to put people into the seats at the games so the customers who purchase a seasonal ticket and shows up to these games, would be considered more of a fan than those who collect trading cards.

And to OP, I understand your dislike of elitist but truth be told they are everywhere, an in every hobby you can imagine. You just have to tolerate those types. On another not I disagree with people talking about graphics and gameplay as seperate entities in the game. There coms a point where the graphics can be so bad that it hinders gameplay and then there can be gameplay so bad that it makes the graphics worth it. We call those..... bad games. It doesn't matter where the focus is on as long as we have a healthy amount of both.



Man, you really hate stories don't you? I do not understand it. Most games that come out aren't even focused on the story, so why is it a big issue to you that a few of them do? Is it because of their fanbase? I love NGS to death ( I am still playing sigma) but there still is alot of puzzle solving and backtracking in that game. The EPIC yet shorter Uncharted provides more of an adrenaline rush because the pacing was nonstop. If you really cared about going full steam ahead you would have noticed this. My favorite fast paced action games DMC and NGS are fast paced on gameplay but not on progression while Heavenly sword and Uncharted adds a fast progression through the game while including that fast gameplay. I respect those games more because they are not creating circles for no reasons. I have been playing games for a long time and then I start to feel a little annoyed when I am sent on a sidequest to find a key to open a door just so I can get to another sidequest. Gamers that have played as long as I have should be wanting more of a reason to complete a game.[/quote]

If the industry did create those terms as you claim then please provide some/any historical reference to demonstrate that was indeed the case. I am also doubtful that the industry applies two words for it's entire customer base. Usually things like age, and demographic come into play. Not just spends money/spends no or very little money. Sorry, I meant hardcore/casual....

I dont agree that the industry is catering for just two types of people either. There is a fantastically diverse customer base today. Young, old, new and existing customers that each buy a range of products to suit their lifestyle and extent of hobby. Each with their own tastes and requirements that can be fulfilled in a variety of ways. One is no better or worse than another as anything that makes a compnay money is 'good' by defauly. Applying old and out of date conventions on a new market is an outdated ideal. I think a lot of gamers out there feel a bit threatened by this rapid expansion that has allowed mum and dad to play games. It redefines boundaries which sometimes can be uncomfortable, even painful. The classic retreat of the young misunderstood youth has been made mainstream and there is nothing we can do about it. It belongs to the world now and not to us. The days of making games in your back room and loading them on tape has long gone. Gaming is a multi billion industry with all the trappings of greed and image that go with it.

Calling yourself hardcore is in some ways a bit like re-defining and carving out your own territory in an overcrowded world. It sets you apart from the millions of masses that were never their before.

I can understand it and why people do it. But I wont accept it. It's an over simplified term that has no real place in the new gaming world. We can change our technology at a rapid pace, but changing ourselves is a more patient process it seems.
 

Ubersnuber

Master Poster
Feb 15, 2006
3,492
1
0
37
#26
[QUOTE="kryton101, post: 0]Graphics aside I agree that labels are a curious and hideously misused term thrown around the gaming community as a whole. We tend to use two slop buckets of classical distinction: -

1/Hardcore
2/Casual

When you think about it these have very little meaning. Try applying them to other activites and you'll see why. A casual driver perhaps? even though they have been doing it for for years, well I'm hardcore! which means what exactly? I drive fast? get paid for it? go the wrong way down one way streets?

What about a little hardcore cleaning or hoovering? Better than all that 'casual' domestic cleanliness other people bander about. casual TV viewing? HARCORE TV viewing! (of course totally different!)

I can hear a thousand replies already....a casual gamer is someone who plays puzzle games about once a week and a hardcore gamer plays lots of FPS to a 'high' standard and for much longer time periods with the obligoratory "I consider myself to be hardcore of course because I play all my games with the lights out at 1am. Thats HARDCORE BABY!!!!"

If you want to put people into little boxes it's usually a sign you want to go in a box yourself. Fact is modern gaming is a diverse cross section of people and you cannot apply such crass and blunt labels to the modern gaming community. We insult ourselves and each other every time we do so. Time to move on and up people.[/QUOTE]
I think you make this way more complicated than it actually is. If you analyse other things in life like this (no matter how simple they originally are), your head will most likely explode.
Here's a simple way of looking at it, and I think many can agree with this:

Casual gamer: Enjoys gaming now and then, but there are other hobbies/interests that are more important.

