So what exactly is a hardcore gamer? I hear the term all the time... but the definition seems a little bit fuzzy.
I hear people IRL say that they are hardcore gamers, when all they do is religiously play COD... So what is hardcore to you?
Printable View
So what exactly is a hardcore gamer? I hear the term all the time... but the definition seems a little bit fuzzy.
I hear people IRL say that they are hardcore gamers, when all they do is religiously play COD... So what is hardcore to you?
It originated in the Arcades, typically those who marathon gamed in Arcades for days on end. The term then appropriately extended to console gamers of Arcade style games and hardcore Action games in general. Modern CoD/Zelda/Final Fantasy gamers need to find their own term, "Core" is too close and people keep getting it mixed up. This is especially true because back in 2001 the Playstation generation KILLED HARDCORE GAMING!
In today's gaming world, "hardcore", or "core" gaming is defined as the antonym of that which is "casual" gaming. Whatever that means.
But from what I've gathered,
Hardcore/Core gaming: (Anything that requires the tactical dexterity of using a game pad of any sort for quick, fast responsiveness)
Casual Gaming: (Anything that requires little or no dexterity to perform the action involved during gameplay).
At any rate, I don't go by any of these definitions, though I consider myself a "hardcore retrogamer".
If there's penetration... then you're hardcore.
Me!
Why the Playstation generation and not the X-Box generation ? Please explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
A hardcore gamer is a person who plays a video game with loud metal rock music playing in the background while massive explosions are occurring around him as he swears to no end at the tv screen.
Same reason why not the N64 generation. The late PS1 and early PS2 era was absolutely dominated by Sony in every way, including what kinds of games were made. Cinema replaced fast paced action gameplay during this time in a very tangible measurable way. The exceptions rare. It's not obvious to people who grew up on the Playstations because they like the genres those platforms favored. Somebody who found something like the Dreamcast or Saturn libraries pinnacles of games can't and won't see it the same way. We called Sony fans, that is Sony exclusive consumers, casual gamers. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkDragon
I hate this term so much. "Hardcore" is such a stupid term.
BUT A hardcore gamer can mean one of 2 things:
1. A person who plays games as a lifestyle. The opposite of a casual gamer, who plays games every now and then to kill time.
2. "Game A is so much better than Game B, you're not a Hardcore gamer like me, you're a petty casual gamer" <- 4 year old Xbros definition.
In the end, it's just a term to demean others, mainly used as the forum equivalent of the MMO term "n00b".
I am hardcore because I don't play roms.
I do that, except without the explosions... and without the swearing. maybe i'm only a third hardcore then..Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderblaze16
I would just define hardcore as someone who embraces Videogames as a lifestyle and not just a hobby. Someone who eats breathes and sleeps Videogames. Also one who desires to achieve Videogame mastery. A hardcore gamer doesn't need the 30 live code for Contra to beat it. But knows the code by heart 25 years after the fact.
Well, a hardcore gamer is a cool guy who plays video games with "true passion" you know like us! ;)
Ive always thought the term was relative to the amount of time someone spends gaming. Say, you play VG more than 4 hours a day in average you are pretty much a HC gamer in my book, no matter what's your skill level and what style of game you play. You are a hardcore gamer simply because you play alot.
I think there's more to it than how much you play, but how much life you spend in video game related activities. Reading reviews, discussion with friends (although it could be argued true hardcore gamers have no friends), keeping up to date with the video game scene, buying awesome obscure games because they play well, as opposed to abject tosh like Mario and Sonic at the Olympics. It's a completely immotive term that lacks substance.
As a result of watching AVGN for years, I sometimes find myself referring to irritating enemies in games as "fucking pieces of shit", usually as a mutter. Is that the mark of a hardcore gamer?
.........Which is to say Sonic killed hardcore gaming. Remember that cuddly little blue answer to Mario? Well nobody'd call Mario games hardcore to begin with, but Sonic's answer was to take away 90% of the pitfalls and add nearly infinite health. Imagine an entire Mario game composed like SMB3's first level and now whenever this blue Mario gets hit he sheds thirty tiny mushrooms to pick up and make him full sized again.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
As for all this Playstation killing hardcore gaming rot I seem to remember Tekken selling well at every release. You know Tekken, it's like Virtua Fighter only with twice as many buttons. (Sure, 'Guard' is a button too, but I don't like to point out when Sega games share similarities with Mortal Kombat).
As much as this begs a SCD refresher I'd rather you demonstrate that tangible measurable way. It might also help the discussion if you proved how shmups, run and guns, and even fighters outsold games like Sonic, Mario, DKC, Zelda, and sports titles back in the good old days before Sony had killed hardcore gaming.Quote:
Cinema replaced fast paced action gameplay during this time in a very tangible measurable way.
