256: Hardcore Maleness

sogpop

New member
Oct 18, 2008
1
0
0
Yeah Plants vs. Zombies isn't a "near-perfect case study", it's an example you are bending to fit your opinion, and a bad one at that. Every guy I know that has played it has loved it. Stop delegating video games into such broad categories. Correlation does not equal causation. There are too many factors to throw all games into 2 groups.
 

NamesAreHardToPick

New member
Jan 7, 2010
177
0
0
I thought the characters in bromance games like Gears and Army of Two were intended ironically... "we've got a big dumb fun game about shooting and sawing things in half, I know let's make characters to match lololol. DUDE, BROFIST!"
 

Rowan Kaiser

New member
Dec 31, 1969
33
0
0
Thanks for the kind words, everyone who gave them.

To those two disagreed with the content or tone:

I wrote it provacatively intentionally. It seemed to fit the argument, and it made it more interesting to write (and apparently more interesting to read).

I addressed many of the arguments some of you have made within the article, but there are two which were either not made, or I could have made more explicit.

First, there's a difference between "male" and "masculine," likewise "female" and "feminine." The former is a physical attribute. The latter is are the qualities which are associated with those attributes, ie, the stereotypes. Men supposed to be violent, logical, and physical. Women are supposed to be caring and emotional. By "masculinity" or "maleness" I don't necessarily mean men, but I do think these stereotypes exist in our society.

Second, I don't think that acknowledging that these stereotypes exist reinforces them. That's analogous the people who say that acknowledging economic differences between races is racist, which is not something I believe. Your mileage may vary, I suppose.


Finally, some of you raise some very interesting points and I'd like to continue the dialogue, but this is a terrible week for me to do so, as I don't have internet access at home. If you'd like to have a conversation, feel free to direct message me.
 

ThisNewGuy

New member
Apr 28, 2009
315
0
0
I've always said, there's no such thing as hardcore games or casual games, there's no such thing as hardcore audience or casual audience. There're only good games, bad games, people who play a lot of games, and people who don't.

Let's not forget, the original Mario/Sonic games were NOT "casual."
 

opportunemoment

New member
Jun 22, 2009
89
0
0
Hey, I see you've been leapt on by the 'how dare you say I should perhaps think about the gender issues in my hobby' crowd. You must be doing something right. :D

On the whole I thought this was a good article... the whole hardcore=male thing is built on kinda shaky ground (we all know that in practice people associate guns with men and pink with women - sneaky sexists often get an easy win from saying 'ah but if you're a feminist you should never acknowledge that therefore your argument is invalid' when actually they just mean LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING).
 

Diddy_King

New member
Jul 9, 2009
132
0
0
While I have to agree that all Casual and Hardcore gamers are in fact just Gamers. I can not agree that all Gamers are in fact Hardcore...Generalizing to just Gamer causes confusion. A casual gamer is a gamer, just call yourself a gamer. But a person who plays a game 7 nights a week, 5 hours a night is (while a gamer) at a different level. People who learn every nuance and term in a game, figure out exactly how the AI will behave, learn how to calculate DPS and Threat and everything else, those people are not just Gamers. To me this is not a good thing, if anything I think they are crazy. I used to play WoW, Diablo 2, etc. and I never understood these perfectionists. I played for fun, and I never thought of myself as a Hardcore Gamer. I guess what I'm saying is let them have their idea that they are "Hardcore" but when I ask someone if they play video games and their response is they are a "hardcore gamer" they could have said the same thing by saying they are just a gamer.
 

EmeraldGreen

Professional Lurker
Mar 19, 2009
109
0
0
Plurralbles said:
Come on, the Sims is a technological "House" game that little girls used to play with their unwilling brothers when the girls couldn't convince the boy to play Tea Party. It's pretty feminine.
That kind of proves the article's point, doesn't it?

The article isn't saying that all hardcore gamers are guys and all casual gamers girls, or even that everyone thinks that. It's just saying that there's a tendency to associate hardcore gamers with masculinity and casual gaming with femininity. Which, as BlueInkAlchemist points out, is rather a case of dead-horse-beating, but still true.

