Quote:It's not complex, it's complicated. It's not gaming, it's gameplay. It's not dumbed down, it's simple. This is another one of your infamous seperation lines, drawn between concepts of extremely similar nature. So similar, that normal people don't see those lines.

English is a language of nuance. Until you understand that nuance, you cannot really speak fluently in English; I am not here to educate people on the proper understanding of English. Sorry if English isn't your first language (I know how annoying small little nuances like that can be in a second language), but the distinction are there, and are very significant.

Quote:Knowledge is knowledge. How you obtained that knowledge is irrelevant, once the game has started. I'll be the first to admit that it's better to allow players to employ real-world skills and strategy in games, rather than artificial concepts that are unique to that game.

But even when that is the case, if your game has any depth, you still face all of the same problems. Your average human doesn't know how to flick a sword the right way, equip a space suit correctly, gallop a horse quickly, or aim a psycannon from one planet to another.

If you want to play in-depth games, you're going to have to learn new things. And if you need to learn more to play better, there will always be someone out there who knows more than you.

It's important to differentiate skills that can be developed from knowledge. If someone does not know how to flick a sword the right where, there is a knowledge gap. If they know but cannot accurately reproduce it, then there is a skills gap. They have the knowledge, but not the ability.

Your claim "If you want to play in-depth games, you're going to have to learn new things." is very strongly refuted by the textbook example of chess. Or card games, like poker; they require very little knowledge that can (and should) be easily learnt before starting a game, but you can have lots of depth.

Quote:Original post by sunandshadow
Captain Griffen - One thing about chess as an example is that neither the average casual gamer nor the average hardcore gamer particularly likes it.

Odd. I know many people (many gamers too) who like it. The strength of the connection to gaming in terms of computers is really irrelevant, since it serves as an example in gameplay in general.

Quote:is the difference between hardcore gamers and casual gamers that hardcore ones enjoy learning more and more about the game while casual ones don't? I know several hardcore MMOers who consider reading the game's wiki to research anything and everything in the game to be half the fun of playing the game.

There is a tendancy for hardcore gamers to want to learn more and more detailed and hidden stuff, whereas casual players tend to prefer to just play the game, but is that casaul, or merely due to the demographics of those involved?

I'd say it's probably one of the more defining features of any useful distinction that can be made, rather than an incidental one.

Quote:Then how about Sim City vs Quake? You placed them closer to the casual and hardcore game borderlines, respectively. Does Sim City not require an excessive amount of game-specific-knowledge to play it, compared to Quake, where you just aim your sight and shoot things that move?

SimCity is an interesting case; I'm not actually sure what it's demographic is.

In fact, I think there are more game-relative skills being employed by Chess, Tetris, and Minesweeper, than in Quake or Halo. It's a given that shooting something kills it, compared to lining up a row of horizontal blocks to clear them.

There is, however, far less specific knowledge needed in chess, tetris, minesweeper, etc. You learn a few basic rules, and then you are set for the rest of the game.

More 'hardcore' games have a tendancy to suddenly turn the rules of the game upside down (normally entirely screwing up any previous strategies, meaning that first time around you get smashed because of the often unannounced change in rules). In addition, games like UT have hidden stuff you can find to get boosts, which give a major advantage, and vary from map to map. Halo is quite nice in generally avoiding this so much (in single player, anyway, I haven't played it enough online to comment).

Quote:Original post by Captain Griffen

Quote:It's not complex, it's complicated. It's not gaming, it's gameplay. It's not dumbed down, it's simple. This is another one of your infamous seperation lines, drawn between concepts of extremely similar nature. So similar, that normal people don't see those lines.

English is a language of nuance. Until you understand that nuance, you cannot really speak fluently in English; I am not here to educate people on the proper understanding of English. Sorry if English isn't your first language (I know how annoying small little nuances like that can be in a second language), but the distinction are there, and are very significant.

This isn't about understanding the difference between general words. It's about the insignificance of those differences for dividing games or gamers into groups. Casual games are not complex or complicated. They're simple. That's what makes them casual. Therefore, the distinction is pointless.

Quote:Your claim "If you want to play in-depth games, you're going to have to learn new things." is very strongly refuted by the textbook example of chess. Or card games, like poker; they require very little knowledge that can (and should) be easily learnt before starting a game, but you can have lots of depth.

I thought we were talking about video games. You're reaching way outside of the subject to counter my points, as usual. In the board game world, chess would be considered hardcore by most. Monopoly might be considered a middle ground, and is far more casual than chess. Checkers would be casual.

Quote:Original post by Captain Griffen

Quote:Original post by sunandshadow
Captain Griffen - One thing about chess as an example is that neither the average casual gamer nor the average hardcore gamer particularly likes it.

