210: Time to Move On

[ZippyDSMlee]

It completely seems like the whole escapist is against hardcore gaming. and apparently every one of us that hardcore games is a douche... thanks? I Say i game hardcore and log at least 50 hours every 2 weeks on my games but i guess that means im a total dbag becuase i like to play and i want to be good when i play. (by the way if there wasnt anyone to moan about a games qaulity then dev's wouldnt get as much feedback or be driving so far to improve the qaulity of games you play today.) and with that im going to say this was a bit biased article.(which means i will most likely be flamed for having an opinion and hardcore gamers are the mean ones right T.T?)

But I would present to you a question, dose hardcore mean you merely play alot and buy into things they sale too easily or demand more from the experience. Hardcore 'was' never as simple as playing for extended hours and owning to much gaming crap, it was more than that at one point and time, now adays it feels hallow and based solely on consumerism....

The article may be biased, but I see it as trying to put the realization of an epiphany to words. Or something of the like .

 

[Sanaj]

Nice to see Russ Pitts in something other than an intro sequence with him getting hit by wii-motes.

The interactive nature of video games demands that players figure it out for themselves.
Sure people still like being pointed towards games that are of interest to them, or games they may have overlooked...
but it ultimately comes down to personal taste.
People need to understand that just because of the general consensus is that a game is great or a game receiving many glowing reviews,
doesn't necessarily mean that they personally will enjoy the game.

The older "hardcore" players that in the past wanted video games to be more widely accepted, are now complaining...this is quite hypocritical.
Even the other "hardcore" players that never wanted video games to become mainstream...this is a business,
you expected developers and publishers to alienate large portions of their consumer base for your personal benefit and the benefit of a small group?

The classification of exactly who is a "hardcore" or "casual" gamers has always been ambiguous.
It is quite difficult to find a consensus on a definition (if not impossible).
Not many people can agree on a point when a "casual" gamer stops being "casual" and becomes a "hardcore" one.

Many gamers now seem to have a false sense of entitlement that game developers owe them the earth and all the heavens.
In most cases this largely seems based on unreasonably high expectations / preconceptions,
or because a series isn't going in the direction that they wanted.
In the more delusional ones, they want most games to be free and so game developers will feed themselves through osmosis.

Thanks for the great article...oh, and Happy Birthday Escapist Magazine!

 

[Dom Camus]

Two years ago, we began to address that

And to this day I still miss the pseudo-intellectual wankery.

 

[Susan Arendt]

It completely seems like the whole escapist is against hardcore gaming. and apparently every one of us that hardcore games is a douche... thanks? I Say i game hardcore and log at least 50 hours every 2 weeks on my games but i guess that means im a total dbag becuase i like to play and i want to be good when i play. (by the way if there wasnt anyone to moan about a games qaulity then dev's wouldnt get as much feedback or be driving so far to improve the qaulity of games you play today.) and with that im going to say this was a bit biased article.(which means i will most likely be flamed for having an opinion and hardcore gamers are the mean ones right T.T?)

Not at all. I consider myself a hardcore gamer, in that I play something virtually every day, and that games are an incredibly important part of my life. There's nothing wrong with being competitive, or wanting to be good at your game of choice. If you take the time to hone your abilities, you deserve to be proud.

What you don't get to do, however, is tell other people what they should or should not like or how they should or shouldn't be playing. Where the hardcore gamer crosses with the douchebag in the Venn diagram of life is when they start talking about how casual players are "ruining" gaming, or how people with less devoted to gaming are somehow unworthy to draw breath. There's nothing wrong with being hardcore -- but there's nothing wrong with NOT being hardcore, either. If you're not like that, then worry not -- you're not one of the people referred to in this article.

 

[Russ Pitts]

Two years ago, we began to address that

And to this day I still miss the pseudo-intellectual wankery.

I'm sorry man, but having spent some time in the forums and other sections of our site, I have to say that if you can't find pseudo-intellectual wankery at The Escapist, you aren't looking hard enough

We didn't outlaw it. We just agreed to no longer consider it to be the end all be all of gaming journalism. There's a significant difference.