@ topic = I for one do consider FPS players hardcore. Those games aren't simple or pick-up-and-play in terms of time commitment and regardless of their solo mission difficulty they revolve around intense multiplayer competition. FPS games basically devolve into tournament play, which is definitively hardcore.
Also, I find 'hardcore' a very preening term video game historians (revisionists) use to dismiss others less interested in knowing the usually inconsequential "origins" of a given aspect of gaming.
Compare how one uses the term "hardcore" in other contexts. An example: electronic music. There are lots of people who enjoy Prodigy, or Daft Punk, or whatever. Then there's the hardcore. The people who go to tons of shows, have extensive record collections, have an encyclopedic knowledge of obscure acts, can legitimately identify minor sub-subgenres, etc. So, a hardcore gamer is someone who is part of the gaming subculture. They know their shit about games, they play a lot of games, they speak the lingo, etc.
This makes the perpetual squabbles over what's an RPG/SRPG or SPRG/wargame amusing. I suppose half the board will want a word with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by j_factor
Furthermore your definition speaks to my objection at the term. There's always a self serving knowledge quota, and knowledge tends to completism, and completism is the opposite of eclecticism (quality selection). In my eyes it's perfectly possible to be a hardcore gamer without delving into even a single system's library; consider how long it takes to master a given game. Just take the popular PS titles: TR, Tekken, Wipeout, FF. Mastering each of those games (12+) would take a lot of effort and ability as well as time; it mightn't be much measured over a life of gaming but at any given time that selection, approached for mastery, would be enough to qualify someone as a hardcore gamer. Completists will glance at somebody who only has a small library or limited knowledge and scoff but then immersion takes a lot of time that sampling does not--it's just as easy to know something about 2000 games as it is to master 20. To return to your music analogy--those enthusiasts who only know Prodigy, Daft Punk, or whatever, might be happy only listening to a small selection of albums over and over, that doesn't make their enthusiasm shallow.
Here are some hardcore gamers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn_xaQ5d5gY
When talking about "hardcore" the way it's used nowadays for definitions.
If you only own a wii with like >=3 games (probably wii fit, wii sports, and maybe one other) and pick them up to play now and again, or maybe almost never play at all. You may also play instead/in addition on a smartphone/ipad/facebook with games like angry birds, farmville, and words with friends. If this defines your entire gaming existence then you are a casual gamer.
If you buy and maybe play games any more than that, you're edging into the hardcore/core gamers they are talking about. Since from their perspective they don't actually care if you play the games, only if you buy them.
With as many games as I own these days and with what little free time I do have, and the lack of energy to play, I wouldn't call myself a hardcore gamer by any degree. I used to put a ton of hours into gaming at one time, but on off days from work I have so little energy that I don't even feel the need to get up and do a whole lot. It's a nasty routine and I feel like I'm slipping into casual territory (yeah I got a Wii, but a lot of titles I have for it are VC games, stuff like Super Fantasy Zone and Ufouria). It's also a routine I need to break, with all that I have I should be using all that free time gaming.
I swear when at work and right before a day off I promise myself I'll pull out x or y game and put some time into it, I wind up lying to myself. :(
Hardcore is a misleading word.
There are people who play over 5 hours a day and still suck. On the other hand, gifted players need only 30 minutes to hone the skills to bring said game to pieces.
It's a tough call telling who's more hardcore.
I'd say hardcore is anyone who's passionate enough about something to the point of understanding the subject matter in details not commonly known to most people.
You can be hardcore about cricket, soap operas, Stanley Kubrick, Glee and Metal Slug at the same time.
QFT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kollision
Mascot platformers are decidedly not hardcore genres, that's why they never made headway in the Arcades. Even after Sonic though, I could walk into Arcades and play Action games of all varieties and colors, frequently brand new ones not attached to any franchise. Within a year I could play these games on consoles as well. Once the Playstation became popular though things started to change immediately. Hardcore, or mainstay, Arcade genres and even franchises started dropping away, along with many of their companies, to be replaced by console specific "multimedia" story driven games. These are just as non-hardcore as mascot platformers, but the difference is they quickly killed the hardcore genres.Quote:
Originally Posted by StarMist
FMV games on the Sega CD make up less than 20% of the library, and most of the other games are not Arcade style Action games either. If the Sega CD had gone the way Sega of America had planned it would have been a predominantly casual multimedia gamer console.Quote:
Originally Posted by StarMist
I wouldn't call Tekken a hardcore fighter, but since it was used in Arcade tournaments it keeps with my rule. It is by far the most casual friendly 3D fighter in Arcades short of something less 3D like Killer Instinct.
