By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - What is a hardcore gamer?

baka on 04 March 2007

I think if you care enough to post on a forum like this, you're probably some form of hardcore gamer. Just to put it out there for the rest of you to judge though, I'll still play a game of Moon Patrol, Tempest, Warlords or Phoenix (the 2600 versions of the latter two). I may yet buy them again if presented with the opportunity, as long as they remain as good as the originals. I also own 7 Wii games that I quite like, including Wii Sports and Wii Play. I've even bought a few Gamecube games since the Wii launch, and I happen to think that Odama is a great reworking of pinball games. My game time is constrained by work, family and consulting, but I play when I can. I also don't care much about graphics, but I do like seeing new genres of games. Would you consider one such as myself a hardcore gamer?



Around the Network
Kwaad on 04 March 2007

baka said: I think if you care enough to post on a forum like this, you're probably some form of hardcore gamer. Just to put it out there for the rest of you to judge though, I'll still play a game of Moon Patrol, Tempest, Warlords or Phoenix (the 2600 versions of the latter two). I may yet buy them again if presented with the opportunity, as long as they remain as good as the originals. I also own 7 Wii games that I quite like, including Wii Sports and Wii Play. I've even bought a few Gamecube games since the Wii launch, and I happen to think that Odama is a great reworking of pinball games. My game time is constrained by work, family and consulting, but I play when I can. I also don't care much about graphics, but I do like seeing new genres of games. Would you consider one such as myself a hardcore gamer?
Considering you own 5 Wii games... How many of them have you beat? (I dont consider wii sports/play a game) It tells me you have alot of spare money. :P



PSN ID: Kwaad


I fly this flag in victory!

baka on 04 March 2007

Kwaad said: Considering you own 5 Wii games... How many of them have you beat? (I dont consider wii sports/play a game)
I've finished Wario Ware: Smooth Moves, although I still play the minigames, and I've finished all the games in the Metal Slug anthology. (I had to get 6, as I'm a big fan of the series...) I'm close to beating Rayman: Raving Rabbids, although the mini games always suck me in. Particularly the Area 51-style shooting elements, but cow throwing competitions... happen... I am probably halfway through Zelda: Twilight Princess. I haven't beaten Excite Truck yet, which I'm maybe less than halfway through, but I probably won't play it much until I'm finished with Zelda. I'm playing too many games as it is. I do consider Wii Sports and Wii Play to be games, there's no good reason not to, but you can't really beat them. That's the way I like it.
It tells me you have alot of spare money. :P
You're right, I have a career and a good salary. The price of each of these games was basically pocket change, I tend to save quite a bit of my disposable income for a house (the median cost of which is over half a million in the area.) Still, you didn't answer my question. I consider myself a gamer, I enjoy games quite a bit including the classics. Do you consider hard core gamers only those who care primarily for graphics? If I'm considered a hard core gamer, and I believe I'm in the running, then the Wii can also be a good platform for that type.



staticneuron on 04 March 2007

super_etecoon said: This whole distinction between hardcore gamer and casual gamer has led many astray, I believe. It would seem to me then that the main difference between these two terms is the amount of time a gamer plays, and the level of fascination/fanaticism said hardcore gamer exhibits when playing. As a general rule, posters on these forums are hardcore gamers. Why else would we be on a gaming site? I just think people are taking this "hardcore" gamer label to refer to mature content or photo realism. The result of this, of course, is that when the press refers to the hardcore gamer as a dwindling portion of the gaming community, hardcore gamers unite and declare that the sky is falling. I think only good things can happen as games become more mainstream. For instance, more money being poured into games. More time being given to dfevelopers to create quality content that will capture everyone's attention and money. Anyone else care to weigh in?
Great post. Hardcore and casual....... I actually like these terms. I have always viewed hardcore as people who either spent alot of money and/or time revolving video games. Actually purchasing or researching them. While a casual gamer would be more apt to purchase a game because it has a pretty cover or has the same title as their favorite movie. I would like to say thhat hardcore gamers are important. Casual gamers view games as just one thing only. And that is fun. An enjoyable waste of time. I love simple fun games and I think there are always a place for them but I am a bigger fan of the games with strong graphics and mature themes. There are people who are quick to say that video games don't offer a level of emotional or intellectual connection as movies or books. I disagree. Some games I view as artforms as well. Shadows of the collosus and Flow are examples of that. I think it is a huge step backwards the more people ignore story and say that graphics do not matter. What is being hyped is gameplay and online connectivity in alot of these arguements. I feel that they are fun but too singular to define gaming as a whole. I will put it on the table here a hardcore gamer is those that love to play a large variety of games not just one genre or from one company. To those people I want to ask whether or not they agree about the future of games and the effect that it will have on more those that are newly introduced to games.



