Sony: We've Captured The Hardcore

[Jumplion]

Condense

Alright, it seems that we are in agreement here (I think?). I won't argue about Indigo, but that doesn't mean you can outright insult him. I'm just as sick of people insulting him when he does at times make a valid point.

He didn't make a valid point. He just said 'If you've not played a Team Ico game, you're not a gamer'.

No, not in this situation, hell now, he's being stupid right now Other times though he does make valid points, like how he (allegedly) told someone who said that Guerrilla ripped off Half-Life because of the gas masks was stupid because they both came out relatively near to each other.

 

[Doug]

Condense

Alright, it seems that we are in agreement here (I think?). I won't argue about Indigo, but that doesn't mean you can outright insult him. I'm just as sick of people insulting him when he does at times make a valid point.

He didn't make a valid point. He just said 'If you've not played a Team Ico game, you're not a gamer'.

I think all the confusion can be boiled down to what really constitues a 'hardcore gamer'.
Is a gamer someone who casually plays games? Someone whose been playing games for many years? Someone who plays only the best games or someone who plays games nonstop?
I think it could be somewhat dodgy ground to cover, with the word 'nerd' potentially rising. I like to think that a hardcore gamer isn't someone who melts away playing CoD or WoW 8 hours a day. Instead a hardcore gamer is someone who has played a wide variety of games and can filter between good & bad objectively, in the sense that a film critic can (some of the time) filter between a crap film (Urban Legend) & a masterpiece (Most Ridley Scott movies).

I will agree with your defintion of what a hardcore gamer is, although I don't think the term 'objectively good game' exists. 'Technically good game', in terms of design, quality control, etc, technical ascepts, can exist, but a game can't be truly objectively good. It always depends on the observer.

If we take movies for example, "Citizen Kane" (which I did manage to watch a few months ago). From a technical point of view, it isn't that great a movie. There are alot of flaws with it, including some of the 'James T. Kirk style' of line delivery at some points. But was it great at the time of making? Hell yeah, it was. But did I enjoy it (which we should remember is the ultimate purpose of a film), yes actually, I found it interesting and often engaging. Would everyone like it? No, probably.

As for games, I figure most of the rules still apply, given they ultimately have the same purpose, just different mediums. But I don't agree that there has to be a 'must play' list of games in order to get you there. A wide range of games, certainly. Personally, I've played RTS', FPS', RPG's, one JRPG, TBS', TB-Tactical's, RT-Tacticals, Open world's, Closed world's, multiplayer, singleplayer, MUD's, MMO's, classics, modern greats, a handful of 'art' games (The Path, Braid, probably more I've forgotten). So I don't see why I've been suddenly declared 'not good enough' because I haven't played two specific games.

Condense

Alright, it seems that we are in agreement here (I think?). I won't argue about Indigo, but that doesn't mean you can outright insult him. I'm just as sick of people insulting him when he does at times make a valid point.

He didn't make a valid point. He just said 'If you've not played a Team Ico game, you're not a gamer'.

No, not in this situation, hell now, he's being stupid right now Other times though he does make valid points, like how he (allegedly) told someone who said that Guerrilla ripped off Half-Life because of the gas masks was stupid because they both came out relatively near to each other.

He said what? but...but thats just silly. World war 1 soldiers often looked, head wise, like combine because of the face-enclosing gasmasks. It'd be like trying to claim Blizzard are ripping off elves from Neverwinter nights, heh.

EDIT: And please, bare in mind its very late here, and I'm off to sleep - so basically, if something doesn't make sense its because I'm too tired to proof read right now, heh.

 

[deathstrikesquirrel]

Hard core gamers: gotta catch 'em all.

Better yet, buy a PS3 and go to Japan. Hide in Hideo Kojima's office and then smack him in the face with your PS3 for not bringing MGS to the 360

 

[duchaked]

I own all 3 consoles and have been gaming for most of my life and I don't like Sony at the moment. They can't attract casual gamers, the PS2 is on its last legs and the PS3 is to expensive and cumbersome for casual gamers to even consider it.