 

[cobra_ky]

You should be writing more, Russ.

Now, let me disagree with you.

We're about the same age, but I remember video games completely differently than you do.

First, they were never about escape. The games were too difficult to provide escapism. They were too difficult to be fun, really. The pleasure of video games came from their graphics, which were new and charming, even on an Atari, and the satisfaction of overcoming their challenges. Achieving that satisfaction was work.

Second, everybody played them. Everybody went to the arcades; everybody had some console or other. Jocks played them; nerds played them. The kids who got the latest console or hottest game were always envied, never derided.

Last and similar to the point above, the kids who could beat the toughest games were admired.

I think it may be a platform divide that separates us. Are you thinking of early PC games as the territory of the hardcore? That's what your emphasis on immersion suggest to me--because I never thought of games as immersive in the way that books or movies are until fairly recently. I was never much for PC games.

Actually, this may explain a lot of my thinking about video games. I never had my own computer until 2006. My family never had one when I was growing up. For me, video games are social and mainstream, and they always have been.

I'll have to think about this some more. Thanks for the thought-provoking piece.

I don't know how old either of you are, but it sounds like you're talking about the late 70's or early 80's, when arcades were a booming business and before the market completely collapsed in '83.

Most of the 18-34 year old "hardcore gamer" demographic doesn't remember the game industry collapse, they don't remember Pac-man Fever or crowded arcades, and they may only have vague memories of the NES.

What they do remember is that most of their friends boxed up their video games along with their G.I. Joe's and comic books. they remember their parents taking them away because they were too violent, or they weren't getting enough exercise, or whatever. (and they were probably right, but that's beside the point.)I've never heard of anyone being bullied because of video games, but I know quite a few people who believe there's a correlation.

Now they see the same jocks playing Madden. They see the girls who shot them down playing the Sims. They see the parents who wouldn't let them play Mortal Kombat enjoying Wii Sports. And maybe they don't understand why, but they're pissed. They loved video games when loving games was hard. On some level, these johnny-come-latelys don't deserve to have as much fun as they did. these "hardcore" gamers are the ones who've been sustaining the industry all these years, and now it seems like the game industry is abandoning them for the dreaded "casuals".

Personally I think it's a load of crap, but i can understand the sentiment. it goes a lot deeper than the false dichotomy between "hardcore" and "casual". it goes deeper than gaming, even. gaming as a subculture is being assimilated into the mainstream, and it has a lot of us scared shitless.

EDIT: now i'm done. much better.

 

[Ray Huling]

We didn't outlaw it. We just agreed to no longer consider it to be the end all be all of gaming journalism. There's a significant difference.

If only I knew which side my wankery falls on.

 

[Ray Huling]

I don't know how old either of you are, but it sounds like you're talking about the late 70's or early 80's, when arcades were a booming business and before the market completely collapsed in '83.

Most of that 18-34 year old key demographic, doesn't remember the game industry collapse,

EDIT: i accidentally click "Post" WAY too early. please stand by.

Yeah; I'm not waiting, but I won't jump all over you, either.

Let me just clarify: yes; I'm thinking of that period, but also the Nintendo and Playstation ages that followed. I think it's inarguable that for people of my and Russ's generation video games have always been mainstream. So I'm not sure what argument the hardcore crowd wanted to make.

I'm also saying that I disagree with the importance of escapism and immersion in the appreciation of video games. I think that both of these aspects are primary for many people, but I don't think they're definitive.

Then again, I don't really believe that any generation has a common experience of their times.

 

[Russ Pitts]

I'd agree with Ray about the misconception that "generations" have some sort of common perception of ... anything. I grew up int eh golden age of arcades, yet I also had home consoles since they were available. And I also played computer games. I played lots of different kinds of games for lots of different reasons.