Games make me happy! PSN ID: Staticneuron Gamertag: Staticneuron Wii Code: Static Wii - 3055 0871 5802 1723

HappySqurriel on 04 March 2007

staticneuron said: Great post. Hardcore and casual....... I actually like these terms. I have always viewed hardcore as people who either spent alot of money and/or time revolving video games. Actually purchasing or researching them. While a casual gamer would be more apt to purchase a game because it has a pretty cover or has the same title as their favorite movie. I would like to say thhat hardcore gamers are important. Casual gamers view games as just one thing only. And that is fun. An enjoyable waste of time. I love simple fun games and I think there are always a place for them but I am a bigger fan of the games with strong graphics and mature themes. There are people who are quick to say that video games don't offer a level of emotional or intellectual connection as movies or books. I disagree. Some games I view as artforms as well. Shadows of the collosus and Flow are examples of that. I think it is a huge step backwards the more people ignore story and say that graphics do not matter. What is being hyped is gameplay and online connectivity in alot of these arguements. I feel that they are fun but too singular to define gaming as a whole. I will put it on the table here a hardcore gamer is those that love to play a large variety of games not just one genre or from one company. To those people I want to ask whether or not they agree about the future of games and the effect that it will have on more those that are newly introduced to games.
I don't think that "Hard-Core" and "Casual" really has too much of a distinction on the content of the game; in fact most of the "Hard-Core" gamers I know would be willing to play Animal Crossing/My Sims if they're interested in that type of game, while many "Casual" gamers I know end up buying games like BMXXX because that's a "Mature" extreme-sports game ... Now, I know someone is going to ask why people say games like Animal Crossing, Nintendogs, My Sims and Brain Training are so often mentioned as being important to the "Casual" gaming market then ... The fact is that these games are designed to expand the market and New gamers are (almost) always going to be casual gamers. ... Now, for graphics not being important ... In my opinion what most people mean by that is that with the Playstation 2, XBox and Gamecube we hit an age where a game (both in gameplay and story) was no longer being primarily limited by what a system could produce on screen. Its a time where you can play a game like Resident Evil (0,remake,4) or Starwars Rogue Squadren: Rogue Leader and everyone can tell what is going on; you don't have to point and say "That red-blob is a Zombie" or "That triangle is an X-Wing" ... Essentially, the previous generation represents a point where we can visually communicate at a high level of effectiveness; it may not be "Photo-Realistic" but (Much like Comics and Cartoons) it doesn't have to be "Photo-Realistic" to communicate what it needs to. Now, the Wii represents the strategy to eliminate another limiting factor now that graphics has hit a point where they're no longer the largest limiting factor. You may not agree with this but it is as valid of a strategy as pushing to get "Photo-Realistic" graphics.



