I usually agree with Maelstrom....not so much this time....

It seems like Malstrom was aware he and the IGN reviewer had a different take on what hardcore meant and he still decided to argue the point home like they were speaking on the same thing. Also, yeah kids were more "hardcore" back then. They were punished and tortured with crippling difficulty in their games that just are not there today. True, kids played Mega Man 2, but how many were able to beat it back then or even get very far?

Unfortunately, "hard" is a relative concept which makes that entire paragraph rather stupid. We define many games as hard relative to our current standards. Adjusted for the standards gamers had then they would've been regarded as relatively easy or of moderate difficulty. Absolutes don't exist when we talk about game difficulty.

So how about we don't prematurely call an end to the discussion (unless the reason is that the article was too silly to warrant discussion).

The point is not about games being hard or not, but gamers being hardcore or not. How could children be hardcore gamers when WE were new at gaming?

And, are you telling me games like Ninja Gaiden, Megaman, Battletoads, TMNT were considered to have moderate difficulty in those days? I don't think so.

@Onyxmeth: Megaman 2 was one of the easiest NES games. Besides, the point isn't whether the game was hard or not and how many people could beat the game, the point is, that how can the new audience be "hardcore". Considering how much NES expanded the audience, gamers back then people would have needed to be born as "hardcore".

@Zen: You do have a point there on how the core audience shifts, but then again, you're just pointing out a) how much more "casual" the todays audience is b) the thing that Malstrom is pointing out about anything being "hardcore" that the self-proclaimed "hardcore" likes.

@Picko: The same as i wrote to Zen, but Malstrom is also pointing out how the "hardcore" have two opposite reactions for MM9. The "hardcore" that came along the 2D era, are seeing this as a great thing and the "hardcore" that came along during the 3D, is saying this is a bad thing since it isn't pushing better visuals and more quality audio. It just takes us 20 years back in time. Now, how can there even be a single "hardcore" if it consists of two opposite groups?

8-bit games are still infinitely harder than modern games.

MM2 was so not "one of the easiest games" on the NES. It might not have been impossible, but it was far from "easy". And lol at it being a "blue ocean" game. It had the same formula as the first, and did nothing to bring in gamers from outside of the scope of audience, other than being a sequel that hit at the right time.

Blue ocean implies that it's something different, and that it reaches out to people who wouldn't have otherwise given a product a try.

The fact that it had a "2" next to it, and good package design are what made it sell better than the first. Not "blue ocean".

@Shanobi: Yes, it was one of the easiest games on NES and MM2 happens to be the easiest game on the series.
I have to assume that you haven't played either MM2 or MM, since otherwise you'd know how much different the games are. The first Megaman was hard and you could even say controls were "unfinished" (although, intentionally).
With Megaman 2, Inafune basically built the game up from scratch, the controls were better to handle, there were a lot more weapon/health energy power-ups available, environments were made to look more appealing (there were themes to make the levels more colourful), the duty robot idea was ditched to make the robot masters more imaginative and the game turned essentially into a platformer. Megaman 2 actually created the formula that was used in later Megaman games, not the first Megaman.

The thing that made Megaman 2 sell better was because it simply was more fun to play. Megaman 2 was Capcoms Super Mario Bros.

Actually that all still goes back to how children could not beat many games back in the NES days. So yes, games were more difficult and Mega Man 2 being one of the easiest NES games(as you said) just proves that point. Today's easy games are Avatar games, or insert other children's franchise and slap a project together. These games are cakewalks. Most of our mainstream titles, Mario Galaxy, Assassin's Creed, Resident Evil 4, etc. are also easier than one of the easiest NES games. Games were just more difficult as a collective whole back then. Malstrom just has this need to apply Blue Ocean and his other typical talking points into every argument he concocts, no matter how much it does not apply. This is by far one of his sloppiest offerings.

@Onyxmeth: The thing that has changed in games is, that you need to master the controls/controller today, when 20 years back the issue was about mastering the game, since the controls were so simple and easy to learn.
And yes, games were indeed harder to beat back then, in general, but the fundamental difference between games back then and games today is, that in games today, you're just supposed to "clear objective", when games like Megaman 2 had the idea of playing for fun. Megaman 2 managed in this case almost as well as Super Mario Bros.
The question isn't about whether the game is hard or not, since it had only one purpose; to aim people who wants to have fun while playing it. Besides, it's mostly a pick-up-and-play type of game.
But why is Megaman 2 "hardcore" today but wasn't "hardcore" back then, is how the audience have changed. When the games have changed, the old audience have disappeared or atleast became minority, the "casual"/non-gaming/blue ocean audience have become the core and since the core is defining the "hardcore", the "hardcore" have changed along. What Malstrom wants to point out, is the "moving" goals and "moving" definition to fit current consensus. Megaman 2 was a blue ocean game back then for it being so easy and Megaman 9 is a blue ocean game today, for it being a game for the lapsed gamer, the gamer that grew up with 2D Megaman, to who the market haven't catered in a decade.

I agree that's what Malstrom was saying, and I totally disagree with it.

1. The reviewer was referring to "hardcore" strictly in terms of difficulty. Malstrom picked up on this, started speaking on it, and then went on a rant in a complete opposite direction on who defines hardcore and how it's strictly in the eyes of the beholder. While I agree with that point, it had nothing to do with the quoted reviewer's comment. Plenty of games that may have been "Blue Ocean" back in the days, are simply niche titles now. Case in point, the new Tecmo Bowl for DS.

2. Mega Man 2 wasn't hardcore back then because nobody coined the term yet. The term "hardcore" in regards to gaming is relatively new, so again, there's no point to be made. Mega Man 2 isn't really considered hardcore by yesturday's standards, but by today's which is something I believe to be true, and Malstrom obviously doesn't by his Brain Age and Wii Fit comment.

3. There is no evidence to support that this new audience the Wii is bringing in is the core/majority audience. One day it may be, but I believe a larger majority of console owners and game players were playing games last generation.

4. Mega Man 9 is no more of a Blue Ocean game than Castlevania, Contra, Galaga Legions, Pac Man Championship Edition, Tecmo Bowl DS, Gauntlet DS, etc. etc. Mega Man 9 also does not speak mainly to the "lapsed gamer" since this board itself, and I'm sure many others, have sung the praises of Mega Man 9. Are we all lapsed gamers here?

Also a lapsed gamer is not necessarily someone that grew up with Mega Man 2. A lapsed gamer would be someone that grew up with Mega Man 2, got out of gaming long ago and is being brought back in by Mega Man 9. That scenario is not very likely. Lapsed has nothing to do with people that enjoy retro gaming, which is the game's audience. Lapsed means no longer active or participating.