Quote:Original post by Kest

Quote:Original post by Captain Griffen
Complex is good, complicated bad.

That doesn't make any sense. Both terms mean the same thing. If a game is complex with many features, it is complicated, and more difficult to understand.

No. Really, no. Chess is fairly simple. There are 9 piece types, and around 20 rules (including the pieces' movements).

Chess is not complicated. Chess is very complex.

Understanding that distinction is, in my opinion, one of the most important requirements in game design. You see it in pretty much all games that have lasted a long time.

Strangely, though, 'hardcore' games tend to go for complicated, often without actually having the complexity of more 'simple' games.

Quote:

Quote:That is a maxim that tends to apply far more to the middle ground than hardcore, where it often seems complicated and complex are good.

If you ask me, it sounds like you're a casual or hardcore gamer in denial, rather than belonging to some neutral alignment that has all of the good from both sides, and none of the bad.

I have some aspects of both, as do, I suspect, most gamers.

However, we REALLY need to actually get a definition down for what you mean by 'casual' and 'hardcore' since if you are using the normal one used, then there is a big gap between the two filled by a lot of people.

Quote:

Quote:Official terms? What are you on about...? There is nothing official about this debate. Arguments by authority when no authority exists are simply silly. None of my gaming friends ever use the word 'hardcore' except for mocking purposes.

Gaming review circles have always referred to overly complex games as appealing to hardcore gamers, and simple games appealing to casual gamers. It's not a self-labeled term. And just in case it isn't obvious, your friends use of words have nothing to do with them being official.

There is no officialdom involved. Game review circles cannot declare anything official. So cut the lame arguments from authority where no authority exists.

Quote:

Quote:Original post by Captain Griffen

Quote:Original post by Kest
Above all else, hardcore gamer defines a person who really loves gaming.

- not really. That defination includes far, far too many people for the purpose of what you're trying to say, and utterly fails to define gaming, hence falling completely apart.

Yes, really. Gaming as in the computer simulated world. All of it. Casual gamers don't fall into game worlds the way hardcore gamers do. That's what seperates them. Casual gamers are too distracted by real life to enjoy virtual life to the same degree, and hardcore gamers are too distracted by virtual life to enjoy real life to the same degree.

Oh really?

Think about why Myst was such an overwhelming success with casual gamers. Now tell me that casual gamers don't get drawn in to game worlds. (If you haven't played Myst, why not? I presume you're interested in game design, and Myst is one of the must-play games as a lesson in game design, I'd say.)

Quote:My theory is that, as the timeline moves forward, we will see more and more people turning into hardcore gamers. Whether the real world becomes less appealing with time, or the virtual world becomes more appealing with time, or both simultaneously, it's inevitable.

Unless you can make an actual argument for that being inevitable, I'll just ignore that, since social trends are never inevitable.

Quote:You don't get thrills from controlling a game? Isn't that what it's all about? Interactivity and manipulation?

No. I get thrills from playing a game.

If we take him to mean controlling as in the interface wise, here's an example of how 'hardcore' gamers can be really, really silly. On the StarCraft II forums, there is from time to time a big debate on Multi-Building Selection (MBS). Starcraft I didn't have it, but because it's a good interface idea, most RTS games now have it (if not all). However, the argument goes that MBS makes it easier to control the game, thus it requires less skill, and thus it is 'dumbing down'. So an improved interface is not wanted by them. Strangely enough, an example where the more casual gamers wanted to fight each other, whereas the more 'hardcore' gamers wanted to fight the interface.

Controlling could alternatively mean dominating. I've noticed 'hardcore' players tend to like dominating games, whereas it gets boring quickly for more casual players. We may like to win, but only if there is a challenge. This point, though, I'd say is far more down to a result of who is in each group, rather than a fundamental difference.

Quote:Hardcore gamers don't frown on casual gamers because they're wimpy at games. They frown on them because they're an incentive for developers to stupefy games.