Around the Network
staticneuron on 04 March 2007

HappySqurriel said: I don't think that "Hard-Core" and "Casual" really has too much of a distinction on the content of the game; in fact most of the "Hard-Core" gamers I know would be willing to play Animal Crossing/My Sims if they're interested in that type of game, while many "Casual" gamers I know end up buying games like BMXXX because that's a "Mature" extreme-sports game ... Now, I know someone is going to ask why people say games like Animal Crossing, Nintendogs, My Sims and Brain Training are so often mentioned as being important to the "Casual" gaming market then ... The fact is that these games are designed to expand the market and New gamers are (almost) always going to be casual gamers. ... Now, for graphics not being important ... In my opinion what most people mean by that is that with the Playstation 2, XBox and Gamecube we hit an age where a game (both in gameplay and story) was no longer being primarily limited by what a system could produce on screen. Its a time where you can play a game like Resident Evil (0,remake,4) or Starwars Rogue Squadren: Rogue Leader and everyone can tell what is going on; you don't have to point and say "That red-blob is a Zombie" or "That triangle is an X-Wing" ... Essentially, the previous generation represents a point where we can visually communicate at a high level of effectiveness; it may not be "Photo-Realistic" but (Much like Comics and Cartoons) it doesn't have to be "Photo-Realistic" to communicate what it needs to. Now, the Wii represents the strategy to eliminate another limiting factor now that graphics has hit a point where they're no longer the largest limiting factor. You may not agree with this but it is as valid of a strategy as pushing to get "Photo-Realistic" graphics.
Good jobs with the quotes but I think you missed this one. "I will put it on the table here a hardcore gamer is those that love to play a large variety of games not just one genre or from one company." or "I have always viewed hardcore as people who either spent alot of money and/or time revolving video games. Actually purchasing or researching them. While a casual gamer would be more apt to purchase a game because it has a pretty cover or has the same title as their favorite movie." Certainly there are going to be those who like genre's more than others but I consider hardcore to tryout as many to actually give strength to thier preferance. Take for instance I do not like sports game but I like RPG's. But I have played sports games continuosly to know that I do not like them. Nothing was really introduced to change my mind. ( last sports game played 2 months ago. As far as the content speech I am going on a general basis. Most people who are likely to be swayed by the wii or the DS. Family or friends who normally don't play games, will view video games as an insignificant medium. Its not a question. Go out on the road find non gamers and ask. Better yet throw up comparisons between great games and great films/novels and see how many scoffs you get. As far as graphics is concerned I still think that the wii is an excuse for limitation. I find it funny how gamers are saying it is a great thing for devs to be limited and devs are not saying that. The advantage the PS3 provides is that it places the choice in the hands of the devs. The level of detail (graphics) in a game like rainbow six affects its gameplay and definatley does more to engross you into the game. While you can tell the enemies apart in red steel the game is nowhere as visually appealing. Now for a game with weaker graphics or where graphics is not a main issue the PS3 can handle those as well. Just like the PS2 which had tiles like god of war and MGS, they also had okami and games like disgaea. On the PS3 there are games like resistance and moterstorm and yet there is flow. I see the wii as aa step back. There is no way that you slice it that explains it. I don't mean to have the Wii as powerful as the PS3 or 360 but a little more power would not hurt.



Games make me happy! PSN ID: Staticneuron Gamertag: Staticneuron Wii Code: Static Wii - 3055 0871 5802 1723