The PS2 had a good run, but the Wii has got the casual gamers down pat.

Most PS3 owners I know (okay, almost all) had their parents (or parents' job company) purchase the system for them, whilst 360 chose it specifically (and Wii owners are anyone who loves SSBB)...at least in my experience and I'm sure it varies.

Wait are you complaining about the prices? Their nearly the same a 60 gig 360 cost about 299, plus the wireless adapter you need to buy is another 100. Whereas you can find an 80 gig ps3 for 399.(note 20 gigs more than the 360 and a built in wireless device) And what nice is it doesn't cost 50 dollars a year to play the ps3 online and you don't have to worry about the ps3 doesn't break nearly as often as a 360. (all my friends have sent in theirs atleast once, most twice) So I don't see how price really comes into play.

Nah I bought a PS3 myself.

 

[Inco]

I would pay five bucks to see hardcore gamers in a pen. Even more so if they've got the 360 aswell as the PS3 species in the same pen.

I suspect that before an hour had passed, they'd have killed each other.

I lower that bet to about 5 mintues!!

Is it just me, but is it that if people don't like a console they play it very little, If they like the console a little they play it a lot and if they love their console, they don't play it at all, instead they go on forums to defend it and attack the opponent's ones.

 

[bue519]

I own all 3 consoles and have been gaming for most of my life and I don't like Sony at the moment. They can't attract casual gamers, the PS2 is on its last legs and the PS3 is to expensive and cumbersome for casual gamers to even consider it.

The PS2 had a good run, but the Wii has got the casual gamers down pat.

Most PS3 owners I know (okay, almost all) had their parents (or parents' job company) purchase the system for them, whilst 360 chose it specifically (and Wii owners are anyone who loves SSBB)...at least in my experience and I'm sure it varies.

Wait are you complaining about the prices? Their nearly the same a 60 gig 360 cost about 299, plus the wireless adapter you need to buy is another 100. Whereas you can find an 80 gig ps3 for 399.(note 20 gigs more than the 360 and a built in wireless device) And what nice is it doesn't cost 50 dollars a year to play the ps3 online and you don't have to worry about the ps3 doesn't break nearly as often as a 360. (all my friends have sent in theirs atleast once, most twice) So I don't see how price really comes into play.

Nah I bought a PS3 myself.

What?

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

-Honey, I shrunk your post-

I'm so glad there is someone else out there who has read the blue ocean strategy, and I agree on pretty much all of your points posted.

For those of you who have not read the blue ocean strategy, here it is.

http://malstrom.50webs.com/birdman.html

 

[shMerker]

There's also a book [http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Ocean-Strategy-Uncontested-Competition/dp/1591396190/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240417590&sr=8-1] which Malstrom based his analysis on. It provides a lot of perspective on why "mediocre" products take off and why that's not a bad thing. It also explains why after a major innovation like the Wii other industry players fail to compete effectively for the next 10-15 years, as Sony and Microsoft have been doing for the past 2.

 

[Zeraki]

And here I thought all it took to be a gamer was to like video games, but after reading the first couple of pages it seems I was wrong. It seems you need a certain set of requirements, and have to like what people tell you to in order to be considered a gamer. Just play what you enjoy and stop bickering like little children on the internet.

I still don't understand what makes someone a 'hardcore' gamer, as far as I can tell it's a self given title that really doesn't mean anything, for people who want to feel more important. It's like calling yourself a Daimyo when you don't own any land, and have no army to command.

 

[fenixrising]

God of war 3, im regretting buying my 360, should have held out for the ps3 to come into it's own, and trust me it will.....

what about mid way through MS' next console?

 

[Doug]

Hard core gamers: gotta catch 'em all.

Better yet, buy a PS3 and go to Japan. Hide in Hideo Kojima's office and then smack him in the face with your PS3 for not bringing MGS to the 360

Ok, now I have an imagine of Hideo Kojima stalking around a mall with a load of pokeballs.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Ohh sony you are so right all the time

 

[MrGFunk]

I played ICO and didn't like it. There's a difference between being hardcore and being pretentious.

