In my "The Wii will never get the kind of third party support the PS2" had thread, I see people cutting it down the middle between "casual" and "hardcore" types of games, but even when I use those words, I don't think they are correct and it bothers me.

     A game I would view as hardcore would be a shooter like Geometry Wars:  Retro Evolved which if you were talking about classical music would be designated as "pure music" rather than the second type of music that is typical of Wagner's operas and more story driven musical pieces.  There is no true story involved other than you're a spaceship or shape firing at other space ships or shapes and trying to get the highest score in order to move up the game's leaderboards which is the point of the game's existence to see who is the better player or best player in the world which is the same objective with eighties arcade games and pinball machines and that I think is the point of all real "hardcore" games.

    However in a debate involving "hardcore" and "casual" when discussing the types of game differences between the HD and console games, I think most people are using the word "hardcore" to include many types of games that are quite different from Geo Wars. early arcade games, and pinball machines.  I think people are meaning the types of games that have always predominated on SNES, PS1 and PS2 when they use the term "hardcore" and the goal of aa lot of those games isn't to become such a harcore player of the game that you have the highest score in the world at the game but to explore worlds and see how stories turn out in rpgs and action adventure or adventure games like Metal Gear, Fallout, Final Fantasy and even Gears or Halo also have story driven aspects.  I know when I'm talking about the kind of games that I apply the word "harcore" to that I'm generally speaking more about these types of games than arcade and pinball type games.

    As far as casual goes.  I don't know if its the right label either.  If people are playing Wii Sports in an attempt to be the very best in the world at it or Wii Fit to lose more weight and be in better shape than anyone else, then they can be hardcore players of these games that many are speaking about when using the term "casual".  In fact in some respects these games can be closer in many respects to the pure gaming dimension that I applied to Geo Wars, arcade games, and pinball machines than the stroy driven games I mentioned in my last paragraph.

   However, to truely follow a game like Metal Gear Solid's story for over 20 years and listened to every codec conversation in the series and memorized all the cinema scenes, or to know series like Zelda or Final Fantasy so well that you can comstruct complex timelines of all of those series events, or to have explored every possible nuance of huge worlds like those featured in Fallout 3 and Oblivion those can be hardcore undertakings.

     I'm not sure that the terms "harcore" and "Casual" are proper words to discuss the differences between the Wii games and HD games that everyone uses to distinguish them .

How bout gamers and fanboys instead.

I fucking hate softcore and vanilla shit.

Your point has been made before, many times. hardcore is what people want it to be. Nothing more, nothing less.

I prefer "intellectually stimulating" (hardcore) and "pick up and play" (casual) and garbage (all other games)...

What I actually find funny is how some people say casual as a synonime of dumb. It is also regarded as low quality. This people call themselves hardcore meaning smart and high quality.

The meaning is changing

Casuals: the future of gaming. Social, cooperative and open minded gamers

Hardcore: the past of gaming. Elitist, competitive and conservative gamers

@ neorat - Actually, I would like to say exactly the opposite to you. Which would you consider more intellectually stimulating, Gears of War or Professor Layton? which would you consider more pick up and play - Halo or Animal Crossing?

I agree with Wii_R2_Hardcore - before, being a gamer was enough to leave you in your own select group. Now gaming is too inclusive, so some need to find a way to differentiate themselves from these other gamers

I consider Professor Layton and Animal Crossing part of the "Intellectually Stimulating" category... There has always been a certain amount of traditionally "hard core" games that appealled to the casual crowd...  God of War is very hard core, yet many casual PS2 owners picked it up and loved it...

I find it funny how people categorize hard core as a past gaming type...  Hard core is still very strong...  Street Fighter IV, Prototype, inFamous, Killzone 2, Halo Wars, Resident Evil 5, Red Faction Guerilla, have all been top selling "supposedly" past of gaming new games that have been at or near the top of the  charts this year.  How many new "future of gaming" (aka casual) games have released this year to this level of success.

Then I dread the future.

I'm all for relaxed experiences, but when you start turning competitive games "friendly", the people who desire stronger more cut throat experiences are left out of the loop. How would you feel if you were playing a game for weeks straight, then some button mashing mouth breather comes up and defeats you due to randomness?

It's like the items in Smash Bros argument. Some people like items and think the game is funner that way - great. I think that's fantastic too... when I don't care about winning or losing. When we're playing for keeps? Items off please. Why? Because if I widdle my opponent down to the point where they are one strike away from dying, then a Pokeball that unleashes Latios/Latias and a heart randomly appear before my opponent and I ultimately lose because of it, does this mean I am less skilled? Did my opponent deserve that win? Of course not. What did this "friendly" randomness? It tells the would-be clearcut winner that effort and skill is meaningless, and it tells the would-be loser that even though they are subpar, they some how deserve to be on top of the chain.

Bullshit.

Now for the Social/Cooperative aspect.

Let's use NSMB:Wii as an example. I can play a traditional (for the most part) Mario game with friends. Cool! That's neat, and I'm probably going to do that. But I'm also likely to play and beat it alone. Again, why? Because when I play with my friends, I get hindered. Sure it's fun for that occasion I play with my buddies, but when I want to make progress and do things that require greater finesse, there's no way I could do that with them. They'll likely be tripping all over themselves.

What does cooperative play do to the people who are a cut above (and I assure you, there is a such thing)? They are hampered by the partners. This will occur in ANY cooperative game. One player in the team is always going to be better off on their own. Someone is going to make a mistake, and someone is always going to be thinking "We lost because of HIM" - which is entirely true.

Why the hell should I pay for my partners mistakes? If I don't want co-op, don't force that shit on me.

Here's another thing: Don't call competitive people close minded. I'm very open minded to new experiences, thank you. I bought Mad World. I bought NMH. I bought Deadly Creatures. I bought World of Goo. I bought Okami. I didn't buy Cooking Mama. I didn't buy "Babyz". I didn't buy Spongebob Square Pants. That crap does not appeal to me in anyway, but it does not mean I am close minded. I know what I like, and I know what I don't like.

And finally to everyone who's thinking it right now: go ahead and call me "elitist". I'm not sorry if I think Street Fighter is better balanced than button mashing Soul Caliber. I'm not sorry that I really do think I'm better than my opponent when I smash them into the ground. I'm not sorry that I think games should be difficult with a strong curve. Want to know what I am sorry for? I'm sorry Dev's are actually dumbing their products down and giving me and other gamers of my caliber, who have supported them all these years, the bloodiest assfuck in history.

I guess I'm mostly pissed off because of fat lazy mother fuckers (metaphoircally) who think having to try two or more times in completing any challenge is too difficult for their pudgy fingers, and ruin MY experience because they are unwilling to put any effort into what they do.

That said, I hope everyone who disagrees has fun playing "Friend Tussle" mode in "Cotton Pillow Fight 3" where the winner is randomly selected after 5 minutes of nudging eachother - with a naptime break in the middle; that's certainly where this industry is headed if they keep listening to the wrong people.