Jimquisition: Hardcore Hypocrisy

[Zayle79]

I don't think that gamers who shun simple games and prefer more complex games are a problem. Hardcore elitists, though, are annoying. I just thought I'd point out that there's a line there--not all of them want to tell you that you're wrong for liking the games you like. Only the idiots.

Also, something else that annoys me is how people don't understand the difference between complicatedness and depth. They think that games that are hard to understand are intrinsically deeper than games that are easy to understand, and that isn't true. Skyrim, for example, is much deeper than Oblivion, its predecessor, despite having a leveling system that you can easily figure out (as opposed to Oblivion's system where many players ruined their first few characters because they didn't know what they were doing).

 

[Zayle79]

Sorry. Double post.

 

[xDarc]

1: @0:21-0:36 I believe the proper name for this subset is "PC Gamers."

You're trying really hard to get flamed, aren't you?

I find myself on the other side of that fence.

I'm an old school PC gamer and I had a hard time understanding this because the PC games of the 90's weren't mentioned at all. That is where I personally draw my distinction between casual games and hardcore games.

My point of view generally places all console based games as casual games, because at that time the difference was night and day between games on the PC and games on console. Instead of playing mario kart, I spent endless hours modding the cutting edge 3D games like Doom, Duke Nukem and Quake. There were many other examples of games consoles couldn't hold a candle to back then, like Command and Conquer, Warcraft, Mechwarrior, and Heroes of Might and Magic.

Back then, console gaming was for kids and I was growing up, away from my "roots."

But these days, were in a sad state of artificial parity with console games and PC games, and I am angry because games are still being made with 7 year old hardware in mind, games that really haven't offered me a linear path in evolution because the console market is still content with playing on a dinosaur.

I make much less distinction on what is casual, what is hardcore, compared to what is actually pushing the envelope or bringing something new to the table. Something that games in general these days, aren't doing. I'll still play a great title, games packed with content like Skyrim, but if I'm not playing the latest Call of Duty or the mobile game Jim is talking about- I really don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

What makes me angry is when you play a game like PlanetSide in 2004, an MMOFPS that offered a whole new genre, fade out into obscurity and forgotten. Then watch the xbox360 choke the life out of originality and suffer through years of the same military shooter game repackaged over and over again.

So again for me, it's not a hardcore vs. casual thing so much as it is a PC vs. console thing.

I don't hate the old games I grew up on Jim, but I have outgrown them a long time ago.

 

[Torrasque]

I agree for the most part, but I still consider myself to be different from someone that spends all of their time on Farmville, and I doubt anything will change that. My definition of a "hardcore gamer" is probably different from yours.

To me, a hardcore gamer is someone that spends all of their time on a game and know every little nuance of the game because they have spent so much time on it. This will be the guy that gets an impossible grenade bounce in Halo, or drifts around every single turn in a racing game with no effort at all. While this may seem the same as the Farmville experience, the cumulative experience you gain in Farmville is nothing compared to the kinds of things I have seen in Street Fighter or Starcraft tourneys.

 

[Skandis]

My simple definitions of hardcore and casual:

Does it reward players for planning ahead, timing their moves or use alternative strategies? It's hardcore. Else, it's casual. Notice it has nothing to do with how hard the game is, or how much of a learning curve it has. If doing a backflip makes any notable difference compared to just jumping, it's hardcore.

With that in mind, one has to experience whenever Jim's game is either of Monster Hunter caliber or just a string of quicktime events with swords.

 

[Toriver]

I'm really hoping that entire thing was sarcastic, because Jim's misconception of the word deep (or at least in the usual gamer lingo 'deep', which I assume he's using) is rather astounding. I think had he used the word 'complex' instead this entire thing would make sense, because yes, more complexity does not inherently make a better game. Depth, on the other hand, is an entirely different beast and IS what separates good games from bad 90%-100% of the time.

I didn't get that at all. I assumed by "deep" he meant "AAA title with pretensions to being a Hollywood movie because it has a feature-film level production budget and an overly elaborate plot" as opposed to "game with simple straightforward mechanics and no real need for complicated narrative."

Sometimes I'm in the mood to watch Citizen Kane or The Godfather or Inception. But sometimes I just want to watch an episode of Big Bang Theory. Not every movie has to be Citizen Kane. And I really don't like movies that think they're Citizen Kane but are actually closer to Big Bang Theory (cough, cough--Vanilla Sky--cough). I sure as hell would rather play a "casual" game that's fun and has no pretensions about being something it's not than some overhyped AAA epic with a shallow narrative that thinks it's the second coming.

And that's why I have no desire to play Skyrim, but can't wait to pick up Mario Kart 7 when I can afford it. *flameshield up*

But yeah, this is basically my response to this video as well. Jim did a good job on this one, and has really been on an upswing lately. Jim, keep it up, and maybe someday I will thank God for you!

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

You're missing the major schism between "casual games" like Mario Brothers and Punch-out vs casual games like Infinity Blade or Fruit Ninja.

Interface controls. Tactile buttons. Real joysticks.

It's one reason "hardcore gamers" will love the simplistic stylings of the old Donkey Kong games, or MegaMan, or any of the other 8-bit games which pale in comparison to today's AMAZING graphics fidelity, but still bang on about how Angry Birds and every Wii-mote/Kinect/PSMove game are nothing but a time sink. (do I win an award for longest run on sentence ever?)

I'm sure that someday wiggling my Wii-Dongle will accurately relay my desired actions to the onscreen player, but for now, it's simply not happening. Watch *ANY* Wii-Boxing game, and watch the action devolve into random flailing without form or skill.