In suppose my perception of the 80s is that the arcade games were the equivalent of games like Madden and Halo today; widely popular, but not very deep, and kind of looked down upon by the hardcore crowd. Whereas computer games like Zork and the like were favored by the same types of people who also played Dungeons & Dragons. I played both types and many more besides (in fact, one of my favorite games during that time was a crude handheld baseball game).

yet in spite of having many, varied gaming experiences, I generally turned to games, first and foremost, as a form of escape. I suppose, as I often do, I'm assuming I wasn't alone in that. I'm also totally open, however, that not all of us during that time played in the same way, or had the same experiences as I did.

 

[Gunner 51]

Frankly, I never actually wanted my hobby to be accepted by the general public, except in that I wanted them to leave me alone and let me do my thing. I love the fact that designers and publishers are making better money now, what with the larger audience, but I don't love what's happening to the games to make it so. The developers are, naturally, going to cater to the lowest common denominator. I can't dispute that this makes good business sense, but it does lead to mediocre games, games that take no chances and break no new ground. Easy games with minimal challenge, short lengths and lots of pretty sparkly effects to hide the low quality, that's what I'm seeing of late. Mind, there are still occasional bold games being designed, but it's a lot like Hollywood. Most of the product is like eating baby food, bland soft and flavorless, with a rare steak dinner sneaking in now and again. This is not what I wanted for my hobby.

I have to +1 this post. Well said, sir.
Like you, I fear that games will pander for the Lowest Common Denominator.

It's like sharing a beer with a chum down the pub. You want them to enjoy a beer, not a watered down beverage.

 

[cobra_ky]

I don't know how old either of you are, but it sounds like you're talking about the late 70's or early 80's, when arcades were a booming business and before the market completely collapsed in '83.

Most of that 18-34 year old key demographic, doesn't remember the game industry collapse,

EDIT: i accidentally click "Post" WAY too early. please stand by.

Yeah; I'm not waiting, but I won't jump all over you, either.

Let me just clarify: yes; I'm thinking of that period, but also the Nintendo and Playstation ages that followed. I think it's inarguable that for people of my and Russ's generation video games have always been mainstream. So I'm not sure what argument the hardcore crowd wanted to make.

I wasn't actually asking you to wait. I meant that more as a general note that i had a lot more to say than just an awkward sentence fragment. (I just finished that post, for those interested.)

For my generation, (I'm 23) video game popularity waxed and waned but they never seemed to reach the level of ubiquity they did when the Mario games were at their height.

I'm also saying that I disagree with the importance of escapism and immersion in the appreciation of video games. I think that both of these aspects are primary for many people, but I don't think they're definitive.I'm also saying that I disagree with the importance of escapism and immersion in the appreciation of video games. I think that both of these aspects are primary for many people, but I don't think they're definitive.

That's actually the closest thing I've ever seen to a reasonable distinction between "hardcore" and "casual". "Hardcore" gamers seem to be the ones who value immersion and escapism more than anything else; they're also a lot more sensitive to how the game industry has changed over the years. For more "casual" gamers it doesn't seem nearly as big a deal.

I still hate the terms, but for the first time I'm thinking that there may actually be a useful distinction here.

 

[dorm41baggins]

I consider myself to be a gamer, but I've never fit the definition of "hardcore" gamer. I don't fit the standard demographic. I'm not an action gamer, though I'm going to see if I can make it through Assassin's Creed, really appealing game. I started out with adventure games on the PC and then got into other genres. I still play adventure games on the Nintendo DS. I'm an MMORPG person (mostly but not always solo) nowadays, but I prefer a heavily instanced game such as Guild Wars, or if not that, a strongly PvE focused game. I also dip into Second Life where I keep up with a community of people. I have friends who are into The Sims, and friends who like simulation games such as managing a rock band.

I like story, amazing visuals, compelling music, and would really like having more things to do in a game. Hard games are not appealing to me. I play for story and to immerse myself in a world. To me, gameplay is what engages you in the world, but "mastery" and "beating the game" - this does not have much appeal to me. I understand the concept - that's what keeps you engaged, but for me, it's all just a way to be in a virtual world.

