Actually I don't, that was is a miss click as while I was adding games i figured i'd see how it was selling, though i do plan on buying it to see if skeeball holds up to real skeeball.

Personal taste is irrelevent when judging what games are important and add something new and interesting to gaming.

You can't get that because you don't truely care about gaming.  You only care about games you like.

Just how a normal person doesn't care about art.  They care about paintings they like.

One painting could make you more happy then sex everytime you look at it.  Yet if you thought every other painting of the face of the earth was garbage and had no value on anything... then you really arn't an art fan.  You are a fan of that painting. 

By your definition, if all i owned was carnival games, and i played it 5 hours a day and said all other games suck.  I would be a hardcore gamer, just as equally opinioned as you or anyone else on this site. 

The fact that you ignore that and further try and hate on the games i own show that even you realize your point doesn't hold up.  I mean you are trying to both say "All the matters is how much fun you have" and "My opinion is right because i don't like games that suck."

You're contradicting yourself. 

you arent hardcore^

ROFL

its just funny how closeminded you are. my 5 year old cuzin and you should kick it.

In otherwords, you have no actual response. I'll take that as a "you're right, i'm just too embarresed to admit that i completely missed the point."

Also i'm not sure how "I can admit that some games are universally good even though I personally don't like them" is the closeminded approach.

There is a serious difference between being a fan of individual games and being a fan of gaming as a whole.

Facts:

1. Gamers are mammals.

2. Gamers play ALL the time.

3. The purpose of the gamer is to flip out and bash consoles.

This agruement boils down to definition of the terms 'gamer' and even more so 'hardcore gamer'. Going as simplistic as possible, a gamer would be one who occasionally plays games on some machine (The later would be implied. Yes, pulling out a deck of cards, and playing a solitaire game is playing a game, but for our purposes, you need to do play it on a PC or some video game system).

A hardcore gamer would be, again in a simplistic mode, one that plays games a lot. Which means one could be a hardcore solitiare gamer, I guess. With Freecell being DA game, and all other ones, like klondike or spider are lesser versions, but not like that other CRAP that most video games are with their annoying garish scenes and sounds.

By this simple definition, weezy is hardcore, and so is Kasz, because it sounds like they play games a lot on some system.

Where Kasz is going is to expand the definition. His examples of movie goers versus a movie critic shows that. Weezy would make a lousy movie critic, just as he would make a lousy gamer critic, based on his comments that he only likes what he likes and believes everything else that he doesn't like is shit.

Since 'gamer critic' doesn't have the same ring to it as 'movie critic' does, perhaps we could come up with the term 'intelligent gamer'. An 'intelligent gamer' would be one that can say, "I don't like mini game collections, but I still can give you the reasons why those that do like mini games, would prefer Mario Party 8 over Carnival Games."

Weezy might not be an 'intelligent gamer' by my definition, that is, a game that can tell you why a game is the best in its genre, but he is a hardcore gamer, imo, because he plays games a lot.

While I'm not a fan of the 'hate' flying around in some ways between owners of different consoles/games I do think it's somewhat unavoidable depending upon your own... let's say 'style' and avoid getting into real psychiatric analysis.

Games can be fun and inclusive but they can also be competitive – I guess to go with a sport analogy some people see football/their team as an absolute passion that must be supported to the end, while to others footballs just something to play to have fun and the idea of supporting a team is pretty odd (I’m in the latter camp, as will be clear from comments to come).

So too with games. Also, as with any item with multiple brands there will be those who feel the need to vindicate their choice or have their choice vindicated via approval and declaration – so you get PS3 and 360 fans (and Wii to I guess) who need (sorry, I am sounding like a psychiatrist) to both declare that their choice is better than the alternative and seek others who will back their choice also. You see this in sports also and it ties into basic competitive and status drives. As someone else pointed out you see if when people declare that their car (brand x) is excellent another car (brand y) is a piece of crap they wouldn’t trust with their lives. Yet both cars can sell well, review well and have many happy drivers.

I know what I like in terms of preference and I accept that others might disagree. So while I sort of like Halo it’s far from being the best FPS in my opinion. Because I also have strong critical faculties I can appreciate elements of the game separately from the game itself.

To use films as an analogy, I can watch a film, dislike it, but have the critical faculty to see the lead performance was nonetheless excellent (judged independently from the film as a piece of acting) as was the cinematography (also judged separately). Not everyone does this, and not everyone has too either (before anyone things I’m preaching).

So can I dislike a game but see the art direction is good? Or the AI is actually pretty impressive? Sure. Can I prefer a PS3 because its capabilities suit me better than a 360 and still see the positive elements of a 360 separately, sure.

Doesn’t mean everyone has too. Many people see a film or a game as a whole and judge it accordingly. They have no interest in looking at the textures separate from the game, or the set design separate from the film.

Personally, all I ask is a certain level of politeness in how you position your opinions and that people prevent their ‘passion’ for their team, console, game, etc. from spilling over into abusive attitudes.

To the OP.

This is like going to a dog fight, and asking why the world hates animals.

Most gamers could care less about what console does what, and who has more sales. Those gamers however, are not going to sigh up on VGCharts and start arguing.

If you want that kind of crowd, look elsewhere my friend.

Renar@

Thanks for the post - makes sense and compliments mine rather well too if you don't mind me saying so. They key is indeed the ability (or choice) to apply crticial assesments seperate from personal perference or enjoyment. I liked your examlples, although the term 'intelligent gamer' might get some flak I'll happily take that moniker!

 This is off topic, but that is not a fact, it's an assumption. And because MS and Sony had the same one, while Nintendo didn't, is why Ninetndo is kicking there ass in sales. 

You're not a true gamer unless you hate all games and can find faults in everything, playing games must be a painful experience. When playing online games too, you must curse all the time at the other gamers and proclaim your Dominance over them, calling them gay too, this ads to the shit that is online gaming.

If you ever find someone enjoying a game it just shows how much of a non gamer they are, you also must criticize there playing ability and bash their game until they hate it as much as you.