Assuming a prior interest, what do you think the greatest barrier is to introducing new gamers to games that are considered "hardcore?" Is it A. Overly complicated user interfaces (including high hand-eye coordination demands in many cases)? B. Concepts and subject matter that tends to be too esoteric? C. A natural resistance people have to trying new things? D. An Us vs. Them attitude among hardcore game designers (manifested as an unwillingness to simplify)? E. Lack of good, in depth tutorials? F. Too much of a "sink or swim" mentality when it comes to exposing complexity upfront? G. ???? In the last few months I've introduced two gamers to Civilization IV, a game that's probably on the extreme end of "complexity in games" scale. In both cases it helped to be able to walk them through it step by step and start out with just the basics. But both have told me they would have never picked the game from the shelf on their own. Despite its complexity, Civ is now notable for having a completely mouse driven interface. It's a game with a slow pace where you can take your time learning, and it's also chock full of lots of hints and advice (if not always useful). If you assume a prior interest, say for instance a casual games player who is now wanting games with more substance and durability, what factors do you think stand in the way of making more hardcore games accessible to non-hardcore gamers?

I would add:

1) Time needed to complete a simple task and save your progress. Non-hardcore gamers run away from games that needs to sit like 2 hours in front of the PC to enjoy it. They may not want to spend that ammount of time.
Plus, seeing a hardcore gamer (IMHO) playing like 6hs a single game, can create the illusion that the game indeed requieres 6hs a day to be played (or that it's just not suited for them).

2) Simplicity. Some gamers want something simple from the very start. If it looks complicated, they prejudge it is complicated.

2b)This sometimes include the installer. I remember hearing people around 30-50 years old complaining that they need to install the game (compatibility issues, it won't run in a slow PC, "you need driver xx.yy", etc, etc) They prefer something quick and easy, like plugging a cartridge/CD on the console and play. Not having to worry because they need 13GB of HDD (currently having 12GB free), or they lack a dedicated GPU.

These are just my opinions (well, the 2b thing is what I saw from experience).

Dark Sylinc

"i don't want to lose."
"i want to be able to save/quit/resume anytime (cauze i don't have the time to play)."
"i don't want to think (or micro)."
"i want to see the rewards of my actions now (think FPS) not 259 turns from now."
could also be read as "i only want to plan so far ahead."

Though I would note that some games that are "hardcore" do have horific interfaces.
Though most don't have bad interfaces, they just have a lot more information than people are used to having to dig through.
I'd say the biggest turnoff is that people like to lose by "whoops, guess I won't do that next time" mentality.
And in many "hardcore" games it is hard to tell exactly what cauzed you to lose, or it is something obvious, but hard to hone (like reflex speed).

Case example, starcraft. Not a hardcore game to most people, BUT at the competition level it is very much a hardcore game.
At the regular level of play, people can second by second change their strat and still feel like they have control over why they are losing.
ie, "whoops, guess i need more firebats in my next wave". But at the hardcore level, it is "whoops, guess i needed more carriers, gg." and the fix
to this is a total reevaluation of your strat from second 1 so that you can squeze out more units.
It means memorizing maps and build orders. It means knowing every strength and weekness and all the breakeven points. This stresses most people out
since they don't feel they should be expected to know all this
going into the game (and thusly say the other guy speeds too much time at this game)

Case example, civ. Not a hardcore game to most people, BUT to twitch gamers it is. There is a tonne of information given to the player
and very little in the way of direction on how to best use all that information. The perfect game that the computer plays will kick your ass on easy if you don't actually learn the game.
And this level of, well i dont want to spend 5hrs in a game to lose, then have to revise a 5hr strategy, hoping i do things better next time is what throws many people off this type of game.

I think anything can become treated as hardcore, but can the same be said for "softcore"?

Well I think games that have a lot of micromanagement in it, such as in the number of buttons, attributes, statistics, controls, parts, displayed information, etc, is the primary distinguishing factor of what makes them labeled hardcore, in that you can't really play such a game casually, or that you have to spend much of your time at the controls and management aspect of the game.

Civ 4 is hardcore these days? Yeesh...

From what I've seen of the few non-hardcore gamers (and even hardcore gamers that don't like what I'd consider more hardcore games) is that they lack attention spans. If your game doesn't reward them quickly (due to learning curve/tutorials) or often (because the game just isn't action oriented) they move on to other things.

Quote:"i don't want to think (or micro)."
"i want to see the rewards of my actions now (think FPS) not 259 turns from now."

By this definition, games such as chess and many puzzle games that is enjoyed by what many casual gamers would be hardcore games. In short, I don't think the instant gratification audience is the same as the casual players, although it's likely that they overlap.

I think you need to find out what it is that distinguishes a casual game from a hardcore game. I believe that the biggest differance between casual and hardcode games is the amount of time required to play (and enjoy them). So any game that is instantly enjoyable without previous knowledge and successively introduces advanced concepts would be more accessible to a more casual audience.

Games such as Tetris (simple mechanic, short game sessions), Theme Hospital (tutorial levels) and Diablo (simple game mechanic) comes to mind as games that would be easy for a casual gamer to pick up. In contrast, games such as Dwarf Fortress (obscure interface) and most MMO's (requires high time investment to play) would be hardcore games.

Then there's games such as FPS shooters, strategical boardgames etc. that are easily accessible for casual players but where hardcore gamers spend a lot of time practicing to compete at a higher level.

I remember when Sins of a Solar Empire first came out (real-time 4X game), it was considered a hardcore game. That sort of got me asking what exactly is considered a hardcore game?

I think in addition to competition, hardcore games are also about control, or the amount of fine-tuning micromanagement to which in casual games are abstracted to give a more general feeling of control. So I guess there are two types of hardcore games then, one to which cater more to competitive gamers (with popular titles played competitively) and the other catering to those who like to play around with interfaces as well as being able to control specific parts of the game (these games which are more niche).