I fall into somewhat of a middle category to you. I come from the same background- I remember the days of Infocom, Kings Quest and the Lucas Arts games fondly. Generally, the games that I spend the most time in and enjoy most are the ones with heavy focus on story. At the same time, I enjoy the aggressive release of FPSs and the thrill of beating a particularly strong AI or 'pwning some newbs' For me, Mass Effect is heroine.

I am frankly puzzled by this article. The assumption that gamers wanted gaming to be accepted strikes me as naive. Tolerated, yes- accepted, no. My parents have never understood the appeal of gaming and I don't need them to. It was enough that they left me alone to enjoy it.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't always work the way we want it to. Legitimacy comes from understanding, and understanding comes through experience. So expecting legitimacy without being willing to share the experience is dangerously naive. Expecting people to grant that games are worthwhile pursuits without having played and accepted them into their lives is just flat out not going to happen.

I don't care one bit about legitimacy. The world doesn't need to acknowledge gaming as a worthwhile pursuit, so long as it doesn't actively try to destroy it. Contrary to millions of people, I refuse to acknowledge the act of *watching* cars go around in a circle 500 times as a legitimate pursuit, but I'm not lobbying congress to outlaw it in order to conserve fuel, either.

This is also why I'm somewhat bewildered by this issues' article about romance novels. I don't want game companies focusing on expanding their demographic. I want game companies focusing on creating games keyed to *my* demographic. Those are the only games I'm going to enjoy. My demographic may be smaller than the general public, but it is certainly large enough to sustain its own industry- as evidenced by the fact that the industry exists at all.

I remember back in the mid 90s reading an article in Game Developer Journal about games that appealed to girl gamers. I read the descriptions of some of the games and thought, "That sounds like crap. Who cares what girls like?" In that context, though, I could understand the motivation. The magazine was written for people who were trying to make the most money possible off the games they wrote and so they cared about attracting a wider audience. In a magazine focused on gamers themselves, such an article makes much less sense.

 

[Nerdfury]

You should be writing more, Russ.

Thank you. I couldn't agree more.

Fantastic article, Russ - you're an excellent writer, and I hope to one day produce anything nearly as good as that. I hope to see more articles from you in the coming year.

That said, you've seamlessly provided both points of view while stating your own opinion = excellently done. Now, let me provide my own points. I feel qualified for a few reasons:

First of all, my mind works in a funny way - I'm what most people call a hypocrite, but it runs deeper than that, and is very difficult to explain. See, I can see both sides of everything, and I can be on both sides of the fence about the same issue, on different parts.

Secondly, I am what you would call a casual hardcore gamer. I play 'hardcore' games like your RPGs, FPSs, et al, but only play them on a casual basis. Work commitments plus that frequent 'can't be arsed' feeling makes it hard to dedicate the time sometimes. So I casually play hardcore games.

Finally, I have this rare gift of being supremely unfanboyish. I don't give a shit if you have a Playstation, a Nintendo or an X-Box. I don't care if you're Sony or LG for your TV, or Athlon or Duron for your hardware. If it's in your budget, and brings you joy, I don't give a rat's proverbial.

I think this gives me a unique perspective.

Firstly, hardcore gamers, as you said, have long thought of games to be 'their' thing. Something they were mocked and persecuted for, that their peers have long blamed for the state of the world. Same as MTV, television, radio, Dungeons and Dragons, jazz and liquor in times past. To see this now accepted is fine, but it was still OUR thing, and gamers don't want anyone to be in it.