Hardcore gamer: Gaming is one of the top priorities. Doesn't necesarily spend huge amounts of time gaming, but makes sure gaming is on the weekly/monthly schedule. A hardcore gamer may be skilled, but can also be pretty average or even downright bad. However, interest is the important factor here.

Pro gamer: Can either be gaming for a living or is a highly skilled gamer. Spends a lot of time on gaming.
 
Oct 19, 2006
88
0
0
34
#27
The problem with people who actively name them self "hardcore" gamers is that they are probably young males ( let's say early teens ) who are jacked up on hormones basically coming on the internet without thinking about what they are going to say and looking for an argument.

Most of them are probably too stupid to argue with as well, ignoring your points and making personal attacks instead of discussing the core issue of the moment.

I'm not saying all young blokes on the internet are aggressive and stupid, it's just that there is a vocal minority giving the young ones a bad name.

I doubt highly that a mature person would go around declaring that they are "hardcore" about a console or graphics if they had a significant other listening to them, so why say things like that on the internet?

I agree with the other post - you can't label people casual or hardcore in anything, especially gaming. It's just another bloody pointless label that the internet perpetuates, it's in the same vein as "noob".
 

Tetsu

Forum Guru
May 6, 2006
3,844
4
0
89
#28
@ Arklon,

Most elitist snobs are in the PC game realm. Surely you've seen the posts. "Console games are for kids who can't handle deep complex gameplay." "PC games are already at a graphic level that put the PS3 to shame, and it's getting worse by the month. The PS3 is already irrelevant, forget 2008." Funny how the PS3 always seems to be the target, not the Wii, an undeniable last gen system with non-HD graphics, or the 360, the PC gamer's other box. It's like they're offended a game console DARES to be so good. Crysis is the PC gamer's GEARS! But what's so unique about it? Destructible environments and graphics you can't see unless you spend $600 or more to upgrade your PC? Or $1200 to whatever for a new one? Of course the answer is the graphics. That's all PC gamers seem to care about, pushing the highest resolutions with the highest framerates. We do get some elitism from 360 owners, but it seems to be due to many of them being PC gamers.

To some extent we get this from the Wii camp too - one guy in particular, from the other direction. "All you care about are graphics. The PS3 is nothing but graphics, and there's nothing new in any of those tired old games." Nani?? So doing the motion of drawing a bowstring to shoot an arrow in Zelda is a huge gameplay advance for you? Like... whatever.

Maybe I'm different because I consider myself a true hardcore gamer. I own 11 systems and hundreds of games. Periodically I'll dust off a Saturn or Dreamcast or SNES and replay one of my favorite titles. Like seebs, graphics aren't the most important thing for me. I still think the best Final Fantasy games are on the SNES. Whoever the producer is now, I think has got caught up in trying to make interactive movies, and the storylines were getting depressing like so much of Japanese entertainment. Sorry, but I'm not emo.

But at the same time, graphics matter a lot to me. This is the whole reason for going next gen, along with the computing horsepower to bring those worlds to life, as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise, why produce a new console at all?

I'm not a huge Forza fan, but I'm pretty big. I spent $830 plus so far just to play that one game on a 360 Elite. While some people dog the graphics - even 360 fans for some reason, I can appreciate them. So you'll never see threads titled "Can you tell the difference between Forza 2 and real life." Still, there are times the view is breathtaking.

But then there's this pesky game called Gran Turismo 5. Oh... my God, the splendor! And the tangible driving experience. GT5 is looking SO good, it's funny but it doesn't really seem like Gran Turismo anymore. Rather, some ultra-realistic new series. The jump in realism is just crazy. Do I love this? Do I have to ask? ;)

And I love a good story. I don't want something half baked about some ninja getting insulted by a dog crapping in his flower garden or his girlfriend being kidnapped by some fishmarket owner as an excuse to go on a bloody rampage, or worse, being some idiot gangsta trying to corrupt and kill the world (DIE rockstar). I do want characters I can believe in, empathize with, feel for when they're struggling and rejoice with when they win. Not get emo with. Give me Uncharted or Resistance, Metal Gear Solid or Devil May Cry - especially if it's like the first one.

Gameplay matters too. I'm not seeing the joy of a wiggle wand that mostly what matters is flick timing. What's the difference between that and a button press? Exercise? Of my wrist?? Whatever. And I want action that makes sense. Please don't pass off grenades on chains or assault weapons with chainsaws as some awesome new gameplay. Ew. Give me something with teeth but is rational too, but at the same time imaginative. Give me dragonriders, and sword wielding beauties, and a guy trying to find a family legacy, and a man struggling with the dark half of his soul, and an old soldier who has to pull it together for one last mission. And... whatever Final Fantasy XIII is about. :lol:

And give me Japanese games. The Orientals have such interesting quirks and twists involved in their games that you'd never see in a western game.

