Quote:Original post by Kest
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.
I wouldn't call it a phobia, just a difference in interests. Could I draw an analogy to the field of photography? All most people want is to be able to make some decent 4x6's of the family vacation or their kid's birthday. They don't care how the aperture affects depth of field, whether they could get softer shadows with a bounce flash, if the sky is a bit overexposed, if they've followed the rule of thirds, or whatever. To say they have a phobia of learning these things is a bit extreme. If they're not interested in photography itself and not knowing those things gets them the pictures they're looking for, it doesn't matter if they understand the pros and cons of zoom vs. prime lenses.
Quote:
For me, learning to play is fun. But perhaps that's what throws me into the hardcore gamer crowd?
From my point of view, yes.
Quote: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.
If I may change from Quake to Serious Sam 2 (I've played the latter but not the former), I'd say there's more to it than "point and shoot" and the analogies aren't as strong as you're suggesting (this claim is asserted on these forums whenever some politician accuses games of teaching kids how to shoot). There's an analogy between learning the moves in chess and learning the weapons, the enemies, and the interactions among them in Serious Sam 2. Also, it's made worse in the fact that Serious Sam 2 puts more demands on knowing that information at a moment's notice. A novice chess player can ask their opponent "How does the horse move again?" and take their time pondering their move. Have you tried asking a headless about how your weapons work or if he'd wait a minute while you decide which one to shoot him with? Even "shooting something kills it" is an oversimplification since Sam is much more likely to survive a bomb going off at his feet than any real human in a T-shirt and jeans. There are also conventions related to ammo and other powerups.
Like I was saying, we can simplify the other games to the same extent, but it doesn't make any of them that simple.
Quote:
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, personally, haven't seen any indication that hardcore gamers are more likely to prefer realism than casual gamers.
Quote: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.
"That" is something like a dictionary defining the adjective form of the word as "of or relating to <noun form of the word>." I find it harder to understand, but if you'd prefer that I'd write it all out in one bit it would become:
Hardcore gamers are people 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) who either are more likely to play with the game as the focal point (i.e. the game itself is taken to be serious business) or are currently playing with the game as the focal point, depending on context, while casual gamers are people with a general interest in playing games who either are more likely to play the game as a means to an end or are currently playing the game as a means to an end, again depending on context.
I wouldn't say it's more serious gaming; I'd say it's the extent to which the game itself is important. The seriousness of the gaming comes in insofar as the less important the game itself is to the player the less seriously they're likely to play, but that's not so much the deciding factor. A tennis player might take the game seriously even though he's just playing it for exercise and a bit of fresh air.
Quote: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.
If you understood what I was saying you'd know I was saying nothing of the sort. If you really think that, could you point out the parts that you don't understand? Or, even better, the points where it fails to provide a useful basis for the current discussion?
Quote: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.
What specific things that relate to hardcore or casual gameplay cannot be discussed using the above definition? I'd be happy to restrict the above definition so long as it's recognized that such a restriction turns it into a working definition for the purposes of discussion and will only cover a smaller subset of everyday uses of the terms (I don't claim that even the above definition is vague enough to cover all reasonable uses of the terms).