Secondly, just as the struggling writer, actor, musician or whatever decries the fact that their goal is denied to them, but open to anyone that can bodge together a half-arsed story, make some funny faces to amuse the common people or warble something and throw it to the tri-remixers to make it sound good (Dan Brown, Adam Sandler and most modern major label musicians come to mind), you find that the hardcore gamer hates their once secret and reviled passion is now open to the very same people that tried to tell them they were lesser people because of their love of gaming. When the guy who once called you out as a loser while you played Diablo during lunch starts playing Halo and pretending he's a gamer, it's downright irritating. When the mother who kept telling you that you that games were bad for you and pulling the plug right before the end of the epic boss battle starts playing Peggle and telling her friends she's a 'gamer,' it's enough to make you tear your hair out.

Then there's the third issue, which is the fact that gamers are a bunch of dicks, are never satisfied and have a hell of a persecution complex. Something I've noticed and find simultaneously hilarious and irritating is that gamers have to have something to hate, or someone to hate them. You see it every day - PS3 owners go on about how X-Box owners are a bunch of brainless jocks, people with X-Boxes say that Wii owners are pussies. Arguments over Athlon vs Duron were frequent when I was younger, as were LG burners vs Sony burners - this is the new Mario vs Sonic, Atari vs NES.

It's the same reason why gamers will put an up and coming game on a pillar of chased silver and pure shimmering samite, surrounded by a chorus of angels - only to decry it as crap the moment it fails their lofty expectations. You remember Assassin's Creed, right? I recall people saying that game was the Second Coming, and as soon as it was released - despite being an excellent game - was suddenly the worst game ever.

 

[Ray Huling]

"Hardcore" gamers seem to be the ones who value immersion and escapism more than anything else; they're also a lot more sensitive to how the game industry has changed over the years. For more "casual" gamers it doesn't seem nearly as big a deal.

I'll agree that devoted enthusiasts pay more attention to the vagaries of the industry than your average consumer, but I don't think hardcore has anything to do with immersion or escapism, necessarily.

A lot of the most hardcore players I know couldn't care less about the worlds or fictions of the games they play. They approach video games as games of skill, not as narratives to inhabit. They are focused, like an angler casting, but I wouldn't say they're immersed. And the kind of things they do with their games are too difficult to be described as any kind of escapism.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Secondly, the disdain for the popularity of videogames by the "hardcore" was also inevitable. I don't think what "hardcores" really wanted was for the medium to become popular; but rather they wanted the "popular crowd" to legitimize gaming. They wanted the "popular crowd" to stop looking sideways at them as though gamers were some sort of subspecies. They didn't want the "popular crowd" to play games, they wanted them to accept that videogames were just as legitimate a pasttime as playing football and "going out on the town".

Pretty much this. A good number of the "hardcore" players wanted their own version of what the jocks and preps had in high school "back in the day"- the sense of belonging, of being "in" and having the chance to exclude and look down upon others. All of a sudden there's an explosion of popularity in games, it's suddenly a common thing, and all the building up of their particular hobby that the "hardcore" players have done suddenly means nothing. It's as if all of a sudden the NBA lowered their backboards to six feet high- now everyone can slam dunk.

I think this viewpoint is what separates the dicks from the real gamers. The dicks will scream "You can't have this, it's mine, you'll ruin it!". The real gamers will say "Welcome to the fun house, take a look around. If you want some help just ask." While it's true that many of the new, "casual" gamers aren't going to show any sort of interest in the "serious" games, there will be some who look beyond Peggle or Plants vs. Zombies, see classic entries like System Shock 2 or Deus Ex, and say "Hey, that looks pretty interesting, what's the deal?".

The doors are open now. We can stand in the corner giving glares and muttering to ourselves, or we can put up some informative signs and point out the fun stuff.

 

[wadark]

I think this viewpoint is what separates the dicks from the real gamers. The dicks will scream "You can't have this, it's mine, you'll ruin it!". The real gamers will say "Welcome to the fun house, take a look around. If you want some help just ask." While it's true that many of the new, "casual" gamers aren't going to show any sort of interest in the "serious" games, there will be some who look beyond Peggle or Plants vs. Zombies, see classic entries like System Shock 2 or Deus Ex, and say "Hey, that looks pretty interesting, what's the deal?".