Frankly, I find all this in one system. Am I an elitist? Am I part of the problem? Eh, I see it as demanding something more. And I think I'm the norm among gamers both hardcore and run of the mill. And I can't be too leet if I bought a 360 first, or still fondle my Dreamcast.

Some of us in the PS3 camp sneer at the others, and some of us are kind of testy at dirt clods thrown by others, but then again we're kind of tired of being picked on. I don't browse every thread here or on other boards, but I haven't seen all that much snobbery except from kids. If someone lit your fuse, I'd have to say from my experience, they're from a rather small fraction of us. When the PS3... dare I say it, takes over the world, then we can talk on this subject. I'm sure the bandwagon will be full of snobs. ;)
 

Staticneuron

Sublimely Static
Feb 3, 2007
9,991
75
0
36
Vekta
#29
[QUOTE="kryton101, post: 0]If the industry did create those terms as you claim then please provide some/any historical reference to demonstrate that was indeed the case. I am also doubtful that the industry applies two words for it's entire customer base. Usually things like age, and demographic come into play. Not just spends money/spends no or very little money. Sorry, I meant hardcore/casual....

I dont agree that the industry is catering for just two types of people either. There is a fantastically diverse customer base today. Young, old, new and existing customers that each buy a range of products to suit their lifestyle and extent of hobby. Each with their own tastes and requirements that can be fulfilled in a variety of ways. One is no better or worse than another as anything that makes a compnay money is 'good' by defauly. Applying old and out of date conventions on a new market is an outdated ideal. I think a lot of gamers out there feel a bit threatened by this rapid expansion that has allowed mum and dad to play games. It redefines boundaries which sometimes can be uncomfortable, even painful. The classic retreat of the young misunderstood youth has been made mainstream and there is nothing we can do about it. It belongs to the world now and not to us. The days of making games in your back room and loading them on tape has long gone. Gaming is a multi billion industry with all the trappings of greed and image that go with it.

Calling yourself hardcore is in some ways a bit like re-defining and carving out your own territory in an overcrowded world. It sets you apart from the millions of masses that were never their before.

I can understand it and why people do it. But I wont accept it. It's an over simplified term that has no real place in the new gaming world. We can change our technology at a rapid pace, but changing ourselves is a more patient process it seems.[/quote]

Any game industry site like gamasutra, IDGA or look up the GDC presentations and keynotes. There are Casual games summits and casuals SIG's. The industry realates to these terms because it equates to money.

You obviously misunderstand the classification. Casual games and hardcore games can refer to a games design and accessability, these were defined based off of the initial studies on the consumers. These don't really have to be in cohesion with appeal. Target demographic dictates appeal or marketing slant and normally what follows is the classification of hardcore and casual.

You make it seem more difficult than what it really is. You talk about diversity and newcomers and that is all great..... but the majority of them falls under the umbrella of casual gamers. It isn't an insult and I think this big backlash on the internet because some feel that it is. You can see it when you pick up a game which crowd it had in mind when it was being designed. It is not to say that the hardcore crowd do not find casual games appealing or even don't play them at all. It is a sepereation of anxiety. I can show my mom a casual game like Wii sports boxing and she will give it a try because it seems easy but a game like Fight Night round 3 she wouldn't be interested in because it seems hard.

Gamers did not create the terms "Hardcore", "Casual", "AAA" or "Killer App". The game media reported on trade shows and the gamers ran with these terms assigning arbitrary meanings for the these terms. I would imagine the most abused is AAA fallowed by the marketing terms hardcore and casual.
 

PsychoKitten

Superior Member
May 24, 2006
905
0
0
33
#30
I'm not going to say that graphics make the games, but I will say it depends on the game. Some games are designed to be all about how realistic and awesome it looks, while others aren't so emphasized on it. I'd rather play Disgaea or Grand Theft Auto than... Oh I don't know... All those games that people try to convince you are awesome because of their explosions or the shininess of their armor.

Also another issue is the graphics can be so terrible it hinders game play, because you can't tell what's going on or what you're walking into or trying to pick up.

In the end it really depends, like everything else. Nothing is ever black and white and I think blanketing can just make things worse at times.