Example. If someone says to you, "My friend is a seriously hardcore gamer," do you imagine said gamer to be male or female? If, instead, this someone said something like, "My friend is totally obsessed with The Sims," then what gender would come to mind? Most people would imagine the hardcore gamer as male and the Sims gamer as female.
 

sketchesofpayne

New member
Sep 11, 2008
100
0
0
I think the term 'rape' in gaming is used to denote a one-sided conflict that is unpleasant for the victim. Conversely, owning or 'pwning' denotes defeating someone on more even terms.
 

ranger19

New member
Nov 19, 2008
492
0
0
Yeah, have to say I disagree like the majority of the article, right from the beginning. Since when did hardcore imply masculine and casual feminine? I'm online reading about games all the time and never once has this association been mentioned or even implied. The first I hear about it is hear, just in time for the writer to lambast it. Sure, most games considered "hardcore" (my hatred of and the problem with that term is itself another story) have overwhelmingly male audiences, but plenty of hardcore girl gamers exist. Pokemon is a very hardcore game, and in no way do I associate it with maleness. So I guess my point boils down to: calm down, and stop pressing for a story when there isn't one.
 

AgentNein

New member
Jun 14, 2008
1,476
0
0
ranger19 said:
Yeah, have to say I disagree like the majority of the article, right from the beginning. Since when did hardcore imply masculine and casual feminine? I'm online reading about games all the time and never once has this association been mentioned or even implied. The first I hear about it is hear, just in time for the writer to lambast it. Sure, most games considered "hardcore" (my hatred of and the problem with that term is itself another story) have overwhelmingly male audiences, but plenty of hardcore girl gamers exist. Pokemon is a very hardcore game, and in no way do I associate it with maleness. So I guess my point boils down to: calm down, and stop pressing for a story when there isn't one.
Because you're not seeing the story doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You think Pokemon is hardcore eh? I'd venture to argue that you're in the minority on that one. I agree actually, but "I'm progressive and I assume other gamers think like me so your entire argument is flawed" is a horrible argument.
 

carpathic

New member
Oct 5, 2009
1,287
0
0
Brian Name said:
I think some people just did not pick up the tone.

Rowan, I for one, salute you.
Whereas I would argue that if the majority of the people miss the tone. then the article was a failure.

This was not an open ended look at the gaming culture that intended to ask a question and then seek an answer. This was an article with an agenda, it started with an answer and then asked questions designed to lead to a preordained solution. I think that most people saw this agenda and called Rowan out on it.

That said, I think your point about the half-pint was salient. However, I also think that this is an implicit part of human communication, and your very comment points out that things are hardly the black and white that Rowan would have us believe.
 

ReiverCorrupter

New member
Jun 4, 2010
629
0
0
Usually I can't be bothered to respond to articles in forums, but the feminist argument to sexualize violence is one of my major pet-peeves. It is true that men are far more prone to violence and aggression than women in general, physiologically due to hormones, but more importantly, from a teleological perspective, due to the specialization of the genders throughout human evolution. Women gathered food and took care of the young while the men hunted and protected them. The men were, in essence, a barrier between women and the world. The world is cruel. The lion does not, nor will he ever, lay with the lamb; he tears its bowls out and consumes it. Violence is merely one form of competition, and competition is the driving force of natural selection. Natural selection, along with any other type of selection, is a metaphysical certainty that arises out of the laws of thermodynamics. There is a limited amount of resources, self-replicating forms eventually arise and take up those resources until they come into conflict, then the superior form eventually drives the inferior to extinction. This is true not only of genotypes within an ecosystem, but also of beliefs within a society, businesses within an economy, and any other forms, no matter how abstract, that compete over a set amount of resources, whether those resources be physical, psychological, economic or so on. To get back to the present problem, i.e. the specialization of gender within human evolution, the men were tasked with the more violent necessities of society; hunting, and fighting off predators or rivals. Now I come to the crux of my argument for it may be true that at some very abstract teleological level that the men performed these acts of violence in order to breed and carry on their genetic lineage, it by no means follows from this that that violence must then somehow be associated with sex psychologically. In fact, such violence requires such over-stimulation of the sympathetic system that to conflate it with sex would not only be unnecessary but dangerous.

To think that all acts of violence must somehow be an act of flaunting one's sexual prowess is frankly effeminate to the point of being pathetic. Women may romanticize about the gladiator killing in order to show off to the women in the audience, but one almost never be thinking about a women when one is facing a man with a sword who is intent upon killing them. The brutality that humanity is capable of should not be conflated with sexual showboating, it is a result of its own psychological drives; not a lust for women but a lust for power. One may respond that lust is lust, and the lust for power is really just a sublimated sexual drive. Freud would have argued that in his earlier days, but he later recanted it by inventing thantanos, the drive for death (as if natural selection could ever allow for such a thing). But this is merely begging the question against my previous arguments.

It is true that there is a certain equation between masculinity and power, but they aren't the same thing. Sexual potency is only one type of power. I am not saying that there isn't a sexual element involved in saying "I just raped that kid!" in Call of Duty, but it is secondary to the feeling of power. It is really just adding another element to the humiliation in order to make it more exhilarating, sex is a means not an ends in this particular circumstance.

