weren't you one of the guys who was championing for GTA IV to lose the 1st spot vs OoT on that shitty site you're bashing.

i wish that shitty site was banned from vgc, no joke

Hahaha, the "Pachter not Patcher" vassal is me. And hey Zen, it's vassal, not vassle!

Here's my take on the situation. Anytime anybody refers to themselves as "hardcore," I stop reading and skip the rest of their bullshit. Their opinion is crap. They are elitist scum. The second they say "Well I consider myself a hardcore gamer..." I know everything they're going to say. It's like there's only one hardcore gamer on the planet, and they got cloned several times, so they all have the same boring bullshit elitist opinion.

By your definition, I'm casual. I pick up a game when it sounds like fun. What's great is that I'm also one of the most elitist assholes around when it comes to games or any art form. I'll argue that Elebits was a better game and more artistic than Halo 3 any day of the week. In fact, I'd say that Halo 3 is casual as hell and Elebits is for real "hardcore gamers" who have actually played games for more than 2 generations and are dying for new forms of gameplay rather than new aliens and "grafix."

Oh yeah, the other thing that will make me skip an entire post is usage of the spelling "grafix."

But yeah, I've never referred to myself as hardcore, let alone "a gamer." If I was forced to label myself, I guess I'm just some naked dude on the internet who really likes art and games.

We have an elitist in the house. So tell me, who decides whether a game is good or bad? All that crap about Carnival Games. I bet no one played it but everyone knows it sucks...strange. Well I did play it and it's fine. What guys like you (wartaal) don't understand is taht there are other ways to enjoy a game than alone in your room.
I had a great night with like 8 people and this game. It's € 40,-, which is nothing if you compare it to other forms of entertainment for 8 people. We were at my place, so the beer was cheap. AND EVERYONE HAD A F*ING BRILLIANT TIME.
It's totally ignorant to only consider single-player games to be worthy of the title "game". VideoGames can also be something that replaces things like Monopoly and Risk. At least that's the way the industry can become mainstream.


I agree with you Zen, especially that Fire Emblem is the best game of this gen so far!

How dare you to judge a game by "fun".

Really I don't understand the reviews in common, maybe it is just me, but MK Wii gave me way more hours of gameplay and endles fun than galaxy.  And I do something some here will kill me for: Even Mario and Sonic makes more fun than galaxy. And thats what I want from a game: FUN, FUN, FUN. 

I want to sit down, and be away from my real life (and real life problems) for 30-2hours. I want to relax! 

That is what I  want from a game, isn't hard is? I don't mind if I play GTA, MK, Final Fantasy. I just want fun. Yes good graphics and controls can help in that department, but is just not all ;)

Came on PooperScooper,
it is all about taste.
Viva Pinata - I'm hardcore gamer - 30 years old male. Viva Pinata? No way I'm playing this, but my daughter loves it. Guest who is buying Viva Pinata 2.

"Halo - Whats that? starcraft FPS"
Starcraft? You know nothing about Halo! I don't like this game too, but this doesn't mean that Halo is not a good game and I can understand way this game has so many fans. Halo is just easy to play. You don't care to much about amo, health and dark levels. One very important thing - good gameplay.
Crackdown - never play it.
Gears of War - damn good game. This was the best for 2006. Overrated? Hahaha ... loser!
Hell Raising - hahaha. Same as Halo. You know nothing about Dead Rising. This game is not AAA. It's just fun to play it.
Shadow Run - never play it.
Bioshock - damn good game. For gamers that like this kind of games, Bioshock is one of the best.
Mass Effect - damn good game. AAA title. Must have for all WRPG fans.


R&C - look at Viva Pinata.
Uncharted - brr ... everything in this game looks like plastic. Gears of War ot Uncharted? Gears of War all the way!
Resistance - AAA title? Really? Dude Resistance is on the same level as Condemned 2 and nobody is pointing Condemned as AAA title.
Heavenly sword - not bad, not good, too short. This is the only game in this list that I actually played to the end. I mean PS3 game.

There are good games on both consoles. For someone Halo 3 or Resistance are very good, for others they are crap. Play games you want and leave others to play what they like!

