JazzB1987 said:
Scoobes said:
JazzB1987 said:
Ostro said:
Well, he's right. Until N64 "hardcore gamers" were on Nintendo's side, playing the hell out of any game, easily breaking the 1000 hours playtime and breaking records and highscores.
Why shouldn't the Wii not have hardcore gamers? They may not be the same as in the past but there are still people who play a lot. And by a lot I mean breaking the 1000 hours again. I know lots of those people, mainly those who are still around and started with N64 in the highscore scene.
Nintendo actually never changed. Just the people and former fans.
Take a look at the boxes of the old consoles. They were all about family, multiplayer, etc.
Wii also is.
You could argue games became easier. But saying there are no hardcore gamers on Wii (not necessarily the same as in the past) is just another lame statement using cool words. |
I totally have to agree. I am a so called HARDCORE GAMER. I started as a little kid with a NES my 8 year older sister got lol. We then had a SNES and bought a N64, Cube Wii and all sorts of Nintendo handhelds. (I also own a PS2 PS3 PSP and xbox 360 but because of the really good games not the COD crap etc)
I as a long time Nintendo owner I dont see Nintendo doing any worse than before. Sure they added stuff like the so called casual games Wii sports etc. but we still get Metroid Mario Zelda Kirby etc. So they actually gave us more than before.
The lack of third party is there sure but when I see todays third party games (of which 90% are cash cows etc) I dont really miss them. And the third party games Wii gets like Muramasa etc are enough for me.
People complaining about the lack of Call of Duty or Uncharted or whatever style games on Nintendo consoles have no idea. CALL OF DUTY and UNCHARTED are MAINSTREAM GAMES. Like TRANSFORMERS is a MAINSTREAM MOVIE. Mario is HARDCORE because you cant beat it without dying and it takes ages to complete the game. Call of Duty can be beaten within a few hours and is never so hard that you really die.
Thats because todays mainstream kiddos start to cry when a game is to hard.
And just because in the seperate multiplayer part there isalways one person thatsbetter than me doesnt make COD HARDCORE because the challenge there is not because of the game but because of the player. I can also find people that can fart louder than me anytime so does this make farting hardcore? NO!
For whatever reason the term HARDCORE shifted from being hardcore to being MAINSTREAM and appealing to the 99%. The uniform drones out there. People that still buy stuff just because they see stupid commercials of it.
Just as example. Not that I'm an emo but today's EMOs are no emos. They have no real connection to the term EMOTIONAL as did the original emos. And Goths have also nothing to do with the Gothic architecture etc. Its a simple shift in meaning as with National Socialism or Communism. The idea of both was great (being social and fair is always good) but all the governments so far were stupid and now those 2 political systems are considered BAD.
|
By your definition, Counterstrike or any other multiplayer game cannot be "hardcore" because it's the players that provide the challenge, not the game. Or Diablo III isn't hardcore because it can be completed in a mere 8 hours. A hardcore game should be one that requires the player to invest significantly in the game, whether that be emotionally, intellectually (in terms of strategy formulation, picking the correct skills) or in terms of time.
|
Nope thats by YOUR definition Because you simply left out what doesnt help you win the argument.
In diablo people can die because the game cam be hard. (the difficulty aspect is what requires skill as you said yourself after making it look like i didnt say it before)
Call of Duty Singleplayer or Uncharted dont really require skill so at least the SP part of COD and Uncharted are not HARDCORE.
I just used COD because its way to easy to be a real hardcore game. But people still say its hardcore. Its not only about getting killed but failing because of the difficulty provided by the game in general this is a part of what really makes games hardcore.
The problem is we misuse the terms we have and might not have enough terms to give to all the games we have.
People usually say Hardcore or Casual which is wrong thats why i added the Mainstream term. But in a game that only has competitive multiplayer it would not be fair to call that game mainstream or casual because it might clearly be something else. We need other terms here. I have no idea what to call those. Just look at Rock how every little nuance created another genre. Or how electronic music has thousands of sub genres now. This is what we might need in gaming too.
The problem is i can only use hardcore because we dont have similar meaning terms for slightly different genres/games. But if we are forced to use the term hardcore for COD well then mario is clearly more hardcore than COD.
As example:
Angry birds can actually be considered hardcore because its basically what games where back in the day. The only difference is its new and not from the 80s and you can try as much as you want without beginning from scratch. Angry birds is also a casual game becaue it can directly be played by anyone without studying the games mechanics etc.
Hardcore is not the opposite of Casual.
So again
COD singleplayer is not hardcore its mainstream Mario is hardcore.
CODs multiplayer is not exactly hardcore its basically only competitive.
Because the challenge is provided by the players not the game.
The game is giving you the some rules and people play by them. BUT i can also come up with my own rules and as long as the community accepts them they will become standard. Like dont use ITEMS in Brawl or dont use snipers or dont camp in COD or Counter Strike. This challenge here has nothing to do with the game itself but with the community even coop games can become competitive if the players decide to make it competitive (highest score for example)
The problem here is. By todays standards every game with competitive multiplayer would need to be called hardcore because Why is COD something different than for example a future 2 player Angry birds? Or Wii Sports Tennis? Its not different at all. Because every competitive multiplayer game can be hard if there is good competition. (and just because AngryBirds Competitive or Wii Sports dont have a -look i have the biggest D*CK rank systems - doesnt make their multiplayer something else than CODs multiplayer)
IMHO it would be unfair for real hardcore games to call CS or COD hardcore because they are clearly something else. The problem is WHAT are they?
We need to seperate Multiplayer from Singleplayer terms if we keep using hardcore casual etc. Or drop those terms.
The people that came up with casual and hardcore when it comes to gaming are idiots. And everyone only using those two terms are not helping either. The only difference in those games is FOR ADULTS or FOR ALL AGES and ACCESSIBLE or NON ACCESSIBLE thats it.
|
Have you actually played Call of Duty or Uncharted? They require both strategy and skill to complete and I doubt you could complete either without dying multiple times. Diablo 3 on the other hand, can actually be completed without dying (my mate didn't die until his Nightmare playthrough, meaning he'd completed it already without dying) and by your definition is not hardcore, even though people will invest years playing it.
I agree the hardcore and casual labels are a bit silly, but your definition ignores a large number of games simply because they don't fit you narrow definition of "hardcore". If a multiplayer Angry Birds or a version of Wii Tennis is played to the point of being truly competitive, then I don't see why they can't be called hardcore. If a significant number of people are willing to invest themselves in these games then why not?