Oh please. The main force for 'stupefy'ing games (I'm going to presume you mean dumb-down), I'd say, is consoles, which have interface issues with the interfaces needed for some stuff, eg: BioShock cf System Shock 2, DX:IW cf DX. That and an inexorable move towards 'oooh, shiny graphics'.

Not casual gamers. Once again, Myst springs to mind; call it what you will, you cannot call it a dumbed down game. Meanwhile, some of the most 'hardcore' games are also some of the most dumbed down, where repeating the same action over and over is the path to victory. The most extreme examples of this are certain Korean MMORPGs, where grinding and dying are the only way to compete, but there are lots of more mild examples.

TO THE RESPONSES SO FAR:
I have read the forums here for awhile but this post was enough to get me to register and spend my 2 cents. The reason I found this post worth jumping into is because most of the responses are wrong, or at least wrong in certain situations. If you want me to back up why, ask me to for your case. There are too many different answers and its too early in the morning to process them all individually.
I think this is important to understand not just in this scenario, but in many aspects of life. It seems to be absent in much of this discussion.
I don't think I have to convince anyone we all need a little entertainment in our lives, and video games do a good job of that. But, just as everyone of us is different, everyone finds entertainment in the same tasks differently. I am going to do something dangerous, and bring out religion as an analogy to elaborate. While one group might say we're Christians, it will be near impossible to find 2 people in that group that agree on everything pertaining to their religious beliefs. It is the same with games. There is a large collection of people who call themselves 'hardcore'.
Take two self-proclaimed hardcore video game players and tell them to start listing off the best games and their reasons why. In the same manner, you will be hard-pressed to find two alike.
What I am getting to is this: You will find people enjoying gaming for completely different reasons than your own, and they are as unwilling to change that as you are. Get over it, because in the end, your $50 is the same as the person next to you.

My mom has zero interest in video games in general. She would never be labeled as a hardcore gamer under the normal standards. At the same time, she plays Solitaire at least 3 times a day, and she has been doing that for over five years. She is competitive, too. My sister and her used to play in the morning and at night to get the best complete time. This went on daily for over a year. How is she not a hardcore gamer than? I cannot see the division clearly.
I think this is going to continue. The line between the hardcore and casual is going to start melting and you are going to see a huge influx of people who play hardcore without the 'hardcore' mentality/style we associate with it. Personally, I cannot wait to break free from the normal 'hardcore' personalities I find when playing on Xbox Live.


TO THE ORIGINAL POST:

I don't think any of the options are completely wrong, but if I had to pick an answer it would be A. My case and point is from less than 48 hours ago. On the evening of the 4th, my family sat down collectively for the first time and played a video game. We were playing Wii Fit and did the slalom skiing on the balance board. My 7 year old cousin, 60 year old uncle with two recently replaced knees, my gaming friends and I, my mom and siblings, and a few others all sat and played. To play required you to lean different directions, and to set the game up required pointing and the A button. My mom could reset for another round just as easily as I could. I had just as much fun as every other person playing. And after an hour of game play, my uncle decided to buy his first video game console. This all developed naturally. No one had planned for us to play. I think my sister was showing my little cousin and it evolved into my entire family having one heck of a good time in a way we hadn't before.
At that point I couldn't help but just accept in awe Nintendo as victor (victory being making new customers, selling the products, etc. and not making a game custom-fit to my liking.)

D is also an answer I would run with but mostly for the reason I just listed. Hardcore gamers go into making games. No one wants to make a game they won't enjoy, so hardcore makes for hardcore. Until now with Nintendo, and there's little arguing that its the top dog in terms of business success. Funny how that worked out.

I am currently in school for game development and this is the stuff I spend my free time thinking about, so I could pour out more blocks of text all morning. Won't do that so am cutting myself off here.

Quote:Original post by Captain Griffen

Quote:Original post by Kest

Quote:Original post by Captain Griffen
Complex is good, complicated bad.

That doesn't make any sense. Both terms mean the same thing. If a game is complex with many features, it is complicated, and more difficult to understand.