Odd. I know many people (many gamers too) who like it. The strength of the connection to gaming in terms of computers is really irrelevant, since it serves as an example in gameplay in general.

If it's so irrelevant, then do us all a favor and stick to video games. If your points are valid and sensible, you shouldn't have to bounce back and forth between mediums to make them.

Quote:

Quote:In fact, I think there are more game-relative skills being employed by Chess, Tetris, and Minesweeper, than in Quake or Halo. It's a given that shooting something kills it, compared to lining up a row of horizontal blocks to clear them.

There is, however, far less specific knowledge needed in chess, tetris, minesweeper, etc. You learn a few basic rules, and then you are set for the rest of the game.

What specific knowledge of Quake or Halo are you referring to? There are virtually no game rules and no interactive limitations to speak of. You move around and shoot the bad guys. That's it. No one's going to scold you because you weren't allowed to move that specific piece like that. You can do whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want.

Quote:More 'hardcore' games have a tendancy to suddenly turn the rules of the game upside down (normally entirely screwing up any previous strategies, meaning that first time around you get smashed because of the often unannounced change in rules).

I've never seen much of that. Not that it would have any context anyway, since you've refused to even describe your own general definition of "hardcore game". From what you've brought up so far, it looks like your concept of hardcore game simply means a game with badly designed features. In which case, I would agree with almost every problem you have with them. Obviously, badly designed games are bad. But that's not what defines a hardcore game.

Quote:Original post by Captain Griffen
Your claim "If you want to play in-depth games, you're going to have to learn new things." is very strongly refuted by the textbook example of chess. Or card games, like poker; they require very little knowledge that can (and should) be easily learnt before starting a game, but you can have lots of depth.

Just to jump in on this point... I have to disagree.

Certainly chess and poker are simple to begin. But to begin, the games are also not in-depth. I would argue that if you want an in-depth game of chess or poker, you need additional knowledge. (Actually, to be precise, need probably should have the qualifier "usually". There are always people with enough innate talent to be at the top-end despite missing the knowledge most others have, but they are a small minority and increased talent only delays the need for knowledge rather than removing it completely)

In chess - most people who play in-depth or "serious" games do not rely solely on the basic game knowledge. They learn new things such as classic openings, counters, strategies, etc. The more in-depth or serious the gaming becomes, the more likely they are to search out these new areas of knowledge.

In poker, the same thing happens. The more in-depth the game you wish to play, the more likely the player is to seek out additional knowledge on statistics and probability, common tells, etc.

Quote:Original post by Kest

Quote:Original post by Way Walker

Quote:Original post by Kest
It's not complex, it's complicated. It's not gaming, it's gameplay. It's not dumbed down, it's simple. This is another one of your infamous seperation lines, drawn between concepts of extremely similar nature. So similar, that normal people don't see those lines.

I'm perhaps not normal, but the distinctions seem obvious and useful to me, probably because they're common in the fields I've studied.

Then how about Sim City vs Quake? You placed them closer to the casual and hardcore game borderlines, respectively.

I did? I thought it was Wavinator. I didn't necessarily agree with the exact list, I did agree with a trend I saw among them after adjusting for differences in what I and Wavinator would consider hardcore (e.g. he seems to place 4X games as hardcore, whereas I'd probably have placed CivII/Alpha Centauri as middle leaning hardcore).

Quote:
Does Sim City not require an excessive amount of game-specific-knowledge to play it, compared to Quake, where you just aim your sight and shoot things that move? In fact, I think there are more game-relative skills being employed by Chess, Tetris, and Minesweeper, than in Quake or Halo. It's a given that shooting something kills it, compared to lining up a row of horizontal blocks to clear them.

Well, if we're simplifying to that extent:

• People live, shop, and work in cities
  
• You capture the ruler, you win the war
  
• Packing oddly shaped objects efficiently (familiar to anyone who has moved, gone on vacation, cleaned out a junk drawer, etc.)
  
• You step on a mine, you die

I think the only reason Quake seems as simple as the others is that it uses common idioms. At least, idioms that are familiar to gamers. My mom wouldn't know them, and would have more trouble picking up Quake than she did Tetris.

But, really, I was just saying that Captain Griffen's distinctions made sense to me even though you and sunandshadow think he's splitting hairs. Basically, I was just saying that I don't see any reason to write off the distinctions being made as trivial since they're real and useful distinctions.

Now, it seems this is largely a discussion of how to define hardcore vs. casual. If I were to attempt a definition, I'd say:

• Hardcore gaming is where the game is the focal point (i.e. the game itself is taken to be serious business) while casual gaming uses the game as a means to an end.
  