The gentle writer has actually painted a much brighter picture than the truth. If the use of the word rape was merely sexual bravado it wouldn't be that frightening. However, if one plays on Xbox Live for any considerable amount of time, one will realize that the use of the term rape is not used for sexual showboating so much as humor. Many people use rape because of its taboo and twisted nature; it is actually FUNNY because it is so dark and violent, and to use it in a mundane and matter-of-fact manner makes it even more surreal and more hilarious. The same goes for the excessive and unwarranted racism. I very much doubt that even one percent of the people who use racist slurs on Xbox live belong to the KKK. In fact, I would go so far as to say that many of them don't actually harbor all that much ill will towards the objects of their slurs and jokes, just as the vast majority of them do not eat babies, but thoroughly enjoy dead baby jokes.

Xbox live is HEALTHY. All people put up facades in everyday life and maintain common courtesy. However, since Xbox live is faceless one does not have to adhere to the social norms. Once one realizes that one can truly say anything without repercussion it becomes a truly liberating experience. The feminist objection that this is all male showboating is really rather sad. The darker side of human nature such as anger, hatred, or aggression are perfectly natural. They still have an important role to play in society and always will. The idea that we will reach some utopia where violence will no longer be necessary is not only unrealistic in practice, but defies the very nature of life itself. There will always be competition between competing views, and such disputes can rarely be settled with reason. Why? Because reason is descriptive not prescriptive. One does not act by reason alone. Far from it. Reason can only guide us to the course of action that is most in line with our desires, but it cannot determine our desires themselves. And those desires are never universal, but serve individuals and factions. If someone desires "the greater good" at their own expense it is not because their mind has reached the platonic realm; it is because they have been conditioned to do so. And furthermore such a person is disfavored by nature. When society grows stronger it is at the expense of the individuals, just as a body exists due to the sacrifices of individual cells. The difference is that it is individuals that have minds that are capable of changing society as a whole, whereas society as a whole functions on blind forces. Thus it is a fallacy to think there will ever be an age in which all disputes are settled with reason alone, the universe will simply not allow it.

But I digress. My point is that violence and the will to power are not, in themselves, immature or the delusions of the male ego, no matter how much feminists may want us to think that. They are in fact the driving forces that have led humanity to its place in the world today. Giving play to our less socially acceptable drives through video games is an extremely healthy thing. Frankly, I would like to see more women expressing these types of aggressive behaviors. We have reached a level of technology now that allows women to leave the household life and participate in the world. But in order for them to do this they must recognize that life in the world necessitates violence and aggression. These are not male delusions, men are merely more prone to them because they needed to be, and so must women if they wish to thrive. Both scientific inquiry and the pursuit of knowledge itself are acts of aggression. To put it into Aristotelian terms aggression is not associated with male genitalia by necessity, but by accident. In many species of animals the females are the stronger gender. Women got the short straw because pregnancy, lactation, and the incredibly slow nature human development meant that they had to spend the vast majority of time tending to their young, which did not require that they be strong to fight or that they forge many tools. Instead those duties fell to men. Although that relation is no longer necessary, if women want to take on greater roles in the world they must adopt the traditionally male virtues that lead to success in those roles.
 

ranger19

New member
Nov 19, 2008
492
0
0
AgentNein said:
Because you're not seeing the story doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You think Pokemon is hardcore eh? I'd venture to argue that you're in the minority on that one. I agree actually, but "I'm progressive and I assume other gamers think like me so your entire argument is flawed" is a horrible argument.
Perhaps you have a point, but I'm not saying that "I'm progressive and I assume other gamers think like me so your entire argument is flawed." Look at what the article says in its first paragraph:

For gamers, terms like "hardcore" and "casual" are a code with clear meanings. So let's be real, and call a spade a spade: "Hardcore" means dick.
My problem is in these so-called "clear" meanings. If this is so clear, how come I, someone who has spent way too much time playing games and online reading about games (and writing about them for that matter) have never even heard of this code? Or even seen it implied anywhere? At the very least I think it's a very inflammatory way to open an article, but I think it goes beyond that. I've read a few posts that have summarized the problems better than I will at the moment, so that's all I'll say for now.

But I'm curious. Do you agree that Pokemon is hardcore or do you agree with my general take on the article? For the former, if I'm in the minority and don't see it, it's because I spent a few too many years on a Pokemon board learning about EVs and IVs and the like. :p
 

Sporge

New member
Mar 26, 2009
11
0
0
Self proclaimed hard core gamers do over have a tendency to relate everything to something sexual. It is that group that feels the need to prove they are better than others, and less face it the overly competitive people are normally considered to be male. Now that I say that, hard core gamers are not all self proclaimed in my mind. I think a hard core gamer is just someone who is very good at the games they play. I respect those who don't go around spewing about how hard core they are much more. A hard core gamer is also someone who takes their game seriously, which is why so many games just get thrown out as automatically casual, because most of the time you play it to just to have fun, with no real care to push your ability in it. Could you become a hard core Sims player? I actually think so but because there is less consequence for playing badly it is less likely to. A hard core Sims player would be the type of person who see how fast they can make a million simoleons, and keeps pushing how fast they can do it... not likely but possible.

