Hardcore vs Casual Gamer(or more precisely Next Gen vs. New Gen)

[Oregano]

This is actually an essay from my blog on n4g.com, but I think it'll reach a wider audience here and if a conversation sparks up it will be more civil.

Now it may seem a bit inflammatory but it's just my opinion on the subject, also keep in mind I own a 360 but not a Wii.



Intro - the background to the modern "casual" phenomenon

Nintendo have been a major player in the video game world since the release of Donkey Kong, a much loved arcade game that introduced possibly the most popular and well known character in the Video Game culture, Jumpman Mario. Nintendo's glory years was the era of the NES/Famicom and SNES/Super Famicom, the late eighties up until the mid nineties. This era brought us many games that are to this day regarded as the best ever. Anyway, Nintendo's glory years came to an end in 1995 when the Sony Playstation burst into the gaming scene, this was largely because of superior gaming hardware and good relations with third parties, many of which were former Nintendo developers. Nintendo had been trying to win back ground every since and after two generations they have finally re-emerged as the king of home console gaming.

The Wii is the console that brought Nintendo back to the top through a smart marketting campaign and general accessibility(as well as a lot of luck), it was a risky move because the Wii is not as powerful as it's modern competitors but it seems to worthwhile. The success was mainly because of Nintendo's attitude to target audience, it has always been Nintendo's aim to produce games that are accessible to everyone, so instead of simply designing games around this mindset(as they always had) they designed the whole console around it. The control is simple with a minimal amount of buttons that means anyone can simply pick up and play but it still allows a level of complexity for more in depth and challenging games.

The target audience ate this up because in a day and age where games are constantly in the media for proliferating violence and sex, Nintendo provided a safe haven and a controlled environment where children can be entertained without the danger of bad influences. The simplistic style and input also meant that parents could also become involved with video games and their children's hobbies.

Hardcore vs Casual

However with the success of the Wii came a division to gaming culture between Next Gen(PS3 & 360) and New Gen(Wii). The next gen is characterised by High Definition, Large capacity Hard drives and Mature games, whilst the Wii is characterised by accessibility. However, the division is that the Next Gen gamers automatically assume superiority compared to Wii gamers(who may be less devoted). At the heart of this debate and conflict though is “Exclusivity”.

The word exclusive is something gamers hear a lot in the modern day, it's largely thrown about when discussing PS3 and 360 games but it speaks more about the climate of Next Gen gaming. Many people claim that the Wii are “alienating their userbase”, this is true, however they have not neglected their userbase. The “core” of the group of former Nintendo gamers feel intimidated by the larger audience that the Wii has reached, gaming on a Nintendo console is no longer “exclusive”, it's not a niche any more. The next gen consoles present the idea that the users of the consoles are a tight knit community, you're a 360 player or a PS3 player, this is largely the fuel behind the infamous Console War. This leads many people to neglect the Wii in favour the more inclusive, “members only” nature of the Next Gen consoles, the 360 is probably the most inclusive as the Xbox live service requires payment for full utilisation, this gives the impression that you are now a part of a group that's willing to pay to be part of the 360 group. This is probably the cause behind the major media use of the word “exclusive” when discussing games for the Next Gen consoles, it promotes the idea that you're a buying into an ideal, it's certainly the reason the 360(and it's predecessor) were labelled as FPS havens.

There is also another reason many Next Gen users criticise the Wii despite it's widespread success and popularity. To put it bluntly, it's jealousy. The Wii is coming close to outselling both of it's competitors put together, which leads to a lot of animosity. This is largely because the Wii was both cheaper and less technical than the other two consoles and the Next Gen gamers feel that the Wii is undeserving of it's success. A major complaint is that the Wii is only slightly more powerful than the last gen, compared to the major advances that the PS3 and 360 have made it is indeed minor, many dismiss the Wii saying it isn't in competition with the PS3 and 360 simply because it's not as powerful, this mindset could actually fuel the Wii as many people will buy it as well as Next Gen console, but largely it is because the Next Gen is more expensive and many people seek ways to justify the purchase of a console that costs half a grand and a TV optimised for the console for another grand.

As implied earlier the consoles are categorised by the content that is provided and the content provided on the Next Gen consoles leads to a superiority complex. The spirit of the Next Gen really comes through in Gears of War, Killzone 2 and Grand Theft Auto IV. These are mature, violent games that deal with a more adult theme and the conflict many people face in the real world. This leads many people to dismiss the Wii as most games are aimed at the family. Next Gen games are also much more technical and take longer due to the high demands and overly-complex architecture in the case of the PS3, this means many developers neglect the Wii and produce simple games for it, “shovelware” as many people call the games. The end result of this is that Next Gen gamers assume that Next Gen games are more “hardcore” because they are harder to make and deal with themes that don't apply to everybody(again “exclusivity”). Some also assume that Wii games can't be challenging because their made for little kids but games such Super Smash Bros allow children to have fun, playing as their favourite characters whilst more experienced gamers can enjoy the complex and sometimes hectic nature of the game.

Conclusion

In conclusion the conflict between Next Gen and New Gen gamers is caused by three factors; The Next Gen consoles provide an inclusive group that the gamer can become a part of it( it's provides an impression that it's special to own a Next Gen console), there is a lot of jealousy caused by the success of the Wii because it's cheaper and less complex and invalidates the purchase of a Next Gen console(which means it's less exclusive) and that next Gen consoles are ultimately more adult and gratuitous with a lot of blood, sex and vulgarity.---http://www.n4g.com/up/0/BlogPostPending-278332.aspx

It's currently needing approval which would be much appreciated if possible.

I'd like your opinions and any criticisms of writing style(I know there's a few issues anyway, I'd be much better off doing a vocal thing but I'm not a strong speaker).

[Neon Knight]

I actually found it very difficult to merely criticize your article without also attacking your opinion, so please keep in mind that coherency might have died around the third re-try at this post.

I am going to say that using the words Hardcore and Casual in your article as you are is confusing, because casual and hardcore (or pro) are already terms in the gamer lexicon. A casual player is the guy who sits down for 1-2 hours or so, and plays with his friends mostly for fun. A hardcore player or pro joins a clan, plays in tourneys, seeks to win above all else, and plays whenever he possibly can to improve.

When I began reading your post, these are the definitions I had in mind, and I was initially confused when it turns out you were using them differently.

[Oregano]

It's fine if you disagree with me, I want your opinion on the subject.

I will look into that, but I was using it in the context that I've seen most used on gaming websites where Hardcore refers to anyone who plays PS3 and 360 games(minus stuff like Singstar) and Casual refers to Wii players. I know neither is technically correct and I don't actually agree with them but that's how they're used a lot.

EDIT: Actually, after reading it again it seems my opinions aren't very well represented by what I wrote because it sounds like I'm some kind of Next-Gen hater.:smalleek:

[Dihan]

I will look into that, but I was using it in the context that I've seen most used on gaming websites where Hardcore refers to anyone who plays PS3 and 360 games(minus stuff like Singstar) and Casual refers to Wii players. I know neither is technically correct and I don't actually agree with them but that's how they're used a lot.

