There is a difference between simple descriptive terms and terms which are used in a hostile and insulting fashion. Gamers take pride from a label like "hardcore" and take umbrage to a label like "casual", because the terms have gained deeper connotations than just playing games more/less.Hammeroj said:You saying people don't have a varying commitment to and involvement in gaming? Stop having kneejerk reactions to simple terms.SonicWaffle said:No, they really aren't. We're supposed to have moved past the egocentric "hardcore" bullshit by now, and all be too busy enjoying our games to give a shit whether somebody else enjoys Farmville more than CoD and whether that makes us better gamers than them.
I happily admit that I play games casually, but when someone calls me a casual gamer I know that the majority of times that isn't what they mean. They're attempting to belittle and insult while simultaneously massaging their own ego; they are hardcore and therefore superior, whereas the casual is inferior and "not a real gamer"
No mention should have been made of casual gamers at all. As already stated, casual and hardcore have evolved beyond being a reference to how much someone plays games and have become more about egotistical elitism.Hammeroj said:At no point was the article even remotely mean to casual gamers.
Are they truly aimed at different audiences? Because if we took a poll of the players on this very site who played and enjoyed both, I imagine we'd get some high numbers.Hammeroj said:That Battlefield and Pants vs. Zombies are aimed at different audiences is a matter of fact, and I don't get this need to play pretend and do things as vapid as restraining oneself from specifying further than "gamer".
It's like the tired, pointless old "it's just different" argument.
The only difference is that it's OK to belittle people who only enjoyed PvZ as "casual", whereas people who only enjoyed Battlefield are "hardcore"