And we have a winner!

Malstrom actully has it exactly right. To put things into perspective: The last time the gaming constituency underwent such a dramatic paradigm shift was when the NES came out and attracted all sorts of new people to the new, emerging types of "casual" games that came out at the time.

"What?" you might have heard the hardcore arcade gamers of the time say. "Gaming isn't about getting from point A to point B! It's about practicing for ages and pumping quarters into arcade machines to get the highest score possible! These new casual games will ruin gaming!"

Now, twenty-some years later, those "casual games" have become the new "hardcore games."

"What?" you can hear the present-day hardcore gamers say on forums across the Internet. "Gaming isn't about new, innovative, and accessible methods of human-computer action! It's about practicing for ages to get from point A to point B without failing! These new casual games will ruin gaming!"

Each time, obstacles and barriers were removed from gaming in order to allow a new audience to get in on it. Last time, the "hardcore" either shut up and embraced the way of the future, or abandoned it and moved on to other hobbies. And, just like nobody misses the arcade-elitists of yesteryear, so will nobody miss the present-day "hardcore" once they go the way of the dinosaur.

Much like the "Casual" gamer, the "Hard-Core" gamer is a mythical creature because no individual has as many conflicting traits as are present in their definitions ...

• Some gamers like playing games in social situations, while other gamers prefer to play games online or by themself
• Some gamers like playing games that involve strategy or puzzles while other gamers prefer to play games that involve a lot of action
• Some gamers see a 'Deep' storyline as being a good reward for the effort put into a game, while other gamers see 'Deep' gameplay as being a reward in itself
• Some gamers see technically advanced graphics as what makes games look better, while other gamers see quality artwork as what makes games look better.

None of these characteristics are really associated with any one classification of gamer ... A person could devote very little time or effort towards gaming (in this way they're a 'Casual' gamer) and focus all of their effort towards games with highly realistic graphics that involve a deep storyline and are action packed; at the same time a person could have gaming as their primary hobby (in this way they're a 'Hard-Core' gamer) and still only play puzzle games.

Trying to define a market as complicated as the videogame market into two categories is foolish and a waste of time.

Hardcore gamer,imo, is not defined by the type of games he plays, but by the degree of resistance or indifference he shows to new innovations(merely brushing them off as simplifications)in gaming. These are the people who act like its a private club suddenly made open to the common people.
What Garcian Smith said is what i felt about the whole issue, and he put it better than i could.

When i read the topic title i already knew what was the issue. Nice work Squilliam, you know how to generate traffic to your topics.

To put the "hardcore" short, how Malstrom uses the word, "hardcore" is someone says who "casual" and means "retard". So, the "hardcore" is just as offensive as "casual", when you read it from the message boards.

Well, comparing to movies, we are talking about two different forms of entertainment. The other one is interactive, and the other isn't. The problem with movies is, that they make people passive, while games are supposed to get people active. With removing the "obstacle", you remove the interactivity, the essense of games, when they no longer are games.

@ Squilliam

I know why you wrote this.

I know you got the reaction you wanted.

I know you got that reaction from who you wanted.

I love it.

At the risk of sounding petty, perhaps, I must say that I agree with you.

"Misses the point?" Malstrom nails it dead-on. The so-called "hardcore" are nothing more than a bunch of insecure adolescents, grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to feel superior to the masses.

Thanks Cap'n Kirk!

Squilliam has one thing right: games are inherently about the overcoming of obstacles (solve the puzzle, beat your opponent, get a good volley going) and Malstrom has not separated the "good" obstacles from the "bad" ones in any way. Oh sure, he's given some examples of the "bad" ones, but nothing on the other side -- in the quoted material, at least.

"Hardcore" could be the people who want more "good" obstacles in a game, while "casual" would be the people who want fewer ones. People who get upset at the removal of "bad" obstacles are just jealous.

[edit:  I guess Malstrom just means the jealous people when he says "hardcore", which is not very constructive IMO.]