Army of Two got 6.5 from Gamespot. I tried it with friend on splitscreen and it was a lot of fun. This game is 8.5 for me.

No. I wasn't championing anything. I did say that if Gamerankings lowered OOT's score generically to give GTAIV the edge, it wouldn't mean anything anymore.

I also wrote my own review of GTAIV, a 9.5/10.

Also, I'm not as much bashing Gamerankings as I am bashing the people who quote from it like the bible, and use it as evidence to marginalize good games.

Not all great games get great review averages, that's a fact.

I think gamerankings is a valuable tool in some instances, such as conditions for entry to my personal and nearly impossible AAA status requirements. However, though I use the game as a tool for theory, I would never depend upon it for practical use to purchase games. Instead, I find it a useful research tool to quickly and easily find links to my more trusted review and video sources for my pre-game research. Afterall, I'm not suggesting that we buy games off of boxart. This isn't 30 years ago. I'm merely suggesting that certain "core" gamers, and in fact most "core" gamers on the internet should know better than to write off a game like Ninja Gaiden 2(quick and easy example, as that game inspired this post) simply because it averages in the mid or low 80's, as unplayable.

Use your brain for these things. Did you like Ninja Gaiden 1? Was the camera or difficulty too frusterating for you to have completed that game? Do you like the trailers? Are you an action genre fan? What did a trusted reviewer tell me?

None of those questions should be "Do I like mid 80ish ranked games?" Besides it being vague, it's also lazy in a very real way. I have no problem with people being lazy on their own dime, but when you try to justify your non-purchase by marginalizing the game using your lazy criteria, that just makes you one of the people that no-one really wants around, and another example of why hardcore gamers and interent posters in general, tend to suck as human beings, when they are posting anonymously online anyway.

Casual gamers have fun discussing gaming, and are the better for it. When we get down to real talk, all it ever breeds is hate, lies, perversion, and disgust. I really hate being surrounded with "hardcore" gamers. Because the few bad apples spoil the whole bunch.

I don't even look at reviews or judge a game because someone said it's worth it.

I sometimes look at gameplay videos and judge the game before I buy it.

But when I'm at a game store and I look at the box art and the gameplay the publisher is describing of it on the back of the box art is on point that I like it.

Well, I will titled it as it looks fun, must be fun and I love it.

I liked Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire for the PS3, I mean it was short but I certainly enjoyed the game. It got bashed alot across the gaming community but I liked the box art and the Gundam series.

Certainly there are games that score high and I think I should own them. But I don't get those games. Oblivion scored around 90% on gamerankings.com

I think that game is complete bull to me. I almost fell into hype with that game.

lol, interesting post there. I completely agree with the "hardcore/casual" idea being BS.

I, for one, believe that grouping gamers in market fragments is painting in broad strokes.

That still leaves the problem of referring to market fragments in papers, articles, and such. I'll use the term "core" and "casual" often because it's generally accepted by the mass audience that would be reading said article, and it clearly gives the reader an idea of the segment I'm talking about.

Plus, I doubt the "core" gamers would take the article as seriously if I directly referred to them as the elitist a-hole "gamers" everytime they got brought up.

the scores they get are not important, it is the criticism that is given, if you like the look of the game and the + factors while you really do not care about the - factors (which can be really exagerated for some small errors) then you will likely buy the game. yet if someone says it only got 4/10 on 5 sites the person wil likely not buy it anymore. We really do not need the numbers, we only want to know what the good and bad things are and we can decide the rest. (can't you?)

I think you missed the boat somewhere. It isn't that core gamers wont play the games, as we will play everything including all the indie PC titles, its just that we only pick up titles that look good and seems to have something that would be enjoyable for more then 20 minutes. True hardcore gamers actually at least tries the games brfore giving an opinion.

Gamers who goes by scores are just idiots. 

On your XBL community point, most players on Live are still immature. On PC you will hear people cursing and everything, but 90% of the time its someone getting annoyed they are having a bad day and dying to much. There is normally no serious attacks on eachother.