So because I own a Wii that makes me a "casual" gamer? Stupid logic is stupid. All the so-called "hardcore" PS3 and 360 owners see the Wii as just the shovelware system (which, may I add, was the PS2 last gen) and just ignore all the titles that don't fit their preconceived notion of a Wii game.

I own a Wii. I don't own Wii Fit or any other "casual" Wii game. This still makes me casual? Stupid logic is stupid.

From what I've see, the whole "hardcore gamer" and "casual gamer" thing was just created by PS3 and 360 fanboys to justify their decision towards not getting a Wii. By calling themselves "hardcore" it makes them feel superior to all Wii owners who are "casual" by default... Then again, GameFAQs is a bit of an extreme forum.

EDIT: I also agree with the definitions that Kasrkin gives towards the two terms. That's how I've always known them and will continually to know them as.

[Oregano]

I agree with that, I know the Wii has some awesome games and I want to get a Wii soon but I haven't got the money. In the essay I'm trying to find the reasons why so called Hardcore gamers feel that way about the Wii and it's userbase.

[Knaight]

I actually agree with it. The notions are there, and widely held, and there is a lot of shovelware for the wii because of it. Self fufilling prophecies and all that. That said, you probably should have mentioned some of the games that came out for the wii that don't fit the easy, no skill required stereotype (ie the new fire emblem, which is a hard game).

[Oregano]

I actually agree with it. The notions are there, and widely held, and there is a lot of shovelware for the wii because of it. Self fufilling prophecies and all that. That said, you probably should have mentioned some of the games that came out for the wii that don't fit the easy, no skill required stereotype (ie the new fire emblem, which is a hard game).

That might be a good idea, I did mention SSBB as an example that's both accessible but complex. But listing some other games may be worth while.

[Dihan]

I'll list some games that I can't really see "casual" gamers playing and ones that appear simple but are quite complex:

Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Metroid Prime 3
Disaster: Day of Crisis
Zak and Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure
de Blob
Deadly Creatures
Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World
Wario Land: Shake It!
Tenchu 4

Games that are coming to the Wii off the top of my head:

MadWorld
Tales of "Ten"
The Conduit
Fragile
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Echoes of Time
Monster Hunter 3
Fatal Frame 4

[Mr. Mud]

Hm, I think I'm going to have to go with casual gamer... just because I like to do other things as well, and I hate one-dimensional people... especially when that dimension is Halo 3. But, I have both hardcore gamer friends and casual gamer friends. Oddly enough one of the casual gamers is the best person I've seen play Halo... comparable with Walshy and such. He doesn't even try when he is playing... very weird person... :smallbiggrin:. (He got a '7 Kills in a row thing' while on the phone with his girlfriend... </envy> :smalltongue:)

EDIT: Agreed, Om... by the way, your name scares me because OM was slang for moderator in an MMO that I wasted years on :smallbiggrin:.

[Om]

I know a guy who owns a Wii. He also owns a GameCube and probably every Nintendo console/handheld since the SNES. Yet he is to be categorised as a 'casual gamer'? Any definition based on platform is frankly ridiculous. Terrible article that reeks of console snobbery

But then I have an issue with the whole 'gamer' thing in the first place. I play computer games for on average 3+ hours per day and I've been doing so for over fifteen years now. I follow the latest releases, I can know my way around the inside of a PC, and I can waffle at length about the state/history/future of the industry. In short, I know my games. Yet I am not a 'gamer' and nor have I ever met a member of this illusive species. I just know lots of people who play games. There's no subculture there, no need for an internal hierarchy of 'hardcore' and 'causal'. Just ordinary people with an ordinary pastime

[Oregano]

I know a guy who owns a Wii. He also owns a GameCube and probably every Nintendo console/handheld since the SNES. Yet he is to be categorised as a 'casual gamer'? Any definition based on platform is frankly ridiculous. Terrible article that reeks of console snobbery

It seems I've offended more Wii gamers than PS3/360 gamers which is strange because a large part of my essay is basically saying that the Wii is good because it provides a safer environment and PS3/360 fanboys are jealous of it's success and that they're dismissing a good console.

EDIT: Thanks for the list Doihaveaname? I'm really looking forward to echoes of time, but I'll most likely get it on the DS because I haven't got a Wii yet.

EDIT 2: One of the paragraphs actually addresses the subculture nature of gaming, which is a perception held by PS3/360 owners but not Wii owners which is why they don't like the Wii, it's about everyone playing not a segeragated(sp?) subculture.

[Quayleman]

That is certainly an interesting philosophy.

Now, please correct me if I am wrong, but the basis of your argument is that Nintendo greatly expanded their target audience when they designed the WII (rather than trying to keep up with 360 and PS3 hardware wise). Nintendo effectively "dropped out" of the console race.

This caused "hardcore" gamers (as you have defined them) to disreguard the WII because it appeals to people outside the hardcore demographic, and because it does not support the M rated "hardcore" games.

I agree with your points, but I think there is a little more going on here. Because the WII has less powerful hardware, it can't support the same games as the "Next Gen" systems. So if a game studio wants to make a "next gen" game, they have to chose wether to make it for 360/PS3, or for WII, or make 2 different versions of the game. option 3 isn't really feasable when you consider that the WII owners interested in your game probably already own one of the next gen systems, and would rather buy your game for that.

And while there is undoubtably bias from the "hardcore" croud against the WII, Nintendo has also made a decision to produce less (note: less =/= none) games for the "hardcore".

You definately hear the most noise about this from the hardcore nintendo fanboys who really want next gen hardcore games with nintendo characters. And there is the potential to do so, with Smash Bros being so popular, nintendo could go through the entire lineup of brawl characters and come up with several next gen games using characters that haven't had a game since the SNES.

[Oregano]

That is certainly an interesting philosophy.

Now, please correct me if I am wrong, but the basis of your argument is that Nintendo greatly expanded their target audience when they designed the WII (rather than trying to keep up with 360 and PS3 hardware wise). Nintendo effectively "dropped out" of the console race.

This caused "hardcore" gamers (as you have defined them) to disreguard the WII because it appeals to people outside the hardcore demographic, and because it does not support the M rated "hardcore" games.
<snip!>

Thanks for the reply, That's part of the reason but it's more the perception that they dropped out, because they've always been about the family, they just succeeded to draw the wider audience in. It's kind of like when some one listens to an obscure band that makes it big, it does lose some appeal as it's not unique any more.

I know the Wii does support M games but it has significantly less compared to the other two consoles(it's really hard to find low rating games on PS3 or the 360)

I get what you're saying about the development as well but option 3 is coming more common as with Dead Rising, Deadspace and CoD 5(As well as supposedly Bioshock).

[Quayleman]

even with more hardcore games making it onto the WII, there is still the issue of who will buy them. Most of the WII owners interested in these games also own a 360 or PS3*.

*I have absolutely ZERO statistics to support this, I am just making a generalization that the hardcore croud ends up buying the consoles that have more hardcore games.

[Triaxx]

I posted this in reply to this article (http://www.mcvuk.com/news/32153/Nintendo-Weve-never-neglected-core-gamers), wondering whether Nintendo had abandoned the 'Core Gamers'.

What is a Core Game? What is a Casual Game? The definitions are hazy.

Both can be replayed. Both can be played by anyone.

