It's either hardcore or its casual. End of story.

... or not.

After all disagreeing as to what a hardcore game actually is and what it is not on these forums, some owners of a casualware filled system find solace in claiming that there is no such thing!

But I disagree. Why can't it be more of a scale? What is hardcore is usually defined as something that has depth to it. What is casual is shallow. But certain games are more shallow than others and certain games are obviously more deep than others. Also, I believe how easy it is to play factors in (casuals focus on simplicity).

So, if we were to make a scale, how would we set it up? First we need all the genre's present. Here's a loose representation of what I think it could look like:

Casual (for back of a better word: see "wii music, wii sports), Platformer, JRPG = FPS, WRPG = SRPG, Survival Horror, RTS, Adventure ... ?

What do you think? Surely some games have more of the essence of what we think of when we think "hardcore" than others. I believe that more hardcore games are generally more .. uhm .. esoteric? Anyways, post away. What do you think?

This topic is about breaking them down walls, not building them up. Don't be quick to say there's no such thing, because thats just building a wall against the idea that there is variation in games. Clearly, different games have different levels of complexity and depth. Place genres where you want to. What about deviations? Think about it. Perhaps the scale will serve to place games where they generally fall, but later on we'll be able to cla$$ify games that lie outside their genre's general position.

Hardcore-Guns

Casual-No Guns

Hardcore-Guns

Casual-No Guns

rockguy92

I disagree o_O; You can have ridiculously shallow gameplay ... with guns.

[QUOTE="rockguy92"]

Hardcore-Guns

Casual-No Guns

hakanakumono

I disagree o_O; You can have ridiculously shallow gameplay ... with guns.

I'm joking.

That's what most of System Wars thinks, though.

how hard the game is to pick up and play... mabye?R0gu3Do0d

I think thats a biiiiiiig factor. But then again LBP seems easy to pick up and play, and yet ... so much depth.

[QUOTE="R0gu3Do0d"]how hard the game is to pick up and play... mabye?hakanakumono

I think thats a biiiiiiig factor. But then again LBP seems easy to pick up and play, and yet ... so much depth.

I think it has elements of both because creating so of those huge levels looks really complex (or at least time consuming) and thats not something too casual.... while there still is simple stuff that casual gamers can do...

What about harsual?Ilived

Lol. We could start ranking them.

Level 1 casual (cheap trash) Level 2 casual (party game) Level 3 casual (platformer). Then Level 1 hardcore. Level 2 hardcore. Level 3 hardcore etc.

What about harsual?Ilived

There'll never be a clean cut definition, that everyone agrees on.

We're better off abandoning the terms all together.

In the truest sense, casual games are those that don't require you to play as much to find entertainment and lack complexity. However, casual games also tend to be just plain fun and allow gamers to get some entertainment in short bursts.

Hardcore games are those with greater depth, but require more playtime to truly appreciate them. Most sleeper hits are hardcore games. Due to the requirement of dedication, they tend to be good games that sell less or get lower reviews.

So really, both kinds of games have their strong points I guess.

[QUOTE="Ilived"]What about harsual?killerfist

:lol:

A unified scale would work, and I do agree there are certainly varying degrees of casual/hardcore games, but getting that unified scale set up and working here on SW will be incredibly difficult due to disagreements.Saturos3091

At least we can start recongising it is a scale. Clearly, a complex RTS is more hardcore than a mario game. We can find something. Of course, sheep may always argue against it. 360 and PS3 owners could probably come to a conclusion. Pc gamers .. idk.

[QUOTE="Saturos3091"]A unified scale would work, and I do agree there are certainly varying degrees of casual/hardcore games, but getting that unified scale set up and working here on SW will be incredibly difficult due to disagreements.hakanakumono

At least we can start recongising it is a scale. Clearly, a complex RTS is more hardcore than a mario game. We can find something. Of course, sheep may always argue against it. 360 and PS3 owners could probably come to a conclusion. Pc gamers .. idk.