Sales comparisons is the other thing that "Core" gamers brought to into play. It never mattered whether Ranger X or Shinobi III or Contra or Castlevania or Axelay outsold Mario or Sonic. We just played the games, and those of us who were "hardcore" gamers played them more than we should have each day. The sales didn't matter, at least not as much. Once Sony brought themselves, EA and a handful of other publishers into Mega-Publisher status sales became more important than gameplay diversity.
The result, as we have all seen in the last decade is stagnation in gameplay diversity and a predominant limitation and consolidation of genres and franchises to a select few with marketing research behind them. Marketing research favors sales to the masses obviously.
Somebody needs to make one of those "What if X was made today" videos on Ikari Warriors or Contra 1. I think that would make the point. As for revisionism, it is a fact that the term hardcore and hardcore gamer originated in the Arcades for the Video Game industry. It is also a fact that the 3D cinematic story driven genres killed the mainstay Arcade Action Genres and ultimately Arcades. We could debate whether this was simply a generational shift in consumer interests caused by the older gamers quitting and new gamers having differing (and less diverse) interests, but the origins of "hardcore" in this industry remains the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by StarMist
Like you said, nobody called Super Mario hardcore, and somebody who played it and only it all day every day wasn't called hardcore either.
The biggest problem with the term hardcore is it has taken on an edge of superiority, when in fact it was just a nice term for fanatic enthusiast or "professional" gamer when applied to people. When applied to games it originated in Arcades and mainstay Arcade genres, particularly the genres that attracted the most skilled gamers and resulted in tournaments between them.
People who exclusively play modern genres and deviate very little from them need to find their own term and leave the honored dead alone.
As I said over at Digitpress:
Hardcore:
http://www.arcadecenter.com/2009expo...s/DSC07441.jpg
Decidedly NOT hardcore:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ntLQy23EJDM
Hardcore gamers are those who take the time to really learn, and master their games, they don't care about when a game was released, don't follow the latest fads, and appreciate all types of gaming equally.
People who religiously play whatever's big at the moment are simply mainstreamers.
Mainstreamers tried to change the definition of hardcore gamer a few years back just so they could feel better about themselves and put down the Wii market (though sometimes I wonder if the whole "Hardcore vs Casual" argument wasn't just a marketing ruse concocted by Sony & Microsoft to embarass mainstreamers into staying away from the Wii :lol:).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQVr6qop0CY
Is this a hardcore gamer?
I distinctly remember Microsoft and Sony calling their mainstream gamers "Core" at the launch of the HD generation. I was okay with that term, it's too bad people are getting it confused with Hardcore, and maybe even feeling a little bit of envy for the term. Really, it's like trying to misappropriate "Trekor" or something.
Here are some other differences I have noticed. A "Core" gamer, or an editorialist catering to them, will call a Hardcore game lacking in content because it "can be beaten in X minutes". This shows their bias for "content" driven story based genres from modern gaming, and lack of understanding of the Hardcore genres. It takes countless hours to master a proper Hardcore game, and nobody counted the hours while mastering these games. A proper Action title is infinitely replayable, it isn't over when you get to the point of beating it in twenty minutes without dieing. That just means you need to play something else for a while and come back later.
"Core" gamers understand this about as badly as modern "casual" and "social" gamers would. We have this interaction with kiddos on these very boards all the time, especially the ones who try to write their own reviews of games from the 90s.
This reflects the shift in console capabilities: 3D opened up a lot of genres everybody had always wanted. Take Metal Gear eg, a quality sequel on SNES or MD would've been a killer app but Kojima didn't want it made on them because they lacked cinematic capacity (I reject any other interpretation of his waiting for stronger hardware). With that kind of stuff being satisified why would most players haunt the arcades? Arcades' advantage had been to provide something the console market couldn't but what it had been offering was higher end versions of the same type of stuff available at home, not something totally different--when it was totally different was when the arcades were at their height--one was getting the A+ B+ C+ versions of A, B, and C type games that were still more or less available on console, but then with the 32 bit era one got home consoles with the whole gamut of game types available. The thing is that in the past gamers looking for variety had settled for the slightly different experience arcades offered in variety; now they could get that at home. Yes, unfortunately it's still a majority rule scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
The rest of the matter boils down to economics.