A casual game is one you can pick up, play for five to ten minutes and then put down. A core game is one that you sit down to play, and just cannot bring yourself to stop. The story is so entrancing, the controls so spot on, the action so right. Twilight Princess was a Core game. Metroid Prime 3 was a Core game.

Mario Kart Wii? That's a casual game. Wii Music, Wii Sports, also both casual games.

Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Casual? Yes. Core? Yes. Because you can pick it up, play for five minutes, then walk away. Or you can sit and play for hours and not want to give it up.

We aren't asking that everything be an epic adventure on the scale of Twilight Princess. We love Brawl because we can play it both ways. We want something that maintains it's appeal while we wait for the killer franchises to come back.

We don't mind waiting for the epic games, but if you don't show us what you're up to, we can't be excited about them.

Look, the Wii can be a hardcore system, and the 360 and PS3 can be casual. Just because they're pushed towards the other type doesn't mean anything.

Om: So you doubt that Hunters exist? Or Racers? Or Skaters? People who are serious enough to fight for the right to continue with their sport regardless of who is challenging it?

I am a Gamer. I am serious about it. Not the 'Real Gamers only play my console.' serious, but Games are what I do for fun, the same way as Chessmasters play it for fun, or Musicians are in a band because they enjoy it. I play both Hardcore games and Causal games. I play Halo and Freecell. Supreme Commander and Tetris. It's my recreation, I spend lots of money on it, the same way that a weekend Racer pays lots of money for a race car, or a Paintballer pays for the gun and mask and time on a course to practice his hobby.

So don't doubt that gamers exist, doubt the definition.

[Illiterate Scribe]

So because I own a Wii that makes me a "casual" gamer? Stupid logic is stupid. All the so-called "hardcore" PS3 and 360 owners see the Wii as just the shovelware system (which, may I add, was the PS2 last gen) and just ignore all the titles that don't fit their preconceived notion of a Wii game.

This reminds me of a certain 'lol no u dont idort' comic ... :smallamused:

[Fri]

Another interesting article that might hold your interest.

The Lament of the Hardcore Wii Owner (http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-lament-of-the-hardcore-wii-owner/)

slightly strong language warning.

[Eakin]

Man, I am so tired of the casual/hardcore dichotomy. We need a term for someone who can binge for an entire afternoon on a really absorbing game but then walks away for days or weeks at a time, or somebody who only plays on weekends, whatever. The belief that all gamers are either 80-year old grandmothers who play wii sports for an hour a week or dedicated MMO addicts or FPS fiends is silly.

[toasty]

Man, I am so tired of the casual/hardcore dichotomy. We need a term for someone who can binge for an entire afternoon on a really absorbing game but then walks away for days or weeks at a time, or somebody who only plays on weekends, whatever. The belief that all gamers are either 80-year old grandmothers who play wii sports for an hour a week or dedicated MMO addicts or FPS fiends is silly.

Casual hardcore gamers? I mean... thats me. I'd play more video games if I had more money and more time. But I don't have the money and my education is more important than DotA or Medieval Total War II.

I too, don't like the opinion that wii gamers are, by definition, casual gamers. I call myself a gamer (though I'm between the hardcore and causal gamer thing... see above paragraph), but we have wii. We don't have a 360 or a PS3 (that money thing?). I probably won't own a "hardcore" console for quite sometime (because, frankly, I like PC games more), but just because I don't have one does mean I'm not a gamer. I just spend my time and money on other things (RPGs or music for instance...)

[Dallas-Dakota]

I´l take neither next gen or New Gen.


Gooooooo Old Skool!

[Oslecamo]

I think it's 99% pure jealously.

Before Wii: Nintendo is so dead! The gamecube is not selling at all! And soon the PsP will also dethrone the gameboy! Death to the little gaming company!

After Wii: They're sudenly selling more than us???? And the last version of Gameboy is still king of portable consoles? Wh-Wh-What hapened?

One thing one has to notice however is that this jealously is feeded by the companies themselves. Microsoft as always claims their products are the best and make lots of publicity towards it, while trying to make their players buy only their products. Sony has some deep old hatred for Nintendo. In the gamecube days they made a lot of effort to deliver the kiling blow by flooding the market with PS2 games, only to see Nintendo literally come back from the death with a completely inovative system.

As for casual vs hardcore gamer, well, it's isn't as white and black as that.
Also, people seem to be forgeting that a console can appeal to both side at the same time. The Wii does this quite well.

The PS3 and Xbox may have better hardware, but what does that matter if the companies only use them to produce better graphics and the mechanics itself remain laregly unchanged(GTA, I'm looking at you). And even then, the Wii graphics are still darn good! Just grab metroid prime or Brawl and see for yourself.

[Cubey]

Another interesting article that might hold your interest.

The Lament of the Hardcore Wii Owner (http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-lament-of-the-hardcore-wii-owner/)

slightly strong language warning.

That article is baseless whining. Decently written, but whining nevertheless. The author goes out of his way to yell how Wii is all casual games + Mario Racing, but fails to mention anything from Doihaveaname's list except for Legend of Zelda. He either is so lazy he cannot do simple research and find that games like Fire Emblem, in fact, exist, or is writing flaming articles on purpose. And I don't even own a Wii nor am particularly fond of the console.

Console wars are an old thing. There were even computer wars before them - does anyone remember Amiga VS Commodore VS PC? And let me tell you. People who participate in such wars are STUPID. Hardcore vs Casual is just another facet of them, only with different terms. Neither Hardcore nor Casual mean anything. They're just thrown like grenades, as means of insulting the other console by calling it a term you find would be most offensive at the moment.

[Oregano]

Well yes I don't actually agree with the whole Casual=Wii thing, it's a myth made up by the so called "hardcore" gamers. Maybe I could actually say that instead of implying it(because I don't seem to have done that well).

[Oslecamo]

Console wars are an old thing. There were even computer wars before them - does anyone remember Amiga VS Commodore VS PC? And let me tell you. People who participate in such wars are STUPID. Hardcore vs Casual is just another facet of them, only with different terms. Neither Hardcore nor Casual mean anything. They're just thrown like grenades, as means of insulting the other console by calling it a term you find would be most offensive at the moment.

B-B-but what will happen to the internet if we can't blindly tag people with meaningless words so we can feel superior and try to win arguments by summoning ridiculous definitions some guy made by himself based on nothing?:smalleek:

We could-GASP-start to have intelegent and productive discussions instead where we would produce our own arguments based on actual evidence! NO PLEASE NO! THE HORROR! IT BURNS US MY PRECIOUS!

It's not just with consoles. People throw those "grenades" left and right in pratically every topic on the net.

[Om]

It seems I've offended more Wii gamers than PS3/360 gamers which is strange because a large part of my essay is basically saying that the Wii is good because it provides a safer environment and PS3/360 fanboys are jealous of it's success and that they're dismissing a good consoleI didn't realise it was your own work

Nonetheless this article, despite any intentions, not only reinforces the imaginary hardcore/casual divide but contributes to the negative stereotyping of the Wii. Instead of simply stating that Wii games are "made for little kids" you would have been better off demonstrating that any distinction between hardcore/casual gamers is just not based on hardware. Otherwise your take on hardcore/casual gamers simply comes across as an essay on PS3/Wii gamers. The two distinctions are not the same

[DeathQuaker]

*crawls out of woodwork, shakes dust off*

I agree with the sentiment that "casual" and "hardcore" are not well defined, and it's not just a console thing. I also have seen the terms used in PC Gaming debates---where it tends to be a "battle" perceived between FPS and RPG players vs. puzzle and sim gamers, especially since sales are struggling for the former (gamers with the time, money, and inclination still buy them, but increasing hardware and software compatibility issues cause big run problems, and the DRM vs piracy debate complicates user and developer sentiment), while the latter are doing fine (but, say the self titled "hard core" gamers, "That doesn't count").