There'll never be a clean cut definition, that everyone agrees on.

We're better off abandoning the terms all together.

AlexSays

Read more carefully, your post implies that its either or. I'm advocating gray, which is not "clear cut."

360 and PS3 owners have common to very similar conclusions as to what each means. There have been discrepancies in which game types were and weren't though. Like FPS. Thats why I made the scale.

[QUOTE="Saturos3091"]A unified scale would work, and I do agree there are certainly varying degrees of casual/hardcore games, but getting that unified scale set up and working here on SW will be incredibly difficult due to disagreements.hakanakumono

At least we can start recongising it is a scale. Clearly, a complex RTS is more hardcore than a mario game. We can find something. Of course, sheep may always argue against it. 360 and PS3 owners could probably come to a conclusion. Pc gamers .. idk.

Mario's definitely a casual game.
Skittles_McGee

Someone's never played a Mario game.

Unless you're judging by diffculty. Then you haven't played Lost Levels.

A unified scale would work, and I do agree there are certainly varying degrees of casual/hardcore games, but getting that unified scale set up and working here on SW will be incredibly difficult due to disagreements.Saturos3091

Look at the Whole Review thing Gamespot and all those other Game Sites have come up with... there is Huge amount of dissagreement, but thats only personnal opinion... a Scale of Casuality would be almost the same as what Gamespot already has...

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="Saturos3091"]A unified scale would work, and I do agree there are certainly varying degrees of casual/hardcore games, but getting that unified scale set up and working here on SW will be incredibly difficult due to disagreements.Skittles_McGee

At least we can start recongising it is a scale. Clearly, a complex RTS is more hardcore than a mario game. We can find something. Of course, sheep may always argue against it. 360 and PS3 owners could probably come to a conclusion. Pc gamers .. idk.

Well of course thats true. Casuals can be great fun as well as hardcore and both can be appreciated and have been appreciated by both types of gamers.

I think that sheep feel threatened by the term because the system doesn't offer as much titles thought to be hardcore as other consoles. Yet, with FPS pretty much in the middle (of my scale at least), wii owners can use the scale to gain some footing in theiir arguments against the PS3 and 360 imo.

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"]Mario's definitely a casual game.
AlexSays

Someone's never played a Mario game.

Unless you're judging by diffculty. Then you haven't played Lost Levels.

It depends WHAT Mario game really. Out of the last 10 years lots of Mario games have been released and the only ones worth mentioning is Mario 64 and SMG.

[QUOTE="AlexSays"]

There'll never be a clean cut definition, that everyone agrees on.

We're better off abandoning the terms all together.

hakanakumono

Read more carefully, your post implies that its either or. I'm advocating gray, which is not "clear cut."

360 and PS3 owners have common to very similar conclusions as to what each means. There have been discrepancies in which game types were and weren't though. Like FPS. Thats why I made the scale.

Your idea is to make a scale.

If people don't agree on a definition, how could people possibly agree on the terms of a scale?

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"]Mario's definitely a casual game.
AlexSays

Someone's never played a Mario game.

Unless you're judging by diffculty. Then you haven't played Lost Levels.

I'm really failing to see how any of that is negative in any way.

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"]Mario's definitely a casual game.
AlexSays

Someone's never played a Mario game.

Unless you're judging by diffculty. Then you haven't played Lost Levels.

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"]Mario's definitely a casual game.
AlexSays

Someone's never played a Mario game.

Unless you're judging by diffculty. Then you haven't played Lost Levels.

Mario is a game that focuses on simplicity so that is why it is farther down the casual scale.

Simplicity is a more casual focus while complexity is a more hardcore focus. Complexity can also (hopefully, otherwise its a problem) lead to depth in a game.

It's not about difficulty, but I think it is about how much brain power is required.

Well of course thats true. Casuals can be great fun as well as hardcore and both can be appreciated and have been appreciated by both types of gamers.