No. Really, no. Chess is fairly simple. There are 9 piece types, and around 20 rules (including the pieces' movements).

Chess is not complicated. Chess is very complex.

Understanding that distinction is, in my opinion, one of the most important requirements in game design. You see it in pretty much all games that have lasted a long time.

Strangely, though, 'hardcore' games tend to go for complicated, often without actually having the complexity of more 'simple' games.

Strange indeed. I don't know how to respond to any of those points. Well done.

Quote:

Quote:If you ask me, it sounds like you're a casual or hardcore gamer in denial, rather than belonging to some neutral alignment that has all of the good from both sides, and none of the bad.

I have some aspects of both, as do, I suspect, most gamers.

We all do. The ultimate hardcore gamer would be a brain in a jar, hooked to a PC, computing gaming formula algorithms for every swing of a sword. The ultimate casual gamer would be someone who played Pacman once in their teens, and most enjoyed the vibrant colors.

Quote:However, we REALLY need to actually get a definition down for what you mean by 'casual' and 'hardcore' since if you are using the normal one used, then there is a big gap between the two filled by a lot of people.

Determining the definition of hardcore and casual seems to be what the discussion has devolved into. Apparently, there are several completely different and unrelated perspectives on both. Play time, game devotion, cheating, past experience, challenge difficulty, gaming complexity, number crunching, and a slew of other traits seem to seperate them for different people.

Personally, I would define hardcore gamers as experienced gamers that like to play as often as they can, and casual gamers as inexperienced players that like to play once in a while. Those traits can lead to other traits, but certainly not directly to cheating, multiplayer "pwnage" idioms, an inclination to crunch background numbers, or other off the wall concepts. Sure, a lot of play time may lead here and there for some people, but not all of them. I, for one, don't even play online games, because of the lameness of other players found there. When not competing with friends, I prefer to rage against the machine.

Quote:Not casual gamers. Once again, Myst springs to mind; call it what you will, you cannot call it a dumbed down game.

Yes I can. I liked it for its time, but it was very simple.

Quote:Meanwhile, some of the most 'hardcore' games are also some of the most dumbed down, where repeating the same action over and over is the path to victory.

Gaming repetition is linked to the complexity of game design, not a preference for hardcore gamers. It just happens to be the only way, in modern times, that a devoted gamer can get their fix. Without repetition, the game just ends, and the hardcore gamer is left with a frown on his face.

The RTS and TBS genres are examples of extreme gaming repetition, such as Civilization and Starcraft. Those games are appealing to hardcore gamers because they don't wear out as quickly.

Quote:Yes I can. I liked it for its time, but it was very simple.

Simple doesn't mean dumbed down. Chess is simple; is chess dumbed down?

Quote:Personally, I would define hardcore gamers as experienced gamers that like to play as often as they can, and casual gamers as inexperienced players that like to play once in a while.

That'd more be 'gamers' and 'non-gamers'.

Quote:Original post by Robsykes
My mom has zero interest in video games in general. She would never be labeled as a hardcore gamer under the normal standards. At the same time, she plays Solitaire at least 3 times a day, and she has been doing that for over five years. She is competitive, too. My sister and her used to play in the morning and at night to get the best complete time. This went on daily for over a year. How is she not a hardcore gamer than? I cannot see the division clearly.

The term "hardcore gamer" is obviously not an absolute, however it is a colloquialism that originated within a specific community and a specific context, and therefore that community and context define it as idiomatic. Your mom is not a hardcore gamer because mere literal electronic adaptations of traditional pastimes are not generally included in the discussion of video games at large. Besides, your mom wouldn't consider herself a "gamer", but name one "hardcore gamer" who wouldn't.

Before you boldly proclaim that everyone else is wrong, take a minute to understand their arguments and perspectives in context.

Quote:Original post by Captain Griffen

Quote:Yes I can. I liked it for its time, but it was very simple.