I appreciate the attempt to look for new and more specific terminology -- "Next Gen" versus "New Gen" and would like to see more efforts in that vein. Or, perhaps more ideally, to stop putting people on "sides" once and for all. Ironically, I think that's ultimately what Nintendo wanted to do. If you look at both the Wii and the DS, unlike their competition, nearly every kind of gamer can find any kind of game they want to play. I think the only thing in short supply is FPSs, but Wii still has a couple of those at least. I think the message that Nintendo is trying to send is, "Games are for everyone."

(* Disclaimer, only consoles DQ owns are a PS2 and a DS. Comments made from observing the console war from afar.

Why there are certain gamers who object to the idea that "Games are for everyone," is a little mystifying to me, but for the most part, these are the folks who label themselves "hardcore" to begin with. In other words, they have for themselves decided that "Gamer" is an integral part of their identity, and makes them feel unique. So they see the attempt to make gaming appeal to everyone, they see their niche taken away from them, their identity threatened, and they backlash. The healthy thing to do would be a) find a better way to self-identify, and b) be glad one finds oneself belonging in a bigger world than one thought and learn to build community there, rather than try to tear it down.

Of course, the more likely argument to return is that expanding the market to appeal to more people results in a "dumbing down" of gameplay, but I don't find that to be the case. I personally find that the more "hardcore" games I play (RPGs and action games and some strategies), they are as challenging as they ever were since I started gaming over 20 years ago. And a puzzle game, accused of being non hardcore, is not an easy game. It's a different kind of challenge, and I'd daresay much harder, than pointing at some pixellated head and clicking on it so it turns to goo. Each game has its own gameplay that provides different kinds of challenges; I don't see anyone trying to integrate "Fallout 3" and "Cooking Mama" into the same game, and if there isn't a game that doesn't appeal to a given gamer, there still should be something that gamer should be able to find elsewhere that's challenging. If a gamer says he or she can't, I'd be tempted to accuse that person of trying to find something to complain about and little else.

*Is now tempted to master the G.E.C.K. so I can have Wastelanders can learn to cook "Squirrel on a Stick" for their very own*

[Oregano]

I didn't realise it was your own work

Nonetheless this article, despite any intentions, not only reinforces the imaginary hardcore/casual divide but contributes to the negative stereotyping of the Wii. Instead of simply stating that Wii games are "made for little kids" you would have been better off demonstrating that any distinction between hardcore/casual gamers is just not based on hardware. Otherwise your take on hardcore/casual gamers simply comes across as an essay on PS3/Wii gamers. The two distinctions are not the same

Hmm, I see what you mean now, I think that's a problem with the way I'm trying to communicate because when I'm saying it's made for kids I actually mean it's more suitable content wise, not that it's dumbed down or easy(some kids game are frustrating cough*ChocoboTales*cough).

Also when I mention Hardcore and Casual, I mean what supposed Hardcore gamers see the two categories as. Not necessarily what the real definitions of the two should be or are.

Thanks for the feedback guys and DQ I'm glad you largely agree with me that it's the perception of loss of identity because Nintendo is trying to involve everyone. It seems the main problem with my essay is the usage of Hardcore and Casual which I will probably edit to make clearer.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I personally agree with the separation of hardcore and casual here, however I wouldn't say that the fact that my family owns a Wii makes me a really casual gamer. My brothers bought their Wii a few years ago, but we only have two games for the damn thing. Wii Sports came with the system, and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess was the only reason my brothers bought the Wii in the first place! My brother claims that he has less time for gaming now that he's in college and playing ten thousand different musical instruments, and my youngest brother never had any real interest in Zelda, so our Wii hasn't been used in over a year.

And why doesn't it appeal to me? Simply the fact that no one's ever made the type of games I enjoy for the Wii. I enjoy epic, story-driven, western-style RPG's. I am a devoted fanboy of BioWare and their disciple Obsidian. The KOTOR games, Mass Effect and the Neverwinter Nights series are at the top of my game list. I also admire Bethesda's handiwork. I spent virtually all my free-time from late December, following Christmas, to early January, when my break ended, playing Fallout 3. A few years before that, Oblivion ate up my entire summer, and the summer before that Morrowind had done the same. I'm currently waiting with bated breath for Dragon Age: Origins, wondering if my PC will be able to handle it.

The thing is, Nintendo's never had games like those on any of their consoles. And the PS3 and 360's of the world, while they have started to have them, are still too saturated with other games that I don't care for to justify buying an entire new system. The system that I am loyal to is the PC. I just can't seem to find what I'm looking for with the consoles. I'd stick with the PC forever if it weren't for the fact that now that "my" kind of games are migrating more to the consoles, and leaving us dedicated PC gamers with dreck like World of Warcraft, Everquest, EVE Online, Guild Wars and Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning (why is it that so many MMORPGs have the word "war" or some variation of it in their title?!).

You speak of hardcore and casual gamers on the consoles, but where does that leave me, a PC gamer who loves RPGs and couldn't care less for all that silly console bickering?

[Oregano]

That's an interesting question actually, but in my personal experience most PC gamers tend to just stick to their games, only occasionally discussing the merits and flaws compared to consoles. Largely PC gamers are not interested in whether the Wii is full of shovelware because the PC is a whole separate format(but as Sony and Microsoft seek to copy PCs this is changing).

Personally I think my choice of using Hardcore and Casual has caused problems because it is more about whether you want to keep gaming exclusive(like the Next Gen) or you appreciate that gaming as a hobby is rather small and could do with expanding to a wider audience.

EDIT: However I simply can't edit out Hardcore and Casual because the purpose of the Essay is to identrify why people who consider themselves "Hardcore"(mainly because they support Next Gen) consider Wii players ultimately Casual and why in fact they do consider themselves "Hardcore". but really I have a problem with the word Hardcore, especially when it's being applied to the whole Next Gen userbase because there is then nothing separating Hardcore gamer from gamer.

I also read a lot of commets where Next Gen gamers say the Wii doesn't class as a console, some say because it hasn't got HD, some say because it's a fad and was used to get quick sales and that the casual crowd(whoever they are) won't want another Wii. The worst ones though are the people who call it a toy.

EDIT2: Ooo, it has 3/5 approvals needed to make it to the front page on n4g. I hope it does. I could always follow it up with another blog post using the suggestions from this thread.

[Triaxx]

Bwa ha ha ha! Go and read the article Fri posted, and skim for Wind Waker. Seriously. :smallbiggrin:

[Oslecamo]

I also read a lot of commets where Next Gen gamers say the Wii doesn't class as a console, some say because it hasn't got HD, some say because it's a fad and was used to get quick sales and that the casual crowd(whoever they are) won't want another Wii. The worst ones though are the people who call it a toy.