I think that sheep feel threatened by the term because the system doesn't offer as much titles thought to be hardcore as other consoles. Yet, with FPS pretty much in the middle (of my scale at least), wii owners can use the scale to gain some footing in theiir arguments against the PS3 and 360 imo.

hakanakumono

I would say they moreso feel insulted by the term. How often do you see 360/PS3 fanboys use casual in a POSITIVE sense? Or better yet, have you ever seen that? Heck, just apply that scenario to Wii haters, whether they be PS3/360 fanboy or not. It's viewed negatively because people use it with negative connotations.

I think everyone has a different definition for both hardcore and casual in terms of games.

plain shovelware is casual imo.

The rest is up for discussion. every game can be played in a hardcore or casual way

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="AlexSays"]

There'll never be a clean cut definition, that everyone agrees on.

We're better off abandoning the terms all together.

AlexSays

Read more carefully, your post implies that its either or. I'm advocating gray, which is not "clear cut."

360 and PS3 owners have common to very similar conclusions as to what each means. There have been discrepancies in which game types were and weren't though. Like FPS. Thats why I made the scale.

Your idea is to make a scale.

If people don't agree on a definition, how could people possibly agree on the terms of a scale?

I'm working at it. First we have to establish what the criteria are and what the criteria mean. We can do that.

In the literary world it is possible to determine which books are more shallow than others and which books have more depth.

I believe we can find something similar in the videogame world. It might require a later thread on criteria though.

R-Type, Contra, and Chessmaster are all extremely hard games to play. They are more difficult than Halo, GTA, and Devil May Cry. Therefore they are hardcore. Right?

Oh wait, maybe it has to have a mature story. Like the epic tale of a muscle-bound soldier who chainsaws grasshoppers.

Maybe it can't look kiddy like South Park or Ninja Scrolls?

Why does it matter? Can't people just enjoy the games they like and call it macaroni?

R-Type, Contra, and Chessmaster are all extremely hard games to play. They are more difficult than Halo, GTA, and Devil May Cry. Therefore they are hardcore. Right?

Oh wait, maybe it has to have a mature story. Like the epic tale of a muscle-bound soldier who chainsaws grasshoppers.

Maybe it can't look kiddy like South Park or Ninja Scrolls?

Why does it matter? Can't people just enjoy the games they like and call it macaroni?

gamecubepad

every game can be played in a hardcore or casual way

killerfist

Bingo!

Anyone saying Mario is casual needs to read this.

I think this whole "hardcore" thing is just a way of PS3/360 owners trying to make Wii owners feel bad about their purchase.

Kinda like they think they're the "cool kids" of gaming, and everything else should be ridiculed.

I say play what you want. I don't care if I'm playing a "casual or hardcore" game, but Mario is just as hardcore as Halo, COD4, etc.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Well of course thats true. Casuals can be great fun as well as hardcore and both can be appreciated and have been appreciated by both types of gamers.

I think that sheep feel threatened by the term because the system doesn't offer as much titles thought to be hardcore as other consoles. Yet, with FPS pretty much in the middle (of my scale at least), wii owners can use the scale to gain some footing in theiir arguments against the PS3 and 360 imo.

Nirron

I would say they moreso feel insulted by the term. How often do you see 360/PS3 fanboys use casual in a POSITIVE sense? Or better yet, have you ever seen that? Heck, just apply that scenario to Wii haters, whether they be PS3/360 fanboy or not. It's viewed negatively because people use it with negative connotations.

Okay. Thats probably very true.

Casual doesn't have to be a bad thing and I'm not saying it is. I will say, however, that depth has more inherit value (just like with literature).

[QUOTE="killerfist"]

every game can be played in a hardcore or casual way

AlexSays

Bingo!

Anyone saying Mario is casual needs to read this.

I think this whole "hardcore" thing is just a way of PS3/360 owners trying to make Wii owners feel bad about their purchase.

Kinda like they think they're the "cool kids" of gaming, and everything else should be ridiculed.

