So, the current generation produced a lot of terms that were either pure rhetoric or used completely nonsensically within the gaming community. With the next generation of consoles fairly soon upon us, I want to see these terms stricken from the community's vocabulary, or used correctly. So I figured I'd make a thread for identification and either explanation or definition of such terms. I'll start with four of the most annoying ones, in increasing order of annoyance.
HD Twins (or equivalent) - Least annoying to me, but nevertheless, a stupid approach by both "sides" of arguments to try to justify their sense of superiority. Those favouring the PS3 and 360 use the term to allow them to group the two consoles together in order to make arguments like "the HD twins have sold more units between them than the Wii". Those favouring the Wii use the term as a derogatory term suggesting that there is little difference between the two. Either way, it's a stupid term (and yes, I'll admit, I've used it in the past). Similar terminology arising in the next gen should also not be acceptable, whether it turns out that the successors to the Xbox 360 and PS3 are similar (and noticeably more powerful than the Wii U) or not.
Next Gen - Speaking of the next gen, there's this old chestnut. There are still some people out there who refer to the Xbox 360 and the PS3 as "next gen consoles". Let me make this utterly clear - if the generation has begun, if the consoles have released, they are called "current gen". And while we tend to group consoles into distinct "generations", this is entirely a community construction, as demonstrated by the issue of how to place handheld generations, the difficulty in officially placing the Dreamcast, and other such problems. As such, a console is "current gen" if, and only if, it's simultaneously the most powerful system available from a gaming hardware company and a current product (meaning, it hasn't been discontinued).
To this end, I'll make it even clearer - right now, the "current gen" systems are the PS3, 360, Wii, 3DS, and Vita. If one wishes to categorise systems by numeric generation, then the PS3, 360, and Wii are in the seventh generation of consoles, and the 3DS and Vita could be argued to be either in the eighth generation of consoles or the fourth-to-seventh generation of handhelds (the exact number depends on what we consider distinct generations. Four if we go (using Nintendo) GameBoy, GBA, DS, 3DS. Seven if we go (again, using Nintendo) Game&Watch, GameBoy, GameBoy Color, GBA, DS, DSi, 3DS. My instinct is to call it five - including G&W but considering GBC to be in the GB generation and the DSi to be in the DS generation. The "next gen" systems are currently the Wii U and the unannounced PS3 and 360 successors. On the release of the Wii U, it will become "current gen", but it will be in the eighth generation of consoles. One will still be able to use the term "next gen" to refer to the PS3/360 successors, but only until the day that they launch (at which point they become "current gen"), and their launch will not impact the Wii U being "current gen".
Fanboy (or equivalent) - This was a term thrown around particularly often in discussions around the current generation. If someone spoke positively about the Wii, they were a "Nintendo fanboy". If they praised a decision that Sony made regarding the PS3, they were immediately cast as a "Sony fanboy". If they went against popular opinion and liked a game on the Xbox 360 that most people didn't, they were a "Microsoft fanboy". The term was misused so badly, I'm almost tempted to say that it needs to be eliminated entirely. But the term does have a legitimate use.
A fanboy doesn't just speak positively about a company. They constantly and consistently attack its competitors. They speak in nothing but glowing praise of their chosen company, or if they say anything negative, it's always cast in such a way that it is a trifling matter, not worthy of any attention except to demonstrate that they don't only have positive things to say. If someone says that Wii Music could have been a great game with just some minor tweaks, this does not make them a fanboy. If someone says that they thoroughly enjoyed Kinect Joy Ride, this does not make them a fanboy. If someone says that the PS3 has the best exclusives, this does not make them a fanboy. If someone says that the Wii has the best exclusives, this does not make them a fanboy. If someone says that they were very happy with their Wii, it does not make them a fanboy. If someone says that they own all three systems, but only ever play their Xbox 360, this does not make them a fanboy. Have I made this clear, yet? Only call someone a fanboy if they show repeated, blind devotion to their chosen company and nothing but derision for its competitors. This also applies for "fanboys" of third parties.