HappySqurriel on 04 March 2007

staticneuron said: As far as graphics is concerned I still think that the wii is an excuse for limitation. I find it funny how gamers are saying it is a great thing for devs to be limited and devs are not saying that. The advantage the PS3 provides is that it places the choice in the hands of the devs. The level of detail (graphics) in a game like rainbow six affects its gameplay and definatley does more to engross you into the game. While you can tell the enemies apart in red steel the game is nowhere as visually appealing. Now for a game with weaker graphics or where graphics is not a main issue the PS3 can handle those as well. Just like the PS2 which had tiles like god of war and MGS, they also had okami and games like disgaea. On the PS3 there are games like resistance and moterstorm and yet there is flow. I see the wii as aa step back. There is no way that you slice it that explains it. I don't mean to have the Wii as powerful as the PS3 or 360 but a little more power would not hurt.
It is debateable as to whether the PS3 really does give a choice ... Most of the people who have bought the PS3 did so because they wanted better graphics above and beyond all else; much like the XBox in the previous generation the Graphics Whores have made the PS3 their system of choice. If the PS3 becomes the dominant platform of choice enough normal gamers, and gameplay over graphics gamers, will own it and the choice will return to the developers. Now, I don't disagree that the Wii could have accomplished its goals with somewhat more powerful hardware; I think had they could have produced a system with a fixed functionality pixel pipleine like the Gamecube/Wii that could handle more polygons and greater ammounts of texture data, supported 720p and 1080i and still kept development costs at a reasonable level. (For those that don't understand, the advanced pixel effects and the data necessary to use them are one of the main cost increasing features in PS3/XBox 360 games) On a side note, I have come to the conclusion that the Wii is not the same hardware that the 'revolution' was going to be in 2003 ... When Nintendo released the Nintendo DS they commented on how they were going to continue with the Gameboy line which was probably their back-up plan if the DS did not perform well; I think they probably went to IBM and ATI and had them begin work on a low-power version of the Gamecube so that if the PSP took off they could counter with a portable Gamecube. When they decided to go with the Wiimote as their controller I suspect that Nintendo worried it would not be successful and took the "Portable Gamecube" hardware, overclocked it, and used it as the Wii's hardware. If I am correct IBM and ATI are probably still working on the original "Revolution" hardware as a back up plan incase the Wii did not take off ...



Kwaad on 04 March 2007

I just wanna say that next gen gameing has always been considered closer to realism. Normally that don't always mean graphically. Because as things are standing now, it takes alot more power, to make things look fractionally better. However what is coming to the PS3, and possibly the 360 is the realism that only they can do. (the CPU, not the GPU) I was reading in a developer post from somewhere about you should shoot some guy in the leg in a fps, while he was in jumping in the air, and it would make him fall flat on his face when he hits the ground. (visually correct, because the leg you shot him in failed on landing causeing him to trip, and fall) Shooting people in the legs, to make them trip and fall. This isnt killing them, but knocking them on the ground. I always considered next gen gameing to simulate realism better. The Wiimotes have the great motion sensitivity, wich adds quite a bit, but I gotta say, it's not that much better than the PS3. The only real thing that stands out about the Wii's controllers is the pointer. However I have trouble giving them much credit for that, becuase it is horribly delayed, and by removing the 2nd analog thumbstick, makes fps games suck. So that means you need to go back to early 90's style shooter games. That is last gen, not next gen. The pointer isnt even that accurate. It's almost impossible to do headshots and the like in red steel. Physics based games like that will never work on the Wii. PS1 - 2d games. PS2 - 3d games. PS3 - Physics games. The PS3 will be the best 'reality' simulator when it comes to games, as it will be able to create the most realistic worlds. I dont think graphics mean everything. I think that physics based damage, and physics based impacts, effecting your 'stride' in a fps is next gen. I'm not so sure as to how well the 360 could manage doing that stuff. Let alone the Wii.



PSN ID: Kwaad


I fly this flag in victory!