Heer, don't they realize that most consoles who came out so far didn't have hard drives in the first place?

Also, what do you call something wich you use just to enjoy yourself? If they're using the Xbox to pretend they're some imaginary soldier shooting imaginary aliens in an imaginary world, how is the Xbox less than a toy than the Wii?

[Oregano]

Heer, don't they realize that most consoles who came out so far didn't have hard drives in the first place?

Also, what do you call something wich you use just to enjoy yourself? If they're using the Xbox to pretend they're some imaginary soldier shooting imaginary aliens in an imaginary world, how is the Xbox less than a toy than the Wii?

Exactly my point about the toy thing and the hard drive was Microsoft's idea IIRC because there was one in the original Xbox(can't remember any consoles before that having one), Sony took that idea when it came to the PS3. That seems to be Sony's schtick really, take the other features of the competitors and combine them.:smalltongue:

EDIT: When people say about HD though I die a little inside because it's nice and everything but when did games become solely about graphics? I hate that games are based around graphics.:smallfrown:

I mean yer if you can get excellent graphics that's good, go for it but graphics shouldn't be the priority because to be honest they add little to the game, my favourite platform of this gen is the DS and that has the worst graphics out the current platforms but I still think the graphics are good and suit their purpose.

[warty goblin]

Why there are certain gamers who object to the idea that "Games are for everyone," is a little mystifying to me, but for the most part, these are the folks who label themselves "hardcore" to begin with. In other words, they have for themselves decided that "Gamer" is an integral part of their identity, and makes them feel unique. So they see the attempt to make gaming appeal to everyone, they see their niche taken away from them, their identity threatened, and they backlash. The healthy thing to do would be a) find a better way to self-identify, and b) be glad one finds oneself belonging in a bigger world than one thought and learn to build community there, rather than try to tear it down.



I actually do understand why people don't want games to be for everyone, since I'm one of them. Take my game de jur, Far Cry 2. Give a game like that to people who have an FPS before and whose only experience of the medium comes from Bejeweled, and I'll bet that nine out of then of them are chewed up and spit out. In terms of gameplay they'll be brutally run over by machine gun jeeps more or less constantly, and they won't have the genre experience to understand what the game is doing in terms of narrative either. It's not accessible to people who don't have a reasonable about of experience in the genre, and that's a good thing.

Why? Because it can do more. Saying that it is a bad thing is like saying poetry is bad because people who have never read a book outside of 8th grade don't understand it. It's a consistent definition, but it's also moronic.

Part of this is that for me, the best games aren't exactly fun anymore. They may contain elements of fun yes, but it's less about making me happy than it is about having an interesting experience. Take Spore, arguably the most casual game I own, and Sins of a Solar Empire. Spore is fun, it's a lot of fun. It's the sort of game I can show my mom because even she, the world's most non-gamer sees why it is fun. Mom would have no idea why I like playing Sins*, because it's hard, complex, takes ages, and there's pretty much no in-game payoff for winning (w00t, 10 hours of constant struggle, and I get... a picture!). In a way she's right, it's not fun. It's an engaging and deep experience, and it's the experience I find enjoyable, even if that experience involves having my painstakingly assembled fleet chewed into space junk before my planets get nuked back to the stone age. It's simply a different sort of thing than Spore. Of course Sins has moments of fun, like strafing an enemy capital ship with a few hundred bombers, but I could hardly say these are why I play the game.

Saying that there is a difference between casual and hardcore games is a different thing than judging one better than another though, and that is thin enough ice I'm not going there. Play what you want to play, I'm cool with that. What I don't like is people thinking that playing some Wii shovelware means they have experienced anything like all gaming has to offer, simply because it's easy and popular. That's like saying books don't get any more in depth than a Tom Clancy novel. Tom Clancy novels may be all you want to read, that's fine, but for the love of Morgoth-in-Exile, don't say that reading easy thrillers gives you an understanding of the medium.

*Beyond the pretty spaceships that is. Mom long ago recognized I have a certain affection for spaceships.

[Oregano]

I understand what you mean there Warty but I have to ask. How can someone become experienced enough to play Far Cry 2 if there isn't at least one shooter out there that's both consistent with the experience other shooters give you and accessible?

I personally think games that are accessible but can be played on a much deeper level are the best.

Some good examples:
Super Smash Bros.
Pokémon
Chrono Trigger
Halo(because it's easy mode is actually easy)
Fable can be
Mario Kart(simple controls, better items for people falling behind)

[Oslecamo]

What I don't like is people thinking that playing some Wii shovelware means they have experienced anything like all gaming has to offer, simply because it's easy and popular. That's like saying books don't get any more in depth than a Tom Clancy novel. Tom Clancy novels may be all you want to read, that's fine, but for the love of Morgoth-in-Exile, don't say that reading easy thrillers gives you an understanding of the medium.


Because that shovelware is a lot more deep than it seems. Nintendo is remarkable for filling their games with lots of secrets and harder modes that turn the game from something casual to something much harder.

You gotta start somewhere, and Nintendo offers an excellent learning curve, from simple to much more complex games. An easy thriller is still a thriller, like it or not.

[warty goblin]

I understand what you mean there Warty but I have to ask. How can someone become experienced enough to play Far Cry 2 if there isn't at least one shooter out there that's both consistent with the experience other shooters give you and accessible?

I personally think games that are accessible but can be played on a much deeper level are the best.

Some good examples:
Super Smash Bros.
Pokémon
Chrono Trigger
Halo(because it's easy mode is actually easy)
Fable can be
Mario Kart(simple controls, better items for people falling behind)

Most people probably won't move on to more complex games, and that's also OK with me. I enjoy reading Tennyson in my spare time, I don't have a moral problem with other people not doing so. Same thing here. Put somewhat differently I don't mind people playing games that are fun. I do it sometimes when I lack the energy for something deeper.


Because that shovelware is a lot more deep than it seems. Nintendo is remarkable for filling their games with lots of secrets and harder modes that turn the game from something casual to something much harder.

You gotta start somewhere, and Nintendo offers an excellent learning curve, from simple to much more complex games. An easy thriller is still a thriller, like it or not.

I never said Nintendo shovelware, I said Wii. There's a difference, and I think pretty much anybody will admit that playing a collection of party games with the family is a fundamentally different thing than deciding who lives and who dies in Mass Effect, or listening to a squad of infantry be pinned down by a machine gun and killed off one by one in Company of Heroes, knowing there is nothing you can do about it. One is (hopefully) fun, the other, sort of by construction isn't fun, but it is certainly an engrossing and valid experience. Playing the first sort of game does nothing to inform one of what the second is capable of. Again, I'm not saying there is anything inherently superior about the first over the second or vice versa, merely that they are different and this should be recognized.

As to getting into hardcore games, that's a more complicated question. I did it basically by the sink or swim approach. The first real game I played was Caeser III, when I was about 11, a title I consider to be fairly complex. Pretty much every title I've played since has been relatively hardcore as well.

There are easier, less complex titles out there as well. Games like Star Wars Battlefront for example are good starter games because the setting is suitably non-baffling and familiar, the weapons are fairly simple and intuitive, and dying doesn't bump you back to the "Game Over" screen all the time. At the same time however it certainly maintains the overall feel and gameplay of a shooter.

