By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
pearljammer on 02 September 2008
Edit Thread
tarheel91 said:
pearljammer said:
tarheel91 said:
Resident_Hazard said:
The gaming snob is something different from a hardcore player.

I consider myself a hardcore gamer. What else would I be? I own 13 systems, love reading, studying, and learning about the industry, and routinely play a wide variety of games, from a variety of console generations.

I'm hardcore and a collector.

There are snobs or elitists to pretty much any hobby. When it comes to Metal, then I've typically been an elitist snob.

A gaming enthusiast?  Going purely by the definition of the word hardcore, you are not hardcore.  You are not part of a small elite group resistant to change.

 

Or the term 'hardcore' could simply mean something entirely different to him. He doesn't have to go by the 'pure' definition.  He claimed to be hardcore and shared what he and MANY others believe the word to mean in this context.

Outside of drug addictions I rarely ever hear the term hardcore meant as resistant to change. I wouldn't call a staunch conservative hardcore simply becuase he or she is resistant to change.

The fact is, many people identify themselves as hardcore, open to change and are not elitists. They just use the word in a different context than say, Sean Maelstrom does. I think people have a right to be offended by these oversimplifications.

 

I'm talking about the actual definition of hardcore:

I know you are, but it's not as simple as saying one definition fits all. Both myself and Resident Hazard have already supported this fact. Our definitions steer quite far from the one chosen to be put in a dictionary.

  1. The most dedicated, unfailingly loyal faction of a group or organization: the hard core of the separatist movement.
  2. An intractable core or nucleus of a society, especially one that is stubbornly resistant to improvement or change.

It's tempting to choose option one when referring to hardcore gamers, but we can't.  They typically (Really? We shouldn't generalize a vocal minority as sharing the same thoughts as others who identify themselves with the same term. With that said, we could sure use option 1, which of course I wouldn't accept either, as it doesn't completely fit my, and many others' definition) are against this flood of people joining their hobby.  They use derogatory words to describe all new comers like "casual." Again, please do not generalize. I use the word casual as well, but I use it with a completely diferent meaning - I don't think of my parents with any ill will when I say they are casual gamers. It's simply a word that sometimes is carried with a negative connotation by a vocal few.

Someone who is unfailingly loyal to something would welcome its growth, not reject it (I welcomed it and bought my parents a Wii... and I still call myself hardcore, as I'm sure many others have. Option 1 still left open for debate).  So, we're left with option two.  Notice the whole "stubbornly resistant to improvement or change."  How doesn't this describe a lot of gamers today?  They resist the change that is casual gaming.  They fail to comprehend how anyone could want something beyond what has been the norm for the past decade in gaming.

I'm not talking about Malstrom's defintion (well, in a roundabout way I am because he uses the ACTUAL DEFINITION of hardcore); I'm using the one the American Heritage dictionary gives us.  Going by that definition of the word, you are not hardcore.

Edit: Why does everyone keep saying there "is no real defintion of hardcore."  Yes, there is.  It's in the dictionary.  Look it up.  Simply because many people (incorrectly) try to use the word hardcore to describe a type of gamer that is inconsistent with the word's meaning doesn't suddenly make the word ambiguous.  It's their fault for using it incorrectly, not the word's. 

It reminds me of this awesome illustration my teacher once made.  When you're little and you visit the zoo, you may call a lion a kitty.  Within your limited vocabulary, this is the best way you can describe what you see.  However, simply because you're trying to describe a lion with the word "kitty" doesn't mean that "kitty" suddenly takes on the meaning of "lion."

People can justifiably say that there isn't a full proof definition for any particular word, some more than others, depending on its ambiguity.

If you and I were both to write down what we think art, love and freedom are on two different peices of paper, I'm confident both our answers would be different from one another as well as different from any random dictionary. Does that mean you're wrong, I clearly know the definitions of each. Am I wrong? Are we both wrong and have no idea what love actually means to one another? The thing is... love means two different things to the two of us and we're certainly not wrong for having our thoughts on each of those words.

Freedom to a woman in Sauidi Arabia will mean something completely different to a woman in Idaho.

All a definition does is generalize in an attempt to capture as much relevance as possible to most situations/people.

In your example, however, the terms you are using have very little ambiguity to them. A lion is quite clearly identifiable. Hardly a fair comparison.