Khuutra said:
happydolphin said:
Khuutra said:
So what you're saying is that core games are necessarily games with limited appeal because they require a higher investment of time, energy, and skill than games in other genres. Skyrim, CoD, Mario, Gran Turismo, FIFA, Halo, all of those games are "casual" because they're so accessible and popular. Games like Vanquish, Bayonetta, Strategy RPGs, and whatnot are core.
That's definitely a definition, but in the context of my conversation with Mr Puggsly it's problematic because it means NO CONSOLE CAN MOVE CORE TITLES.
|
There are core games that start reaching out to the less die-hard players. In those cases, it's really hard to define what those games are. I've limited myself from calling CoD or Halo core games exactly due to this reason. They are somewhere in the middle. A core game would be say God of War. Sales of 3Mil is reasonable. Sales of .5mil is not. Just my shitty POV your questions are valid Khuutra-baby. ~.-
|
My point is that Mr Puggsly (and many others) use phrases like "core games" to be pedantic and arbitrarily exclude different value sets by framing them as being less legitimate when compared to others. This doesn't help the discourse. It is the product of people who would prefer to talk down to each other rather than say anything meaningful.
|
I disagree dude. You're dumping on him doesn't make anything better. And as a matter of fact, just so you know, I understood him quite clearly. And given our common understanding with our admittedly weak definitions, I kind of agreed with him. It's true, the DS did not push core (i.e. games that strictly appeal to dedicated gamers).
Star fox command barely sold half a million, Chinatown wars was at the 1Mil mark, not much more (it's a GTA game!). On PSP GTA series games faired much better.
Get off the judge seat for a sec master..
