I agree. My gamecube's days were so hard that I can satisfy with this list. And I already own more games on wii than on gamecube. I even bought a PS2. (God of war is a masterpiece.)

I think a big part of the problem in all of this is that nobody seems to have the same meaning for various words. Which is pretty sad when we have dictionaries that clearly define what words mean, but it's far more convenient to reshape a word to mean what you want it to mean, I guess.

Case in point: Matt is using the colloquial concept of "hardcore", that is to say, the concept of gamers who only want experiences like what have been seen previous to the Wii's existence but taking advantage of the Wii's controls. Meanwhile the PR representative uses the term "core" in its correct context to refer to the group of users who have been customers of Nintendo (or of the industry at large) since before the emergence of the DS and Wii.

A brief glossary of what various terms actually mean might help clear things up.

Hardcore: A small group of a given activity which holds certain values to be of fundamental importance, with all other values held to be unimportant unless they enhance these key values.

Casual: A largely disinterested approach to an activity, where one participates on one's own terms.

Core Audience: The central group of an activity which consists of those who regularly participate in the activity and have done so for some time (in particular, before a value shift that brings forth an expanded audience). Also called "traditional" audience.

Expanded Audience: New participants in an activity who have been drawn in by new values.

As you can see, the former two have no direct ties to the latter two. It's entirely possible to be a "casual core audience gamer" or even a "hardcore expanded audience gamer". Hardcore and casual measure dedication to values, while core and expanded measure the values themselves. This is why Nintendo does not use the term "hardcore" in the same context as game journalists do. Because it is a measure of intensity, not of values. You cannot pander only to the "hardcore", because there are "hardcore" for every kind of value you can imagine. Yes, even Wii Sports has a "hardcore" following, of both core and expanded audience players.

The fact is Zelda, Mario etc are no longer hardcore because they have become more EASIER than past games of the series

Which was the last Mario game that was harder to complete than Galaxy, exactly?

...And when was the last time a Zelda game was legitimately hard? 1989?

@DTG: Just f***** stop spamming every single Nintendo thread with your BS. You don't even like Nintendo games, you are a MGS blind follower.

Cut the BS, Zelda and Mario games this gen were not "easy" as you imply, maybe easier for the longtime fans, but for the new players no. Also how are games that are 40 - 60 hours long casual, troll?

Besides you don't know what the term hardcore means, therefore your comment fails instantly.

My name is SaviorX, and I approve this message.

What matters is difficulty not length. MGS on extreme is way more difficult than anything from Nintendo. Also Zelda MM was harder than any zelda since and mario sunshine was harder than any mario since. Echoes was harder than MP3. and on and on and on... Nintendo has gone soft and therefore not hardcore.

So difficulty determines how hardcore games are? If that's the case then games in general have been going soft for a long time. To make games hardcore again we need to have 3 lives and no save points.

Hardcore is to play Tingles Rupee Fairyland, be talking about it in class and be proud of finishing it.

So DTG, how hardcore are you? Or are you so soft you can only talk about the "cool" games with the "cool" guys?

Isn't it always delightful when you make a well-reasoned and logical argument, only to have the next part of the discussion take place entirely devoid of any consideration for it?

DTG, your personal concept of "hardcore" seems to revolve around difficulty, specifically in the sense that you value higher levels of it over anything else. Would it be unrealistic to say that your primary model for gaming values revolves around a particular game, such as, say, Metal Gear Solid 4?

Anyway, the key point I'm making here is that your definition of "hardcore" remains yours and yours alone. There are plenty of people who would call MGS games not "hardcore", because it doesn't have, for example, super-refined combat gameplay or slick motion-centric controls. Others would say it isn't "hardcore" because the story drags down the flow of gameplay. Still others would venture that it isn't "hardcore" because it doesn't involve any player-guided character growth.

Not a one of those reasons is wrong, for the people who claim them, because "hardcore" depends entirely on the values which the person declaring themselves "hardcore" hold in high esteem (frequently to the exclusion of all others).