Sales matter when somebody implies an entire generation or two consisted of hardcore gaming and there's no basis for that in what most gamers played. Hardcore gamers were always the minority.Quote:
Sales comparisons is the other thing that "Core" gamers brought to into play. It never mattered whether Ranger X or Shinobi III or Contra or Castlevania or Axelay outsold Mario or Sonic. We just played the games, and those of us who were "hardcore" gamers played them more than we should have each day. The sales didn't matter, at least not as much.
A little correction in the interest of scholastic integrity. Put it thus: the PS1 has more gameplay diversity than the SMS, MD, SCD, and 32X combined. The PS2 has the most diverse library of the 6th gen. So no, Sony wasn't the one to kill off the old IP wonderland.Quote:
OnceSonyMicrosoft brought themselves, EA and a handful of other publishers into Mega-Publisher status sales became more important than gameplay diversity.
Yes but this is a result of a company other than Sony and much more importantly of worldwide economics and the ballooning costs of game making.Quote:
The result, as we have all seen in the last decade is stagnation in gameplay diversity and a predominant limitation and consolidation of genres and franchises to a select few with marketing research behind them. Marketing research favors sales to the masses obviously.
Here's a fact: the old arcade style gamer would be highly uninterested in the multitudes of games and gaming genres necessary to qualify himself as encyclopaedic or whatever excessive degree of knowledge is considered the standard by the membership of that club. That old style arcade gamer is now mainly a fighting, shooting, racing, or antiquities enthusiast. He would likely have turned his nose up at 90% of the 16 bit library--excluding the NG of course.Quote:
Somebody needs to make one of those "What if X was made today" videos on Ikari Warriors or Contra 1. I think that would make the point. As for revisionism, it is a fact that the term hardcore and hardcore gamer originated in the Arcades for the Video Game industry.
Well, I addressed this first off. Though, again, if you look through either the PS or the PS2's best sellers you're going to find lots of action oriented stuff. Plus it's not as if gamers hadn't always wanted bigger more exploratory games. I mean you'd hardly want to play Solstice in the arcades.Quote:
It is also a fact that the 3D cinematic story driven genres killed the mainstay Arcade Action Genres and ultimately Arcades. We could debate whether this was simply a generational shift in consumer interests caused by the older gamers quitting and new gamers having differing (and less diverse) interests, but the origins of "hardcore" in this industry remains the same.
Hardcore were the minority, especially on Nintendo consoles, not so much on Sega and Atari platforms. The hardcore genres were still drawing in mainstreamers and marketing departments were still catering to them. This can even be seen in the magazines, free advertisers for the publishers, and the published software. More on this below.Quote:
Originally Posted by StarMist
Microsoft is to Sony as Sony was to Sega in the 90s. They took Sony's tactics and refined them with more resources until they worked with the later Xbox sales and finally the 360. No, Sony gobbled up developers and used their anti-competitive business tactics to crush any developers that wouldn't play ball with them. Sony dominated hardware and software sales from ~1997 through 2004, and their business tactics defined those generations and the most notorious game franchises and genres.Quote:
Originally Posted by StarMist
On the gameplay diversity thing, maybe if we consider the worldwide Playstation libraries but in the US it is far more lopsided. On a Sega console especially, the ratio of mainstream to hardcore was 10:1 or maybe 20:1, excepting the Genesis from 1992-1995. Actually, I think I'm being overly generous with that ratio, it may have actually been the reverse ratio Hardcore-Mainstream, especially in the early Master System, Genesis and Saturn libraries.
On the Playstations it is more like 100:1. Understand, I am not talking about the complete lack of hardcore genres, I am talking about the near complete lack of emphasis on them. Thanks to XBLA even the 360 is better than the Playstations with providing more mainstay Arcade genre support.
I don't know where anybody gets off saying that to be hardcore you have to be OCD about memorizing facts and exposing one self to everything related to anything gaming. That is much more about being an enthusiast or hobbyist, or just plain dork, than anything else. As I said, the term hardcore originated in the Arcades in relation to gaming. Gamers who originated in mainstay console genres should find their own term and be proud of that, not misappropriate another term for a different set of genres. Similarly, somebody who collects thousands of games in all genres is a collector, not a hardcore gamer.Quote:
Originally Posted by StarMist
Content is irrelevant, games can have more or less content than each other regardless of how "hardcore" they are, look at Wipeout for instance, waay more hardcore than Sega Rally, waay more mastery involved, and yet there's also far more content too.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
If they'd added another course, and a simple unlockable championship option to Sega Rally would it have suddenly stopped the game from requiring mastery? no, would it have made it less hardcore? no, would it have increased the longevity for those not interested in time trial? yes.
Having less does not make a game better, and it does not make a game "more hardcore", it just makes it shorter.