Is it fun? Yeah, sure. I dig spazzing out like I'm occasionally notice a bee has landed on me, while playing Kinect Tennis It's an amusing way to pass the time, and can be good for an excuse to get off my fat arse. But as a game of skill; as a method to refine ones abilities and improve as a "gamer?" .... fat chance.

 

[Bluecho]

It annoys the hell out of me when people casually dismiss a game (or any piece of work in any medium) as "not being a game" or what have you. News flash Yahtzee, Minecraft IS in fact a game, no matter how minimalist the combat may be.

Just because it doesn't conform to your limited perception of a game or not feature things you enjoy doesn't mean it's automatically and catagorically excluded from being called a game. By that logic, Tetris isn't a game, because it has no plot, characters, setting, or violent gunfights/swordfights/barfights.

It's a textbook example of redefining terms to gain an advantage in an argument. An argument, by the way, that matters not even one bit because whether or not casual games are really games is irrelavent to you. What difference does it make to you if the apple devices are hosting simple titles? You have your "hardcore games" to play, so why should you care?

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I've waded through five or six pages, and I can reasonably say the following:

"Hardcore" as a term defining a certain subset of gamers is one of the most useless inventions since the head-mounted toilet paper holder.

I'm a gamer. That's it. "Hardcore" means so many different things to so many people that trying to call myself hardcore or casual would be an almost guaranteed fallacy. I breezed through Super Mario Galaxy, but my ass is continuously handed to me in StarCraft II. I've finished Saints Row 2, but I can't get past the one required Tank Mayhem mission from The Third to save my life. I enjoy The Sims in all its iterations, and yet I'd rather shove a melon baller in my eye sockets than play some Civilization, much less some of the easier Sim titles, like Theme Park or Hospital. I enjoyed Bulletstorm for its sheer mindless fun, and I couldn't give two shits about Gears of War. Sports games always fail to grab my attention, and Football Manager looks more like a chore than a game.

I could go on like this forever. See, we're *individuals*. We're not market figures, or stereotypes, or products of a given gamer-related mindset. Each of us is his or her own person, and we all have our strengths, weaknesses and talents. The games industry caters to all colours of that proverbial rainbow.

That's all there is to it. When someone calls me a noob online, all I hear is "I'm proving you that I'm emotionally immature and that I can't stand it when someone challenges my superiority complex!"

Honestly, if that's what it means to be a gamer, nowadays - we've devolved to a pretty sad state. If your ability to verbally stroke your dick is what determines your worth as a simple presser of buttons and twiddler of joysticks, then there's a serious problem.

I could be wrong, but I think part of the problem is in modern game design. We've come to foster a sense of competition, so naturally, players who spend more time with a game or have a greater level of innate talent will rise to the top. Unfortunately, the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (mentioned in Page 1) still holds true. These skilled individuals, unable to see that they might be emotionally hurting other people who are trying pretty damn hard to have some fucking fun for a few hours, start mouthing off at them. Seeing as there's no effective way to curb online douchebaggery, said douchebaggery is fostered and nurtured. The idiots start thinking that, hey, if you can't rise up to the challenge and accumulate a monster K/D ratio in Call of Battlefield 23, then you're obviously a worthless larva. If you *do* beat them, then you're Hitler Spawn (TM), they call for hax, ragequit, or try to pin the blame on you.

Far be it from these idiots to recognize that they might have off days, just like everyone else on the fucking planet.

If *these* idiots are hardcore and if they're actually proud to consider themselves as such, they they need to be fired off into the sun, to leave more room for those of us who only care about unplugging for a couple hours.

In short, if being hardcore means living and breathing a specific game day-in and day-out and not being able to recognize defeat in the context of play as being utterly meaningless - then that term shouldn't be considered a label to be worn or some sort of badge of honour. It should be discouraged, because it's referring to basement-dwelling mouth-breathers.

 

[Continuity]

The problem with the term "Hardcore" is that it means a dozen different things to different people. To me "Hardcore" is interchangeable with "Enthusiast" or "hobbyist", meaning that a hardcore gamer is someone who really loves games and plays lots of them a fuck ton.

To others however "Hardcore" seems to be some sort of nebulous reference to dicks who like to look down on others for not liking the same type of game as they do. To others it means that you have great experience and skill with a particular game and spend a lot of time playing it (1000 hours+).

Personally i've given up using the term "Hardcore" because it useless at conveying meaning; instead I refer to myself, when I have cause to, as an enthusiast gamer.

 

[Magmarock]

Why can't a game both be simple and have depth?

 

[head desk tricycle]

Games are just games. Not really different from Risk or Trivial Pursuit or chess or tic-tac-toe or hockey or tag. All that's different is the tools we use to make them. Cutscenes and graphics are only good if they improve the actual play experience, like when you play with pretend money in Monopoly. They can't create "depth" by themselves. Greater technology only means that new kinds of games are possible, not superior kinds of games.
Once I read a theory that hardcore and casual were invented by viral marketers. Like they just went around pretending it was real, and one day it was. It makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[DethKid]

i just find that for one, IOS games by their simple nature of being touchscreen, rely on you to block up to 50% of the screen with your hands for the duration of play. as well as the fact that msot of the games available are "pick-up-n-play" for those taking public transport Or so badly produced that i dont care about characters or even goals.

Im not a core gamer. i just find think that Infinity Blade is by far the minority in terms of IOS gaming. Its is a probably one of/if not THE best game on IOS. its just the fact that the rest cant compare.

I play IOS games. always searching for something that will really make me sit back and think WOW this is awesome. But i dont. They are all buggy, badly scripted and i find myself disappointed.

sorry for being the percentile that the jimquistion hates. though it pretty much hates everything but itself

 

[gee666]

Was Jim in the video for Feeder just a day


i want to know

 

[Bosque]

Holy Headbutting Phallus's Batman!
What the hell were those things at the bottom, at 4:18?