Exactly. Somewhere above, I think someone talked about people who get upset when a band goes mainstream. And stuff like that or the videogame situation really shows that those people don't care about videogames or they don't really like the music of that particular band. They draw value from being involved in something that isn't "popular". These are the people who aren't athletic in high school (usually) and so they hold disdain for the people who are athletic and popular, thus they try to distance themselves from these people. They don't necessarily like what they do (videogames or a less-known band), they just see it as something where they can excel and such.

It's obviously an upside down situation because the same people who wanted to distance themselves from the "popular crowd" by playing video games then wanted those same people to legitimize their new hobby. But they don't realize that, as previously stated, there can be no legitimacy without experience. So those that the "gamers" wanted legitimacy from are now playing games and have become the bigger audience. Now "hardcore" gamers are upset.

Again, it really shows who the true gamers are (those that play games for their own satisfaction, to have fun, and to enjoy the immersion), and who are just doing it as a means to be "better" than others (they do it for the satisfaction of others and get upset when they don't get it). A true gamer doesn't care who else is playing, they welcome the new crowd, help them get into the hobby, and share the immersive and fun experiences.

 

[TheCube]

Although I would consider myself a hardcore gamer, I would not call myself a dick as I usually try to give beginner players a break and let them off easy if, only giving a suggestion if they make a mistake. I have not forgotten how not long ago I was just like them, thrown into a world with people out of my league and so I try not to make the experience the same for them.

That being said, I will not deny that there are many people who are dicks. Recently, I have started playing D.O.T.A. a lot more than I used to and even within my ventrilo group, there are people who will yell at me with every mistake that I make. Although I realize it can be frustrating to have someone who doesn't know what they are doing, it is still discouraging and I have actually found myself avoiding games with those people because of it.

I think what it comes down to for many hardcore gamers is not knowing when to draw the line. For most of us, as we get good at a game, we seem to forget the main point of video games, to have fun. As we start getting more competitive within a game, we feel an obligation to always do well. With this constant expectation, we can easily be stressed if something isn't right.

At this point, we hardcore gamers like to start blaming our teammates for anything that goes wrong, picking out every mistake our teammates make to try and show everyone else how it isn't your fault and you as good as you always are.

It is this part that makes most hardcore games seem like dicks and there is really no part about this is untrue. No matter what the problem is, they should never get to the point where they are yelling through their microphones at new players, scaring off new players who are just as much a part of the community as they are.

 

[dorm41baggins]

First of all, my mind works in a funny way - I'm what most people call a hypocrite, but it runs deeper than that, and is very difficult to explain. See, I can see both sides of everything, and I can be on both sides of the fence about the same issue, on different parts.

That's called a 'diplomat', not a hypocrite.

 

[MasterSqueak]

Honestly -- nearly everyone *begins* casual and becomes more and more hardcore as things go on. You master the basics and move on to bigger and better. Or bigger and harder.

No one starts gaming with Dwarf Fortress.

Lies.

My mom did.

 

[cobra_ky]

A lot of the most hardcore players I know couldn't care less about the worlds or fictions of the games they play. They approach video games as games of skill, not as narratives to inhabit. They are focused, like an angler casting, but I wouldn't say they're immersed. And the kind of things they do with their games are too difficult to be described as any kind of escapism.

Ah. I took those terms too broadly. by "immersion" i meant that state of extreme focus, whether attained through story (JRPGs are the best example i can think of) or intense gameplay experience (most FPSes). More "casual" players may play the same game, and enjoy it, but they're not as likely to go into a glassy-eyed stupor and play for 12 hours straight.

As for escapism, I don't see why escapist activities have to be easy. Some people go hiking or rock-climbing to "get away". Some people build ships in bottles. None of these activities can really be considered easy. Besides, difficulty is relative anyway; a "hardcore" player will generally have greater skills due to their experience with the game, and will therefore require a higher level of difficulty to maintain an interesting challenge level.

Perhaps I misunderstood the terms, but hopefully it's a little more clear exactly what i feel the differences are.