I think there are two scales to reference 'hardcore' or other levels of playing.
A. Hardcore being a reference point to 'how much do I play?'
B. Hardcore being a reference point to 'how much cooler are my games because (blah blah)?'
I would think some of the references from critics making severely misconceived statements towards Wii would probably be the latter-use. I've never understood the whole bashing 'fad' concept, nor does anyone else around here.
However, the A reference is probably the most accurate, yet it's such a interpretation and opinionated word it's hard to even adequately decipher what the phrase means.
"No plans. The Wii user isn't a hardcore user." -- This states reasoning B as a form of misconception, but in reality means A, yet the objective of the statement is far from correct, as plenty of hardcore, multi-platform owners own a Wii. So, most people are either misinformed, stupid(, or bribed).
(I don't know if the quote is real, but it was appropriate, so I spared the source as it's not relevant).
I should also note that a C reference exists, but it's next to never used, which would be the actual 'capacity' for a gamer to perform a task on a video game. AKA, skill, mind and reflexes. I consider myself those.
Numbers: Checker Players > Halo Players
Checkers Age and replayability > Halo Age and replayability
Therefore, Checkers > Halo
So, Checkers is a better game than Halo.







