S.T.A.G.E. said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
There is a difference between a casual and a hardcore gamer. Super Mario is a pick up and play game that doesnt involve control scheme difficulty but rather the difficulty is based on the course you are to walk through. Depending on the difficulty you choose is the level at which you will play. Easy is generally the casual setting. Most games now have a casual setting because casuals in most cases just want an experience and not an overcomplicated challenge. They want a slight challenge if one at all. A hardcore gamer will play mario to death on the hardest setting finding the ins and outs of the game. Mario was not created to attract hardcore gamers, but I am sure there are setting the core gamer can set to play a harder setting. Mario attracts mostly women/children and alot of people grew up with it. What game do you think my mother thought was the only acceptable game to buy for me with the Nintendo when I was really young? Mario. Would she have bought me any of the Sony exclusives? Hell no, unless it was Crash or Spyro. The only chracters my mother knew about were Mario, Donkey Kong and Sonic the Hedgehog. I dont disagree that a hardcore gamer will play any game at all, theres no doubt about that, but hardcore gamers are more defined by the way they play games rather than just their voice in variety. If they are passionate gamers variety is a given. Theres a reason Nintendo is after the PS3/360 crowd and its because they offer something Nintendo doesn't in their games. Even after selling nearly 100 million consoles they still lacked a proper core fanbase. They could sell their third party core titles for anything.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
But don't you think you're sliding dangerously into elitism with these definitions? Control scheme difficulty seems like an arbitrary criterion for "hardcore." As does an audience made up of women and children for "casual."
It seems like your definition of hardcore gamer is one who plays serious games in a serious way. I guess my definition of a hardcore gamer is one who knows the industry, plays all the games, can write and speak about video games with authority, and makes video games his or her hobby. Casual video gamers are those who enjoy playing games, but know less about who made the game, less about genres and sub-genres, spend less money and energy looking for and buying games.
But I don't think someone who elects "normal" over "hard" difficulty is precluded from the hardcore community. Video game investment is not the same as video game skill.
|
Its not elitism. It's like calling someone a hobbyist gamer. Casual gamers aren't hobbyists, but rather they play games for its novelty. Some play only a couple games a year IE: Madden,FiFA, COD and call it a day (those I would consider moderate gamers). The hardcore are the technical, experienced gamers who can and will play everything. Give Demon Souls to a casual and see if he/she doesnt snap. Hell....let a casual play UFC online and see if they dont get frustrated by the control scheme before the asswhipping them will endure online. Casuals like COD because its pick up and play. Have those same casuals play Battlefield...get ready for tears. Look at Tekken Tag 2's review on IGN and watch how they screwed up the games score because the fight lab wasnt casual friendly. In my school they train me to illustrate to satisfy various audiences. I can break down exactly why Mario is for children simply based on art direction. I dont even need to get to the details of the game.
|
I agree about the hobbyist versus the standard fan.
But don't you see how almost everything you wrote above is judgmental? You're denigrating casual players who can't stand the heat. And you're downgrading games like Call of Duty because they don't match your definition of "hardcore." A game isn't necessarily better than others because it's more challenging, or more difficult to master.
Maybe IGN criticized Tekken Tag Tournament 2 because it was inaccessible, not becasuse it wasn't casual-friendly. I just don't understand why you would assign such high value to things like technical skill, complicated control schemes, and high levely of difficulty.
When I rate a game, I consider many things -- graphics, sound, play control, originality, replay value, and most importantly, gameplay -- but rarely do I consider the criteria you mentioned. I understand that control schemes and difficulty factor into the final score, but I think you're assigning to them a disproportionate weight.
In any event, I appreciate your perspective. Everyone has his or her own definition of greatness when it comes to video games.
|
Im not denigrating them, there are levels in gaming (also why there are multiple difficulty settings in games). There are many things core gamers know that casuals just dont. Theres many things PC gamers know that console gamers dont and probably will never appreciate.
IGN explained that Tekken was a sound game in many respects except for the way in which is got casuals ready to jump into the Tekken experience. Its explained it as if you're thrown into the fire instead of being eased into the gameplay. It doesn't really affect me because of how many years I've played Tekken, but fight lab is a joke to me as far as learning the ropes. Street fighter 4 fighting tutorial is worse than fight lab in Tekken and yet it scored higher. I've played both and both are decent to tell you the truth.
Reviews dont rate core vs hardcore, they also dont rate difficulty and audience. Reviewers put those things in reviews to warn gamers about what the type of game is that they are dealing with. They are not assigned to the points system. IGN is a very biased website that is losing a lot of respect from gamers. They play a lot of their games on easy and have been caught in bullshit, instead of assessing games on all platforms before a full review is delivered and giving warning to preferred tech.
|
Well, S.T.A.G.E., here is something we are in complete agreement on. I have lost a good deal of respect for IGN, indeed most gaming websites. I think there is rampant score inflation from all major sites. Many games are inflated by .5 points on average. In other words, a 8.5 game earns a 9.0.
I also think there is a tendency on sites like IGN to cater to the lowest common denominator, which is troubling indeed. And yet IGN is probably one of the better sites out there compared to others.
I think one of the most damaging things about video games, and a big reason why they still struggle to find the same recognition as other media, is that we simply have no professional class of video game critics.
Essay Pro