zsidane on 04 March 2007

Kwaad said: I just wanna say that next gen gameing has always been considered closer to realism. Normally that don't always mean graphically. Because as things are standing now, it takes alot more power, to make things look fractionally better. However what is coming to the PS3, and possibly the 360 is the realism that only they can do. (the CPU, not the GPU) I was reading in a developer post from somewhere about you should shoot some guy in the leg in a fps, while he was in jumping in the air, and it would make him fall flat on his face when he hits the ground. (visually correct, because the leg you shot him in failed on landing causeing him to trip, and fall) Shooting people in the legs, to make them trip and fall. This isnt killing them, but knocking them on the ground. I always considered next gen gameing to simulate realism better. The Wiimotes have the great motion sensitivity, wich adds quite a bit, but I gotta say, it's not that much better than the PS3. The only real thing that stands out about the Wii's controllers is the pointer. However I have trouble giving them much credit for that, becuase it is horribly delayed, and by removing the 2nd analog thumbstick, makes fps games suck. So that means you need to go back to early 90's style shooter games. That is last gen, not next gen. The pointer isnt even that accurate. It's almost impossible to do headshots and the like in red steel. Physics based games like that will never work on the Wii. PS1 - 2d games. PS2 - 3d games. PS3 - Physics games. The PS3 will be the best 'reality' simulator when it comes to games, as it will be able to create the most realistic worlds. I dont think graphics mean everything. I think that physics based damage, and physics based impacts, effecting your 'stride' in a fps is next gen. I'm not so sure as to how well the 360 could manage doing that stuff. Let alone the Wii.
Excuse me Kwaad, but aren't you tired of saying the exact same thing ? I mean we ALL know (and those who didn't now know thanks to you) how the CELL is superior to any other CPU mankind has ever made and that the Wii is a basic Texas Instrument calculator, how bad the Wiimote and its pointer is and blablabla... By the way, I suppose you have played Half Life 2 (and your PC can run it perfectly), what do you think about how its engine handels physics?



Now Loading... Please Wait!

HappySqurriel on 04 March 2007

Kwaad said: I just wanna say that next gen gameing has always been considered closer to realism. Normally that don't always mean graphically. Because as things are standing now, it takes alot more power, to make things look fractionally better. However what is coming to the PS3, and possibly the 360 is the realism that only they can do. (the CPU, not the GPU) I was reading in a developer post from somewhere about you should shoot some guy in the leg in a fps, while he was in jumping in the air, and it would make him fall flat on his face when he hits the ground. (visually correct, because the leg you shot him in failed on landing causeing him to trip, and fall) Shooting people in the legs, to make them trip and fall. This isnt killing them, but knocking them on the ground. I always considered next gen gameing to simulate realism better. The Wiimotes have the great motion sensitivity, wich adds quite a bit, but I gotta say, it's not that much better than the PS3. The only real thing that stands out about the Wii's controllers is the pointer. However I have trouble giving them much credit for that, becuase it is horribly delayed, and by removing the 2nd analog thumbstick, makes fps games suck. So that means you need to go back to early 90's style shooter games. That is last gen, not next gen. The pointer isnt even that accurate. It's almost impossible to do headshots and the like in red steel. Physics based games like that will never work on the Wii. PS1 - 2d games. PS2 - 3d games. PS3 - Physics games. The PS3 will be the best 'reality' simulator when it comes to games, as it will be able to create the most realistic worlds. I dont think graphics mean everything. I think that physics based damage, and physics based impacts, effecting your 'stride' in a fps is next gen. I'm not so sure as to how well the 360 could manage doing that stuff. Let alone the Wii.
As compared to using Dual Analogue Sticks, it is simple to head-shot someone using the Wii-Remote pointer ... The physics thing you described isn't even physics, it's scripting! if( Shot() ) { if( Running() ) { if( ShotInLegs() ) { FallForwardAction(); } ... } ... } Physics on the XBox 360 and PS3 are going to be superior to what the Wii can do (and what was possible on the Gamecube, XBox and PS2) but the improvement isn't going to have that big of an impact in-game ... Games like Waverace (and other games I can't remember the name of) in 2001 were using physics simulations to generate the waves and influence how a Jet-Ski would go over the water; for the most part the physics they used was close to correct. On the XBox 360/PS3 you could take the simulation to the next level and it would become much more realistic but (for the most part) the Jet-Ski's in the 360/PS3 games would still operate in (basically) the exact same way ... Physics is one of those areas of development where you get 80% of the benefit off of 20% of the effort ...