Also, to be honest, a lot of games could do a much better job of introducing themselves to players. Make the gorram tutorial tell me how to play the game in reasonable sized pieces, put all the controls in the manual, etc. It won't help one become familiar with the narrative tropes of the genre obviously, but it can make playing a game much less daunting.

I also want to add that I don't want to make the impression that I consider hardcore games the epitome of gaming, or a neccessary end result that everybody who ever liked Tetris needs to strive towards. That's just stupid.

[Oregano]

Ahh right I get what you mean Warty, you think there is a difference between party-style games and more in depth games but neither is necessarily better.

I agree that games could do with being more accessible, I've played numerous games where they have a special name for a specific action and tell you to do the action but not how to, frustrating that is. And Tetris is pretty hardcore I'd say.

How would you classify a game like Gears of War? the levels are rather short and most people play it on online for quick matches. It's storyline isn't exactly engrossing and the characters aren't really relatable. I'd personally say that Gears is more for fun and not a deep experience but many people cite it as an example of a Hardcore game.

[Krytha]

I know the wii is seen as a shovelware platform, but the sales figures show that companies hoping to make a quick buck off of waggle aren't actually getting any money from customers. So... just owning a wii doesn't mean you will buy anything.

[Knaight]

Part of that is the whole virtual console thing, a lot of people use that extensively, as there are some great games on there that are hard to find elsewhere (Link to the Past for example. Although they should seriously get Metroid Fusion out on it already, then I will be impressed)

[Geno9999]

I don't get people if they are complaining about lack of hardcore games.
I mean, when I think of hardcore, I think of beating the game at 100% completion which is a very difficult challenge (Hard enough that I have to do it multiple times, but not so hard that I give up.) I have some games that I consider difficult if played right.

Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn (No dying. Not even the Dawn Brigade.)
Super Mario Galaxy (All 242 stars. And no, I did not miscount.)
Super Smash Bros. Brawl (mastery over all characters and refusal to accept the tier list.)
Mega Man 9 (all achievements collected)
Super Mario Bros.:Lost Levels 2 (Just reach the end. That's it. Oh, and NO WARPING!!!!)
Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker (Three Heart challenge or 100% run. Considering just how powerful Ganon is... the Three Heart is. Hard. Core.)

Really, any game can be hardcore, even games that have a bit of a light atmosphere (like Zelda: Wind Waker and Mega Man 9). Sometimes, I just want to make a game that's as difficult as SMB:LL2 but have the graphics looks cute. Then at the opening, I can mock "hardcore gamers" via Old Sage that would go like this.

Me: You have succeeded at the first test.
Player: Huh? What test? I just started.
Me: You chose this game despite the obvious cute characters.
P: How's that a test?
M: Even a rabbit is dangerous. Fools disregard the potential it has and receive the blood and guts that they always wanted. Though, not in the way they wanted to.

[warty goblin]

Ahh right I get what you mean Warty, you think there is a difference between party-style games and more in depth games but neither is necessarily better.

I agree that games could do with being more accessible, I've played numerous games where they have a special name for a specific action and tell you to do the action but not how to, frustrating that is. And Tetris is pretty hardcore I'd say.

How would you classify a game like Gears of War? the levels are rather short and most people play it on online for quick matches. It's storyline isn't exactly engrossing and the characters aren't really relatable. I'd personally say that Gears is more for fun and not a deep experience but many people cite it as an example of a Hardcore game.

Heh, fair enough. Tetris rocks the tiling puzzle world.

I'm not sure I'd draw the line at party games explicitly. They certainly are games that I consider to be 'casual' but there are certainly other sorts of casual games.

Perhaps a better way to think about the divide is how much you think about the game when you aren't playing it. I've not played a lot of casual games, but I've played some. Generally they are very involving when I'm playing them. Once I stop playing them though, my brain just sort of forgets about them. I don't think back and go 'if only I had used X" or "I can almost afford that shiny new weapon!" or anything like that. They don't engage me intellectually or emotionally at all, and are simple, fun diversion.

The more hardcore games are a different matter though. I thought about Mass Effect nonstop for about a month, Company of Heroes would leave me in a state of minor emotional trauma the first dozen times I played it, and I still get pissed thinking about the end of Republic Commando. Even something with a fairly lowbrow story and relatively easy to pick up gameplay like Gears of War kept me looking forwards to new levels, because the gameplay was so tied to the landscape. In short either through narrative or engaging gameplay they keep me coming back, sometimes years after I originally played them.

This also naturally means that the line is different for different people, which means that for a sensible definition one really should aggregate opinion. For example I never found Diablo style games to really interest me any more than say Solitare. Clearly though Diablo is a fairly hardcore game, because a lot of people found it incredibly engaging.

[Oregano]

Yes, that seems like a good test, but Mario Kart would be Hardcore to some people, It's easy to get really caught up in strategy and stats when thinking about Mario Kart, especially if you're trying to beat the Staff Ghosts on Mario Kart DS.

Ooh, Republic Commando I tried backtracking at the end, damn Yoda. On a slightly related note I dislike that Killzone 2 is using the name Sev as it will be associated with that instead of distilled awesomeness that is Republic Commando. It's not like it's a common enough name to be simply a coincidence either, although it may be.

[warty goblin]

Yes, that seems like a good test, but Mario Kart would be Hardcore to some people, It's easy to get really caught up in strategy and stats when thinking about Mario Kart, especially if you're trying to beat the Staff Ghosts on Mario Kart DS.

Ooh, Republic Commando I tried backtracking at the end, damn Yoda. On a slightly related note I dislike that Killzone 2 is using the name Sev as it will be associated with that instead of distilled awesomeness that is Republic Commando. It's not like it's a common enough name to be simply a coincidence either, although it may be.

Which probably means that Mario Kart is hardcore by my working definition of the term, or at least borderline. Perhaps it's more useful to define the casual/hardcore thing on a continuum, rather than as a binary condition. Thus one could say that Mario Kart is more hardcore than, say, Wii Sports, but less so than the Witcher, or something like that.

And don't get me started on RC's ending. It makes me want to take Yoda's lightsaber, and do...inappropriate things to the little green bastard with it.

Also, can somebody explain why people are excited about Killzone 2 to me? I mean sure it looks good, but the bombed out industrial look's been done to death, the mechanics look 100% familiar, and the Nazi thing's been done to death, then reanimated and shot several times. Unlike actual WWII games though these aren't real Nazis, just lookalikes in space, which sort of robs them of any sense of real cultural relevance. It just looks like "shoot nondescript guys with glowy eyes using a bunch of guns pretty much like every other bunch of guns*." But maybe I'm jaded, particularly after Tom Chick's sort of review.


*Which sort of spoils the point of having it be science fiction, doesn't it? Why is it that as our technology gets better and better we use to render an ever smaller number of weapons? Really, anymore you've got your assault rifle, scoped assault rifle,sniper rifle, shotgun, submachine gun and Mandatory Useless Sidearm Thing (MUST). If you are really lucky you might get a grenade launcher, and there will probably be a rocket launcher for blowing up the Mandatory Enemy Tank. (MAT).