I say play what you want. I don't care if I'm playing a "casual or hardcore" game, but Mario is just as hardcore as Halo, COD4, etc.

[QUOTE="killerfist"]

every game can be played in a hardcore or casual way

AlexSays

Bingo!

Anyone saying Mario is casual needs to read this.

I think this whole "hardcore" thing is just a way of PS3/360 owners trying to make Wii owners feel bad about their purchase.

Kinda like they think they're the "cool kids" of gaming, and everything else should be ridiculed.

I say play what you want. I don't care if I'm playing a "casual or hardcore" game, but Mario is just as hardcore as Halo, COD4, etc.

You're not reading the post. I've clearly stated that casual is not a bad thing. Its just more casual.

Its not a way of making wii owners feel bad, because the concept has been around LONGER THAN THE WII EXISTED.

It doesn't matter how the games are played though. It matters what the games have to offer.

[QUOTE="AlexSays"][QUOTE="killerfist"]

every game can be played in a hardcore or casual way

Skittles_McGee

Bingo!

Anyone saying Mario is casual needs to read this.

I think this whole "hardcore" thing is just a way of PS3/360 owners trying to make Wii owners feel bad about their purchase.

Kinda like they think they're the "cool kids" of gaming, and everything else should be ridiculed.

I say play what you want. I don't care if I'm playing a "casual or hardcore" game, but Mario is just as hardcore as Halo, COD4, etc.

He's threatened. But you're right, he doesn't need to be.

Mario SHOULD be casual. Because its part of what makes mario games great.

[QUOTE="Nirron"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Well of course thats true. Casuals can be great fun as well as hardcore and both can be appreciated and have been appreciated by both types of gamers.

I think that sheep feel threatened by the term because the system doesn't offer as much titles thought to be hardcore as other consoles. Yet, with FPS pretty much in the middle (of my scale at least), wii owners can use the scale to gain some footing in theiir arguments against the PS3 and 360 imo.

hakanakumono

I would say they moreso feel insulted by the term. How often do you see 360/PS3 fanboys use casual in a POSITIVE sense? Or better yet, have you ever seen that? Heck, just apply that scenario to Wii haters, whether they be PS3/360 fanboy or not. It's viewed negatively because people use it with negative connotations.

Okay. Thats probably very true.

Casual doesn't have to be a bad thing and I'm not saying it is. I will say, however, that depth has more inherit value (just like with literature).

Just saying, you know? Sometimes depth can PREVENT enjoyment, depending on the situation.

R-Type, Contra, and Chessmaster are all extremely hard games to play. They are more difficult than Halo, GTA, and Devil May Cry. Therefore they are hardcore. Right?

Oh wait, maybe it has to have a mature story. Like the epic tale of a muscle-bound soldier who chainsaws grasshoppers.

Maybe it can't look kiddy like South Park or Ninja Scrolls?

Why does it matter? Can't people just enjoy the games they like and call it macaroni?

gamecubepad

Because this is system wars.

And again, its not about difficulty. It's about brain power. Being easy to get into = being easy. Being hard to get into =/= being hard.

I think the definitions I posted earlier fit the terms quite well without being negative in any way..
Skittles_McGee

You do a good job of describing casual and hardcore, the problem is many people have different opinions. What about games that start off easy, but get much more difficult as the game progresses? There are some levels in Mario games that are extremely challenging.

It's my opinion that Mario is more hardcore than GTA or Halo, so where is the line drawn? Difficulty? Appearance?

both terms are fooling IMHO. look at the DS in this instance, it has games that can be played casualy for 15 minutes at a time, as well as being able to sit and play for hours on end. sometimes with the same game.

think pokemon here (i know i'll get "TEH KIDDYZZ!" but whatever) pokemon is a game that a casual can sit down on the bus and play for a bit then put it down. while another person with the same game might pick it up for a good 5 hours to EV train his team and all that in depth jazz that the casual player will never get into

Its not a way of making wii owners feel bad, because the concept has been around LONGER THAN THE WII EXISTED.

hakanakumono

I've never seen the term "hardcore" used so much before this generation.