Simple doesn't mean dumbed down.

Simple, stupefied, dumbed down - it all means the same thing to me. As does complex and complicated. But because it all means the same thing to me, we can use whichever terms you prefer. Hardcore gamers prefer complicated gameplay, while casual gamers prefer simple gameplay. Is that better?

Quote:Chess is simple; is chess dumbed down?

Your strategy in coming up with examples to make a point needs work. Wasn't it you that said analogies with chess fail? Chess is simple when playing against a simple opponent. And that's only because you're both ignoring the complexity that's (always) in the game. If you use simple strategy against an opponent who can see that complexity, you lose.

The same is true with almost all types of video games. Turn the difficulty down enough, and you can play as carefree as you want to, while ignoring all of the complex rules and features. If you turn it up instead, you might find complexity that the designer didn't even intend.

Quote:

Quote:Personally, I would define hardcore gamers as experienced gamers that like to play as often as they can, and casual gamers as inexperienced players that like to play once in a while.

That'd more be 'gamers' and 'non-gamers'.

Well, then feel free to specify your own enlightened perspective on categorization traits. Otherwise, our entire discussion would have been a waste of time.

I think Chunking plays a big part ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chunking_(psychology) ).

Most games that are considered as Hardcore have a lot of details that need to be learned quickly. Someone who has never really played that kind of game before becomes overwhelmed by the information flowing at them.

Humans only can really handle around 7 items of information in their short terms and working memories. This means that if there is too much information, then they become overwhelmed.

However, Chunking allows us to handle large amounts of information. Hardcore players have already chunked most of the information of the genres of the games they play, so when presented with a new game in a similar style they only need to note the differences and they are ready to play.

A non hardcore gamer has not been exposed to these games and so has not chunked the information and thus becomes overwhelmed.

To hardcore player the games are intuitive, but intuition is constructed from generalising past experiences. People who haven't had those past experiences will not find them intuitive.

There is a simple definition of hardcore and casual gamers. Hardcore gamers are the crazy people. They obbsesively wash their hands, ergo, play the game over and over again, expecting different results. Casual gamers are the normal people who are just waiting for the right fix.

Quote:Original post by Kest

Quote:Original post by Captain Griffen

Quote:Yes I can. I liked it for its time, but it was very simple.

Simple doesn't mean dumbed down.

Simple, stupefied, dumbed down - it all means the same thing to me. As does complex and complicated. But because it all means the same thing to me, we can use whichever terms you prefer. Hardcore gamers prefer complicated gameplay, while casual gamers prefer simple gameplay. Is that better?

If they all mean the same to you, then you obviously are speaking a totally different language. Complicated != complex. Simple != dumbed down. Saying they are is simply disregarding the English language.

And gameplay != games. Another subtle yet important distinction.

Quote:

Quote:Chess is simple; is chess dumbed down?

Your strategy in coming up with examples to make a point needs work. Wasn't it you that said analogies with chess fail? Chess is simple when playing against a simple opponent. And that's only because you're both ignoring the complexity that's (always) in the game. If you use simple strategy against an opponent who can see that complexity, you lose.

Anologies with chess in the sense of hardcore/casual gaming fail, but chess is pretty much a textbook example of simple but complex. Chess is a simple game. It is not complicated. However, there can be a lot of complexity there. A very important distinction.

Quote:The same is true with almost all types of video games. Turn the difficulty down enough, and you can play as carefree as you want to, while ignoring all of the complex rules and features. If you turn it up instead, you might find complexity that the designer didn't even intend.

You've missed the point of what I was saying, since you're ignoring all nuances.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Personally, I would define hardcore gamers as experienced gamers that like to play as often as they can, and casual gamers as inexperienced players that like to play once in a while.

That'd more be 'gamers' and 'non-gamers'.

Well, then feel free to specify your own enlightened perspective on categorization traits. Otherwise, our entire discussion would have been a waste of time.

I'd say such simplistic definitions of two opposed groups are forever doomed to fail.