It's science fiction people, we can do better than that! I want a laser targeted rapid fire anti-personnel smart missile launcher, a machine gun that shoots 14mm concussion grenades, a gun that fires a single rocket which you then detonate with another press of the fire button, spraying the area in front of it with hundreds of steel darts, and a bolt action rifle that causes an enemy's blood to boil. You know, interesting stuff like that. Otherwise what the hell's the point of setting it in the distant future?

[Killersquid]

Ahh, the old Hardcore v Casual debate. I hate these labels.

Anyway, your article is mostly opinion, no facts. I also giggled a bit at this.


There is also another reason many Next Gen users criticise the Wii despite it's widespread success and popularity. To put it bluntly, it's jealousy. The Wii is coming close to outselling both of it's competitors put together, which leads to a lot of animosity.

No. That is not a valid point. Sales do not dictate criticism, and even if someone does, it is not a valid point.

Also, you say that people dismiss the Wii as childish due to the games it has without blood and gore and sex. Madworld will be coming out soon, and there are rail shooters (though terrible) on there, so that point is refuted.

Let me add a point to the "next gen war". You do talk about Xbox Live and the such vs the Wii's terrible online capability, but that is a very valid point in this "war". The "Hardcore gamers" like the 360 as well because of the community aspect. I prefer the 360 because of this, and defend it against the Wii, not because "the wii has better sales" or because it has more adult games, but because it has an overall better experience for the player.

Really, though, the problem is the tags. Casual and hardcore are tags for people who don't want to flesh themselves out to people, of what they like or dislike, and take a tag and believe it to be them, and attack the other side. That must stop.

Also, first post with my new avatar by the wonderful Mauve Shirt

[Oregano]

Well it is a debate based solely on opinion and can't really be backed up by facts, although it is largely based on observations on many gaming websites.

And I'm glad you don't personally dislike the Wii, but some people do dislike it for being successful, hence all the cries of "fad", "gimmick" and the whole "The Wii isn't in competition with this console though!"

I do understand that you enjoy the community aspect and that's nice but the Wii's online is good when it comes to playing games, everything else is a secondary thought. That's the opposite of the Next Gen way. It's similar to the complaints that it isn't a good console because it doesn't play DVDs, that's because the Wii is primarily a games console whereas the other two systems are sliding along into Sony's self-proclaimed "Media hub" category.

And whilst the Wii does have mature games and Madworld coming to it, I've read numerous posts on Gaming websites along the lines of "Madworld should be on the PS3, a real next gen machine not on the Wii, which is a kid's machine"(not necessarily with that eloquence) -It may seem like a strawman thing but it's more paraphrased combining the posts of different people, the sentiment which they put forward.

@Warty: A scale is a good idea opposed to two binary states.

And I don't see the appeal of Killzone 2 myself(everyone says it blows everything away graphically but I haven't been able to tell) it seems to be being hyped up as the original was as a "Halo killer". In fact I'd love to have a proper discussion about KZ 2, if there's not already a thread on it, it might be worth making one.

[Geno9999]

You know the people who like the underdog? What happens to those people when the underdog becomes the top dog? They turn on him. Why? Meh, maybe our parents are right and Video Games are melting our brains. Or, as other people have pointed out, it's jealously. No matter what it is, if I had fans before I was famous and now they reject me, *BOOOOOOOOOOOOP* them! It's pathetic on how many people hate some thing and still call themselves "Fans". Pile of whining fools. Unless I'm mistaken, Nintendo didn't do very well compared to the PS2 and Xbox, but now it's like the return to the glory days almost. You got Zelda, Mario, Metriod, SSB, Fire Emblem, in a two year time span, with hints at more coming. If anything, original fans should be overjoyed at this. Back in the NES days, all you had to do is save the princess, but now, people (at least on Gamefaqs, now their lack of intelligence disturbs me) complain about how simple the plot is in Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon, which is a remake of the first FE game and from the NES days. OF COURSE THE PLOT IS SIMPLE! MOST OF THE CHARACTERS AT THE TIME WERE SPRITE SWAPS! (see here.) (http://www.serenesforest.net/fe1/char.html) It's like....it's like.... All they want is blood and guts. Admittedly, even I act like that.

[warty goblin]

Well it is a debate based solely on opinion and can't really be backed up by facts, although it is largely based on observations on many gaming websites.

Depends on how one defines 'facts.' I agree that casual and hardcore completely created terms for the most part, but that does not mean that some sort of consensus or deeper understanding of the medium cannot be gained through careful use of them.

For example, if I had a survey that said 90% of people surveyed think that game X is hardcore, and game Y is not, wouldn't it be fair to say that X is in fact more hardcore than Y? The individual opinions of those surveyed are pretty much completely subjective, but the result is objective.

It could also be useful if applied consistently. For example suppose I hate hardcore TBS games (a downright fabrication, I didn't quite do a dance when Stardock announced Elemental: War of Magic, but hooting was involved), but don't mind lighter fare in the genre. If the definitions of hardcore and casual were more rigorous and based on data like the exemplar above, such information could be put into reviews and help me make more informed decisions.

Alas, such happy rationalism is not likely to happen. I blame fanboys. But then, after the Killzone 2 review kerfuffle, I'm generally in the mood to blame fanboys. I figure any group that criticizes a perfect review for not being good enough has it coming.




@Warty: A scale is a good idea opposed to two binary states.

And I don't see the appeal of Killzone 2 myself(everyone says it blows everything away graphically but I haven't been able to tell) it seems to be being hyped up as the original was as a "Halo killer". In fact I'd love to have a proper discussion about KZ 2, if there's not already a thread on it, it might be worth making one.
Yeah, although actually implimenting it in all but the most extreme cases would be a pain. I mean it's easy to say that the Witcher is more hardcore than Fable, but where do you put something like Knights of the Old Republic? Honestly the way to really do this right would be to have 'ladder rung' games at various intervals along the continuum which one uses as a sort of standard candle, aka game X is more hardcore than A, but less than B. Game Y is also more hardcore than X but less so than B. Hence for practical purposes they are equally hardcore. Also I think I just created an equivalence relation to partition the set of all games. Oh dear...

I'd love to do an FPS discussion thread though. Possibly broader than Killzone 2, since I've not played it, and aren't likely to ever do so? Maybe discuss art style and linear vs nonlinear gameplay within the genre?

[Oregano]

Depends on how one defines 'facts.' I agree that casual and hardcore completely created terms for the most part, but that does not mean that some sort of consensus or deeper understanding of the medium cannot be gained through careful use of them.
<snip!>


Yes, I think it would actually be quite hard for me to gather the information, although I could try it here. Hmm..



I'd love to do an FPS discussion thread though. Possibly broader than Killzone 2, since I've not played it, and aren't likely to ever do so? Maybe discuss art style and linear vs nonlinear gameplay within the genre?

That'd be quite good, maybe then I'd be able to defend Halo, it's definately not the epitome of the genre but it doesn't deserve a lot of the flak it gets.

I think I may actually be turning into a fanboy, I just found myself pointing out that Nintendo did 3D gaming years ago in the comments about Sony's plan to go 3D.

I think my next blog will either be about the merits and flaws of each system or one about Square Enix(mainly because in the last four or so days I've read about 10 different articles criticising them for things that are mostly out of their control).