• A gamer is someone with a general interest in playing games (they'd in some sense identify themself as someone who likes to play games, as opposed to someone who, say, just does the morning crossword).
  
• Hardcore/casual gamers are either gamers who are more likely to play hardcore/casually or gamers who are currently playing hardcore/casually, depending on context.
  
• Hardcore/casual games are games that are more likely to be played hardcore/casually.

Perhaps not very useful since it's pretty vague, but I don't think being more specific would do justice to the variety found in the everyday uses of the words (I've probably even missed a few cases). If a particular discussion needs a more specific definition, one can be decided upon for the sake of the discussion, but such definitions inevitably leave out some everyday uses (e.g. power and energy have overlapping everyday uses, but, in physics, are distinct concepts).

Quote:Original post by Way Walker

Quote:Original post by Kest

Quote:Original post by Way Walker

Quote:Original post by Kest
It's not complex, it's complicated. It's not gaming, it's gameplay. It's not dumbed down, it's simple. This is another one of your infamous seperation lines, drawn between concepts of extremely similar nature. So similar, that normal people don't see those lines.

I'm perhaps not normal, but the distinctions seem obvious and useful to me, probably because they're common in the fields I've studied.

Then how about Sim City vs Quake? You placed them closer to the casual and hardcore game borderlines, respectively.

I did? I thought it was Wavinator. I didn't necessarily agree with the exact list, I did agree with a trend I saw among them after adjusting for differences in what I and Wavinator would consider hardcore (e.g. he seems to place 4X games as hardcore, whereas I'd probably have placed CivII/Alpha Centauri as middle leaning hardcore).

I'm sorry about that. I'm not sure how I confused your post as Wavinators.

Let me re-counter by just puting it this way: All interesting games (IMO) require some additional knowlege to play. If I know what I'm doing when I first jump into it, then it doesn't offer anything new to me.

I don't see a problem when discovering new interactive concepts helps me play a game better. Is there some type of phobia for learning new gameplay concepts that causes casual players to stay casual? If so, it would be caused by intimidation or a lack of interest.

For me, learning to play is fun. But perhaps that's what throws me into the hardcore gamer crowd?

Quote:

Quote:Does Sim City not require an excessive amount of game-specific-knowledge to play it, compared to Quake, where you just aim your sight and shoot things that move? In fact, I think there are more game-relative skills being employed by Chess, Tetris, and Minesweeper, than in Quake or Halo. It's a given that shooting something kills it, compared to lining up a row of horizontal blocks to clear them.

Well, if we're simplifying to that extent:

• People live, shop, and work in cities
  
• You capture the ruler, you win the war
  
• Packing oddly shaped objects efficiently (familiar to anyone who has moved, gone on vacation, cleaned out a junk drawer, etc.)
  
• You step on a mine, you die

I think the only reason Quake seems as simple as the others is that it uses common idioms. At least, idioms that are familiar to gamers. My mom wouldn't know them, and would have more trouble picking up Quake than she did Tetris.

Chess isn't just about capturing the ruler. You have to know all of the limitations of pieces, and other obscure rules that don't relate to anything but chess. Tetris and mindsweeper are the same. They both have very game-specific rules and concepts put in place to make them interesting.

This is something that realism wins out on. It relates far better to real life. And hardcore gamers love realism. They really don't prefer games to have abstract game-specific depth. But sometimes, that's the only way to get it.

I would really need you to point out some of those Quake idioms. I'll admit that I've been playing games since I've been able to walk. But I don't see any game-specific concepts used in Quake that are required to enjoy it, other than the WASD and mouse aiming to control the character. But that doesn't come close to learning all of the specific rules of chess.

Quote:But, really, I was just saying that Captain Griffen's distinctions made sense to me even though you and sunandshadow think he's splitting hairs. Basically, I was just saying that I don't see any reason to write off the distinctions being made as trivial since they're real and useful distinctions.

Personally, I don't see anything useful about them. But since you've stood up for them, I'll just let it go.

Quote:Now, it seems this is largely a discussion of how to define hardcore vs. casual. If I were to attempt a definition, I'd say:

• Hardcore gaming is where the game is the focal point (i.e. the game itself is taken to be serious business) while casual gaming uses the game as a means to an end.
  
• A gamer is someone with a general interest in playing games (they'd in some sense identify themself as someone who likes to play games, as opposed to someone who, say, just does the morning crossword).
  
• Hardcore/casual gamers are either gamers who are more likely to play hardcore/casually or gamers who are currently playing hardcore/casually, depending on context.
  
• Hardcore/casual games are games that are more likely to be played hardcore/casually.

Well, to be honest, I don't feel any wiser after reading that. It looks to me like you completely avoided specifying any distinction. Hardcore/casual players like to play hardcore/casually? What is that?