He's threatened. But you're right, he doesn't need to be.

Mario SHOULD be casual. Because its part of what makes mario games great.

hakanakumono

Threatened? Nope, it's my opinion.

I can see how I'd be threatened though, disagreeing you and all.

Lost Levels is harder than any FPS, so what makes LL casual and almost every FPS hardcore?

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"]I think the definitions I posted earlier fit the terms quite well without being negative in any way..
gamecubepad

You do a good job of describing casual and hardcore, the problem is many people have different opinions. What about games that start off easy, but get much more difficult as the game progresses? There are some levels in Mario games that are extremely challenging.

It's my opinion that Mario is more hardcore than GTA or Halo, so where is the line drawn? Difficulty? Appearance?

However, they don't lack depth. Those who do put in a lot of playtime will find more enjoyment, but these games still allow those who play only a little to have a good time. See what I mean?

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="Nirron"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Well of course thats true. Casuals can be great fun as well as hardcore and both can be appreciated and have been appreciated by both types of gamers.

I think that sheep feel threatened by the term because the system doesn't offer as much titles thought to be hardcore as other consoles. Yet, with FPS pretty much in the middle (of my scale at least), wii owners can use the scale to gain some footing in theiir arguments against the PS3 and 360 imo.

Skittles_McGee

I would say they moreso feel insulted by the term. How often do you see 360/PS3 fanboys use casual in a POSITIVE sense? Or better yet, have you ever seen that? Heck, just apply that scenario to Wii haters, whether they be PS3/360 fanboy or not. It's viewed negatively because people use it with negative connotations.

Okay. Thats probably very true.

Casual doesn't have to be a bad thing and I'm not saying it is. I will say, however, that depth has more inherit value (just like with literature).

Just saying, you know? Sometimes depth can PREVENT enjoyment, depending on the situation.

Yeah, definitely. Do people only read the deepest books? No. Depth is not necessary for enjoyment, and it can DEFINITELY deter it (way moreso than casual games can). Casual games are great from time to time. Its just your preference on the scale. Naturally, you'll probably skip and hop around, but being a hobby gaming is about finding what games you enjoy not what games are the most complex with the most depth. If you like hardcore games, good for you. If you like casual games, good for you.

The reason why sheep are threatened by the cows and lemmings is because the wii seems to be more geared towards the casual side, with not much offerings in the hardcore side. Notice I said seems. At the same time, they could be saying that the PS3 and 360 don't have enough pick up and play titles. But I don't know how true any of these statements are at the moment.

Because this is system wars.

And again, its not about difficulty. It's about brain power. Being easy to get into = being easy. Being hard to get into =/= being hard.

hakanakumono

If that's your sole reason then that's fine. How do you define brain power, or what are the requirements for needing it?

Here, I made a chart I think we all can agree on.

Well if we go by pick up and play then most if not all fps's are out, platformers too. Bigboi500

Look at where they are on my scale. Maybe they should be further down?

Please, see that I am open to discussion about this. This topic is about breaking DOWN walls, not building them up.

Well if we go by pick up and play then most if not all fps's are out, platformers too. Bigboi500

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Its not a way of making wii owners feel bad, because the concept has been around LONGER THAN THE WII EXISTED.

AlexSays

I've never seen the term "hardcore" used so much before this generation.

He's threatened. But you're right, he doesn't need to be.

Mario SHOULD be casual. Because its part of what makes mario games great.

hakanakumono

Threatened? Nope, it's my opinion.

I can see how I'd be threatened though, disagreeing you and all.

Lost Levels is harder than any FPS, so what makes LL casual and almost every FPS hardcore?

Like I said, brain power not difficulty.

And again, you are free to challenge the idea that FPS is hardcore! But you can't just say "oh its casual!" Put it somewhere on the scale. :) Think about this honestly.