Point is I think hard core gamers are to often judged by who is out on forums claiming how "hardcore" they are, these are the people who for some reason despise the word casual, and really I don't think of those people as hard core... I think they are just being dicks :p
 

Yureina

Who are you?
May 6, 2010
7,098
0
0
An interesting article. I'm not entirely sure what to say about it though in an overall sense. I do know however that the use of the term "rape" in multiplayer gaming circles does seriously disturb me, and I don't use it. I prefer similarly effective terms such as "whacked", "offed", or "popped" that don't bother me so much to use casually.
 

RUINER ACTUAL

New member
Oct 29, 2009
1,835
0
0
That's a new angle. I have never heard/thought of hardcore meaning masculine and casual meaning feminine.

Hardcore - PEOPLE who play games hard, daily, take them (too)seriously, are part of a clan, have multiple systems, or have been playing games for a very long time.

Casual - PEOPLE who don't play games often, don't have any technical abilities, are younger, family oriented gamers, don't play often, have only been gaming this generation.

Notice I used the word "people" instead of males or females. I find both can fall into either category, or both. I have no idea what kind of group or people you talk to online, dude, but I'm pretty sure the whole sexism thing is over.
 

Brian Name

New member
Feb 1, 2008
93
0
0
carpathic said:
Brian Name said:
I think some people just did not pick up the tone.

Rowan, I for one, salute you.
Whereas I would argue that if the majority of the people miss the tone. then the article was a failure.

This was not an open ended look at the gaming culture that intended to ask a question and then seek an answer. This was an article with an agenda, it started with an answer and then asked questions designed to lead to a preordained solution. I think that most people saw this agenda and called Rowan out on it.

That said, I think your point about the half-pint was salient. However, I also think that this is an implicit part of human communication, and your very comment points out that things are hardly the black and white that Rowan would have us believe.
I don't think it was a failure on the writer's part if a person didn't "get it" on the first read. Partially, maybe. But I think it was intended to be provocative and get a backlash. It was a success in that regard. It was entertaining and interesting to read as well, so that counts as a successful article in my book, even if I didn't agree with what it was saying.

Like I said before, I don't think the writer was trying to paint things in black and white at all. I think it was just asking us if we have thought about the extensions of our definitions of hardcore and casual. What I mean by that is many (though not all) people would probably agree with SIN's definitions:

CORRODED SIN said:
That's a new angle. I have never heard/thought of hardcore meaning masculine and casual meaning feminine.

Hardcore - PEOPLE who play games hard, daily, take them (too)seriously, are part of a clan, have multiple systems, or have been playing games for a very long time.

Casual - PEOPLE who don't play games often, don't have any technical abilities, are younger, family oriented gamers, don't play often, have only been gaming this generation.

Notice I used the word "people" instead of males or females. I find both can fall into either category, or both.
Luckily, SIN is open-minded about the overlap in men/women in each category. But Rowan was basically asking us "Why do so many ultra-'hardcore' gamers associate casual gaming with girls? ('Heh. You're playing Sudoku? Bejeweled? Farmville!? Man-up and play a real game.')" All this being said, I don't agree that we need to revert to using the generalised term 'gamer.' There's nothing wrong with the word 'hardcore', there's only something wrong with the morons who think they're more manly because they avoid casual games.
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
As with what others have said about themselves, I've always considered "hardcore" to not only be about the types of games played but also, perhaps even more so, about the level of dedication to not only the game in question but to gaming as a whole.

For me it's similar to the differentiation between someone who, for example, watches a movie because they are bored and someone like Roger Ebert who watches movies on a much different level. Ebert doesn't just watch movies for a couple hours of escapist enjoyment. Ebert analyzes films, the techniques involved, their place in the larger cinema scene, etc. and likely finds great enjoyment in that as well. A "hardcore" gamer does the same thing with games and, just as with movie buffs, some gamers stick to very limited genres or to the medium as a whole. The motivation for a hardcore gamer is enjoyment in getting to the deeper experience in a game, be it Street Fighter or The Sims. This is, conversely, why I don't consider dedicated Farmville "players" as hardcore gamers. Their motivation is, in the vast majority of cases, quite different.