And then, there's the big one. The most annoying of all misused terms of the generation...
Casual (and Hardcore)- This term has been a term used for the purposes of derision by most of the internet gaming community, and even by certain parts of the industry. The industry is as to blame for this as the community, because they also misuse the term routinely.
First point on this is that "casual" does not describe a game. There is no such thing as a "casual game". A game may be played casually, it may be particularly suited to casual play. But any game may be played casually, and any game may be played in a "hardcore" manner. Wii Sports is not a "casual game". Just Dance is only as "casual" as Call of Duty. "Casual" is a description of an attitude with which a person plays a game. Which leads to the second point...
"Casual" does not describe a gamer. People who occasionally play games are not "casual gamers", any more than a person who likes to watch the occasional sporting match is a "casual sports fan". The term "gamer" is one that applies to people who are "fans" of gaming. This includes people who are fans of Farmville just as much as it includes people who are fans of Mass Effect. If you must use a term to describe people who play games occasionally, own just one console, and don't care about major upcoming titles, then the term is "mainstream". And the term applies equally to those who play CoD as to those who play Just Dance.
Although the internet gaming community doesn't admit to it, it is typically used to mean "games that the internet gaming community doesn't particularly like". This enables them to deride "casual games" as appealing to "casual gamers" that are "stupid and ignorant of good games". It has become almost inherent in the use of the term "casual game" that a casual game must necessarily not be a good game. This is not acceptable use of the term "casual", and the disgusting superiority complex that the internet gaming community has must be discarded.
Note that the associated term "hardcore" has the exact same problem, just in reverse. It is used as an antonym for "casual" (and thus, is also used with an inherent positive connotation), and again, there is no such thing as a "hardcore game". It isn't even an antonym for the real meaning of "casual", in the end. "Hardcore" is closely related to the real meaning of the word "fanboy", although there are subtle differences.
There is such a thing as a hardcore gamer. A hardcore gamer is someone who is hardcore towards gaming in general. Such a gamer will be as enthusiastic about a quality mainstream title as for a quality niche title. To such a gamer, it doesn't matter if it's a gory, realistic FPS or a colourful set of minigames, or a dancing game, or a puzzle game. If it's quality, they're all for it. To such a gamer, any big-selling franchise or game is a good thing, because it means more games, and potentially better games.
A hardcore gamer is not unlike a hardcore football fan. A hardcore football fan will get very enthusiastic about football games, will invest a lot of emotion into football, and will draw a lot of enjoyment out of any football match they can. They may have a favourite team, and they may even have a least favourite that they heap scorn upon... but when it comes down to it, even if their least favourite team wins against their favourite, they have still enjoyed the match.
"Hardcore" is closely associated with the word "fan". "Gamer" is just a generic term for "fan of gaming". Most gamers are more accurately described as "hardcore <type of game> fan" or "hardcore <franchise> fan". For instance, a large proportion of the internet gaming community would be able to be described as "hardcore FPS fans". Nintendo's most core audience consists of the "hardcore Mario fans", the "hardcore Zelda fans", etc. There are even "hardcore Nintendo fans", who see the vast majority of Nintendo games as great, and buy most of them... but are still appreciative of the other consoles and of third-party titles. They distinguish themselves from "Nintendo fanboys" in that regard, and in that they can admit when a Nintendo title isn't of high quality, or that Nintendo sometimes make stupid decisions.
On a side note to this - the term "core" is also misused, but only in a minor sense. Nintendo's "core" includes people who are big fans of Wii Sports as much as it does people who are big fans of Mario. Sony's "core" includes people who are big on Move just as much as it does people who are big on Gran Turismo. They are the people who are strongly in the camp of that company, and are very likely to buy their next system (or game within certain franchises, in the case of third parties), even without detailed information. It is a business term, and should be used as such.
Obviously, these are just four instances that particularly annoy me. I'm sure there are others worth mentioning, too. So add your own to the list. And if you have a different opinion on one of them, feel free to share. All I ask is that you be respectful of others' opinions.