If your final point is that hardcore gaming is just more serious gaming, then I'll agree.

Quote:Perhaps not very useful since it's pretty vague, but I don't think being more specific would do justice to the variety found in the everyday uses of the words (I've probably even missed a few cases).

Which means it's impossible and pointless to discuss the subject with you, not knowing where you stand. For all I know, hardcore gamers could be limited to overly annoying MMORPGS players for you, while I, considering myself anything but casual, would never touch an MMORPG.

Quote:If a particular discussion needs a more specific definition, one can be decided upon for the sake of the discussion, but such definitions inevitably leave out some everyday uses (e.g. power and energy have overlapping everyday uses, but, in physics, are distinct concepts).

As long as you don't want to discuss anything specific that relates to hardcore or casual gameplay, then I don't need to know which is which for you. Otherwise, we'll both just end up confused, arguing about completely different concepts as though they were the same thing. That won't get us anywhere.

Quote:Original post by MSW

Quote:Original post by Kest
This isn't about understanding the difference between general words. It's about the insignificance of those differences for dividing games or gamers into groups. Casual games are not complex or complicated. They're simple. That's what makes them casual. Therefore, the distinction is pointless.

Bullet hell games like Mars Matrix are simple, but you can't make the case it is casual.

I said casual games are simple. Not that simple games are casual. But, like I said before, I don't think games can been classified into hardcore/casual very easily. There are casual games that can be played hardcore, if you're desperate enough for a game. Turn the Tetris difficulty to max, and beat 50+ levels, for example.

I haven't played Mars Matrix, but it looks to be very difficult. Very difficult is not simple.

Quote:If it's so irrelevant, then do us all a favor and stick to video games. If your points are valid and sensible, you shouldn't have to bounce back and forth between mediums to make them.

I'm going to stop replying to you since your grasp of the English language is, unfortunately, insufficient for you to actually comprehend what I am saying, OR you are deliberately creating a straw man argument.

Quote:Original post by caffiene

Quote:Original post by Captain Griffen
Your claim "If you want to play in-depth games, you're going to have to learn new things." is very strongly refuted by the textbook example of chess. Or card games, like poker; they require very little knowledge that can (and should) be easily learnt before starting a game, but you can have lots of depth.

Just to jump in on this point... I have to disagree.

Certainly chess and poker are simple to begin. But to begin, the games are also not in-depth. I would argue that if you want an in-depth game of chess or poker, you need additional knowledge. (Actually, to be precise, need probably should have the qualifier "usually". There are always people with enough innate talent to be at the top-end despite missing the knowledge most others have, but they are a small minority and increased talent only delays the need for knowledge rather than removing it completely)

In chess - most people who play in-depth or "serious" games do not rely solely on the basic game knowledge. They learn new things such as classic openings, counters, strategies, etc. The more in-depth or serious the gaming becomes, the more likely they are to search out these new areas of knowledge.

In poker, the same thing happens. The more in-depth the game you wish to play, the more likely the player is to seek out additional knowledge on statistics and probability, common tells, etc.

The 'knowledge' is poker/chess are strategies which can be generated (and are) from the basic starting knowledge. By contrast, in, say, UT, you cannot know where the pickups are on any given map just from building from the basic rules. Similarly, combos are not derived from basic rules everyone knows, but decided (roughly arbitarily, as far as the gamer is concerned) by game designer.

Quote:Original post by Captain Griffen

Quote:If it's so irrelevant, then do us all a favor and stick to video games. If your points are valid and sensible, you shouldn't have to bounce back and forth between mediums to make them.

I'm going to stop replying to you since your grasp of the English language is, unfortunately, insufficient for you to actually comprehend what I am saying, OR you are deliberately creating a straw man argument.

That's a pretty childish manner of backing away.

+ Complicated 1 Complicated 2
+ Complex 1 Complex 2

Quote:The 'knowledge' is poker/chess are strategies which can be generated (and are) from the basic starting knowledge. By contrast, in, say, UT, you cannot know where the pickups are on any given map just from building from the basic rules.

Why is that a problem? Why would you need to know every specific detail about a game to enjoy it? Knowing the location of pickups would only be a major issue if you were trying to compete with other players. What about single player games?

Quote:Similarly, combos are not derived from basic rules everyone knows, but decided (roughly arbitarily, as far as the gamer is concerned) by game designer.

*Flashbacks of beating hundreds of casual arcade gamers into submission on Killer Instinct* ... Yeah, I would have to agree. When competing against other humans, that sort of knowledge can be a deciding factor, and hardcore gamers will most likely have more of it. But that's no different than any other sport. Someone who takes kick boxing seriously is going to have a huge advantage over someone stopping by for a quick thrill.