I'm actually a bit disheartened that only one person has approved my blog post on n4g, mainly because there's about 5 blogs that have been approved that are just saying the controls to Resident Evil 5 are bad and about 25 blog posts about how good Killzone 2 is.

EDIT: Anyway I shall have to go(it's two o'clock here, in the morning I mean). I'll be happy to continue the discussion tomorrow and I think the more opinions we get the better.

[warty goblin]

Yes, I think it would actually be quite hard for me to gather the information, although I could try it here. Hmm..



That'd be quite good, maybe then I'd be able to defend Halo, it's definately not the epitome of the genre but it doesn't deserve a lot of the flak it gets.

I think I may actually be turning into a fanboy, I just found myself pointing out that Nintendo did 3D gaming years ago in the comments about Sony's plan to go 3D.

I think my next blog will either be about the merits and flaws of each system or one about Square Enix(mainly because in the last four or so days I've read about 10 different articles criticising them for things that are mostly out of their control).

I'm actually a bit disheartened that only one person has approved my blog post on n4g, mainly because there's about 5 blogs that have been approved that are just saying the controls to Resident Evil 5 are bad and about 25 blog posts about how good Killzone 2 is.

EDIT: Anyway I shall have to go(it's two o'clock here, in the morning I mean). I'll be happy to continue the discussion tomorrow and I think the more opinions we get the better.

I didn't mean to imply I thought you personally should gather the information, merely that if such information existed it could be used in a reasonably, empirical way.

The first blog sounds more interesting to me, mostly because I tend to not care about Square Enix, since I don't think they have ever released a game I have either played or wanted to play. As to the other blogs, blame fanboys.

Also, I think I approved your blog, but am honestly unsure, since I'm not Web 2.0 savvy enough to navigate any page where over half the text is in fact hyperlinks.

But yes, you should definitely start an FPS thread in the morning.

[Oregano]

Good morning,
Well I don't know how I'd find the data other than collecting it myself but I wasn't implying that you think I sould have.

Well I may do both during this week as I'm off, the console one will be a direct follow up to this blog I think.

Thanks if you did approve it, n4g is very un-user-friendly in my opinion.

I shall get to starting the FPS now as well.

Oh yes that's what I want to ask everybody, when do you think Online became a necessity in Console Gaming, it seems up until this generation it was an added bonus, why do you think that was?

EDIT: It has 4/5 approvals now, it need one more and it has just under eight hours to get it. I hope it gets to the front page.

[Oslecamo]

I never said Nintendo shovelware, I said Wii. There's a difference, and I think pretty much anybody will admit that playing a collection of party games with the family is a fundamentally different thing than deciding who lives and who dies in Mass Effect, or listening to a squad of infantry be pinned down by a machine gun and killed off one by one in Company of Heroes, knowing there is nothing you can do about it. One is (hopefully) fun, the other, sort of by construction isn't fun, but it is certainly an engrossing and valid experience. Playing the first sort of game does nothing to inform one of what the second is capable of. Again, I'm not saying there is anything inherently superior about the first over the second or vice versa, merely that they are different and this should be recognized.


Except that the Wii isn't just family games. I also have to decide who lives and who dies in Fire Emblem. I get to see my companions dying under enemy fire in Metroid knowing I can't save them. The Wii also has nonfamily friendly games, and like already said Madworld is just around the corner. Just because most people will say that the Wii is just family games, it doesn't make it true.

[Oregano]

Except that the Wii isn't just family games. I also have to decide who lives and who dies in Fire Emblem. I get to see my companions dying under enemy fire in Metroid knowing I can't save them. The Wii also has nonfamily friendly games, and like already said Madworld is just around the corner. Just because most people will say that the Wii is just family games, it doesn't make it true.

Hmm unfamily friendly games on the Wii, I read a review for this game called Ochenbara or something and that definately isn't family friendly by the sounds of it.

[warty goblin]

Except that the Wii isn't just family games. I also have to decide who lives and who dies in Fire Emblem. I get to see my companions dying under enemy fire in Metroid knowing I can't save them. The Wii also has nonfamily friendly games, and like already said Madworld is just around the corner. Just because most people will say that the Wii is just family games, it doesn't make it true.

Quick question- did I ever say the Wii had only family games? No. Did I say it had family games? Yes. You are having a quantifier problem, I used there exists, you think I used for all.

The thing is my honest guess is that people who only play casual games, if they own a console, are most likely to own a Wii. Given the preponderance of Wii sales and family/party games for said platform, it's not an unreasonable one either. That's a very different thing than saying the Wii has only family games.

[Oregano]

The thing is my honest guess is that people who only play casual games, if they own a console, are most likely to own a Wii. Given the preponderance of Wii sales and family/party games for said platform, it's not an unreasonable one either. That's a very different thing than saying the Wii has only family games.

To be honest, I'd say that most casual owners still just have PS2s,, although the second highest would be the Wii obviously.

I think my blog classes as failed now and will never get to be on the front page of n4g.:smallfrown:

EDIT: Apparently it got the last approval it needed and it's on the main blog section, I hope it isn't glitch because it would have been just in the nick of time and now I don't know who to thanks. Hmm it seems 2 people have got me on ignore as well, I wonder why, my policy is defend vigorously but don't attack(but I have made a few sly jabs).

[Grey Paladin]

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

I think the above article does a much better job at illustrating the issue.

[Oslecamo]

The thing is my honest guess is that people who only play casual games, if they own a console, are most likely to own a Wii. Given the preponderance of Wii sales and family/party games for said platform, it's not an unreasonable one either. That's a very different thing than saying the Wii has only family games.

Congratulations, you proved that the Wii is a great console for family friendly games. Wich doesn't exclude that the Wii also has appeal to the "hardcore" gamer.

So then, you admit that the Wii also has great nonfamily friendly games, right, and it's a viable option for an "hardcore" gamer?

[Oregano]

That's a really good article Grey Paladin, I haven't read all of it. I don't really like the tone though, I don't know why.:smallconfused:

Osclecamo I think what Warty is trying to say is that there is a massive "casual" market on the Wii and it has the most appeal for "casual" gamers, but that doesn't meant there's not "Hardcore" games or "hardcore" appeal, but it's being drowned out.

[warty goblin]

Congratulations, you proved that the Wii is a great console for family friendly games. Wich doesn't exclude that the Wii also has appeal to the "hardcore" gamer.

So then, you admit that the Wii also has great nonfamily friendly games, right, and it's a viable option for an "hardcore" gamer?

No, I don't 'admit' that, because I never argued the other way. The only thing I argued was that playing a casual game did not equip a person to see everything the genre was capable of, because the game was rather by definition casual and I think that gaming has advanced to the point where it does much more complex and interesting things than just be 'fun.'

[Joran]

Can we please retire the old hardcore, casual tags? Here's a better taxonomy suggested by someone else.

http://insultswordfighting.blogspot.com/2008/01/new-taxonomy-of-gamers-table-of.html

[Oregano]

Can we please retire the old hardcore, casual tags? Here's a better taxonomy suggested by someone else.

http://insultswordfighting.blogspot.com/2008/01/new-taxonomy-of-gamers-table-of.html

We are discussing this and the usage is wrong because it isn't always that clear, I think I may change the title to reflect that.