Really. Man I love ICO. From the first demo on the front of the magazine, so I'm not late to the bandwagon.

ICO isn't pretentious. The gameplay is sound, mechanic is novel, story is sound and involving and the whole game tries invokes an emotional reaction in it's player.

People making out it's the best game in history because it's art is pretentious. It's a good game for the reasons above and that's all it tries to be.

Shadow of the Colossus is also pretty good. Did you like that?

 

[MrGFunk]

Spoiler: all that's gone before

Condense

Alright, it seems that we are in agreement here (I think?). I won't argue about Indigo, but that doesn't mean you can outright insult him. I'm just as sick of people insulting him when he does at times make a valid point.

He didn't make a valid point. He just said 'If you've not played a Team Ico game, you're not a gamer'.

I think all the confusion can be boiled down to what really constitues a 'hardcore gamer'.
Is a gamer someone who casually plays games? Someone whose been playing games for many years? Someone who plays only the best games or someone who plays games nonstop?
I think it could be somewhat dodgy ground to cover, with the word 'nerd' potentially rising. I like to think that a hardcore gamer isn't someone who melts away playing CoD or WoW 8 hours a day. Instead a hardcore gamer is someone who has played a wide variety of games and can filter between good & bad objectively, in the sense that a film critic can (some of the time) filter between a crap film (Urban Legend) & a masterpiece (Most Ridley Scott movies).

I will agree with your defintion of what a hardcore gamer is, although I don't think the term 'objectively good game' exists. 'Technically good game', in terms of design, quality control, etc, technical ascepts, can exist, but a game can't be truly objectively good. It always depends on the observer.

If we take movies for example, "Citizen Kane" (which I did manage to watch a few months ago). From a technical point of view, it isn't that great a movie. There are alot of flaws with it, including some of the 'James T. Kirk style' of line delivery at some points. But was it great at the time of making? Hell yeah, it was. But did I enjoy it (which we should remember is the ultimate purpose of a film), yes actually, I found it interesting and often engaging. Would everyone like it? No, probably.

As for games, I figure most of the rules still apply, given they ultimately have the same purpose, just different mediums. But I don't agree that there has to be a 'must play' list of games in order to get you there. A wide range of games, certainly. Personally, I've played RTS', FPS', RPG's, one JRPG, TBS', TB-Tactical's, RT-Tacticals, Open world's, Closed world's, multiplayer, singleplayer, MUD's, MMO's, classics, modern greats, a handful of 'art' games (The Path, Braid, probably more I've forgotten). So I don't see why I've been suddenly declared 'not good enough' because I haven't played two specific games.

Condense

Alright, it seems that we are in agreement here (I think?). I won't argue about Indigo, but that doesn't mean you can outright insult him. I'm just as sick of people insulting him when he does at times make a valid point.

He didn't make a valid point. He just said 'If you've not played a Team Ico game, you're not a gamer'.

No, not in this situation, hell now, he's being stupid right now Other times though he does make valid points, like how he (allegedly) told someone who said that Guerrilla ripped off Half-Life because of the gas masks was stupid because they both came out relatively near to each other.

He said what? but...but thats just silly. World war 1 soldiers often looked, head wise, like combine because of the face-enclosing gasmasks. It'd be like trying to claim Blizzard are ripping off elves from Neverwinter nights, heh.

EDIT: And please, bare in mind its very late here, and I'm off to sleep - so basically, if something doesn't make sense its because I'm too tired to proof read right now, heh.

I think in a roundabout and potentially annoying way Indigo and Matzy are recommending a couple of very good games. I think it's sad that Team ICO , but mainly ICO, got caught up in the furore and used in this argument.

I love both their games but I don't think the developer should be used as a stamp of approval or validation of a PS3 purchase. Luckily, there are many reasons to buy a PS3.

What would be the reaction if TRICO tanked? Bad news for everyone, probably.

I for one hope it's as good as it's pedigree.