| pokoko said: Okay, clarification time, please. What are we talking about here, exactly? "Core" and "hardcore" are not the same thing at all. A hardcore player is usually just a very dedicated, sometimes fanatical, player. They are often core, but not necessarily. I know a woman who plays more puzzle games in a day than I play video-games all week. Microsoft designates four types, three of which most of us on websites like this would describe as "casual": Dabblers, Family-Timers, Connected, and Core. In their terminology, core is mainly defined by genres played (RPG, Action-Adventure, Shooters, etc.) and by a generally higher level of technical savvy. "Core" is not a dirty word by any stretch of the imagination. Actually, "hardcore" isn't either, as I've known hardcore players who are very open-minded. Hardcore in no way automatically equates to elitist. Generalizing core or hardcore is just as bad as generalizing casuals. |
Trying to nail down this issue is a bit like trying to nail down jello here. I did end up swapping core and hardcore here, partly to save space, and also blurring of things. To nail down the issue, I can see there are a number of elements (Microsoft did do a decent labelling there actually):
* Degree of commitment to a particular game.
* Degree of commitment to a given genre.
* Degree of commitment to a certain platform.
* Degree of commitment to games in general.
* Competency and expertise at playing or mastering.
* Environment one plays in.
* Degree of depth in a given genre and level involved to master it.
* Appeal of a given genre to dedicated vs casual play.
Well, I may of missed some, but that is a bunch. I would, out of this, then have to ask: As one gets more dedicated, how exactly does one's thinking change towards things? In my case, I cringe whenever someone equates a game I have created or play to: Chess, Checkers, Risk or Monopoly. Yes, people will see that and not pick up the nuances.