All in all I'd say over the years reviewers have generally been very fair to games which have a lot of depth but not so much content, they usually tend to bring up things like multiple endings, and deep movesets, extensive multiplayer longevity etc, I mean, I don't remember reviewers whining about fighting games only having 10 odd fights and that being the end, they all spoke of the moves and depth, replayability etc.
I always referred to people who played games professionally as hardcore gamers, independent of skill.
If you enjoy playing games for the fun of playing the game, isn't that casual? Either way, I think finding a term for people who play XBLA and iOS games is bullshit elitist stuff, just my opinion though.
So, after two pages of discussion, it's clear that no one can agree on what makes a true "hardcore" gamer. I'm on the side of those who are relating it to passion, rather than those relating it to skill. If my friend and I each spent 30 hours this week playing Ninja Gaiden on the NES, why would I be less of a hardcore gamer than he is just because I didn't make it as far as he did?
There are plenty of games on XBLA that cater to "hardcore" gamers, like Radiant Silvergun, Ikaruga, NiGHTS into dreams, Guardian Heroes, Rez, Megaman 9 & 10, Earthworm Jim HD, Cyber Troopers Virtual-On Oratorio Tangram, Marvel vs Capcom 2, Metal Slug, the list goes on and on. So i don't really see why XBLA isn't "hardcore"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gogogadget
Spoken like a true DVD-generation gamer. More modes/tracks/options does not make a better game. More refined gameplay and level design makes a better game first, and if that refinement can be carried over more levels/tracks/vehicles, then more is better. That is a huge nasty "if" though. Either way, since the term hardcore originated in Arcades, the question has to be asked, would all of these modes/tracks/cars/options be completely enjoyed in Arcades?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thenewguy
The Wipeout games, so say fans, are nearly infinitely replayable? Are you sure that most people who played Wipeout continued to do so after completing all tracks in first place a few times? Sega Rally players kept playing, and continue to do so. Do you think there is any reason at all why there are three Wipeout games on the PS1 alone, and yet Sega themselves have only arguably expanded on Sega Rally's core attributes?
That alone screams "one of these things is not like the other" to me. But to a "Core" gamer it just looks like one developer was better at adding more "content" and syndicating it than the other.
Another thing you may not be looking closely enough at is we don't view replaying a game as "time attack" we view it as playing a game we like and not getting bored.
Well, I know who Hard Gay is, and apparently this is Cormer, so presumably one puts the two together:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCspEj0pPsU
This, friends, is the face of hardcore gaming.
22 year-old Johnny's first game system was the XBox 360. He currently has 6 games in his library, but has paid for over fifty. He spends over 60 hours a week playing games (mostly online). He does not subscribe to gaming magazines, nor does he read reviews. He's heard of companies like Capcom and Konami, but couldn't tell you much about either one other than that he THINKS one of them had something to do with Metal Gear Solid 4.
Is Johnny "hardcore?" Yes.
My mom plays video games only a few times a week, but her average gaming session is between 2 and 3 hours. She loves endless puzzle type games (especially those utilizing some sort of achievement system) and understands that some games are better than others, but couldn't tell you exactly what the significance of the PopCap logo is. She has not one, but TWO GBAs, but apparently has not noticed that I took all of her games about two years ago (said games included Ms. Pac-Man and NES Classics Donkey Kong).
Is my mom a hardcore gamer? No.
If you compare these two subjects, I would say that my mother is the "better" gamer of the two. Her video game knowledge is no less superficial than some punk kid who only hears about new games from the posters that line the windows and walls of GameStop, but she doesn't care about graphics or "pwning n00bs." Her enjoyment of the game stems directly from the strength of its gameplay, and I'd venture to guess that she gets far more enjoyment AND mileage out of her silly Bejeweled games than Johnny has gotten out of any game he's ever played.
So what does "hardcore" mean again?
You're basing your whole argument on a big "if" in the 1st place. That you should expect the quality to be worse if more time is spent on extra content.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
Your argument is -
"If the gameplay suffers you should have less content"
Now that is a pretty big if in itself, small changes like adding a new mode of some more options don't exactly break the bank.
Wipeout has one of the most dedicated time trial scenes out there, there are fan sites strictly for Wipeout still with healthy time trial communities.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
Yes, and the reason is that Sony likes to rape their licenses and squeeze consumers for as much money as possible, it has nothing to do with the quality of the games.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
When you're hardcore U R teh awsum and everybody else is teh n00bz.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMatthews
I always picture some fat f*** who can't keep his mouth shut when it comes to games and how awesome they are. You know, the one with the awkward clothes and a vast knowledge of things nobody really cares about.