I disagree. The combat in the IE games had absolutely no options beyond picking a spell. So only casters had any sort of meaningful choice in combat. The only tough battle I can think of in any of the BG’s was one in BG 2 vs. a red dragon. My group probably was not supposed to be able to beat him at that time, but it only took a some reloads before he was dead. All the other battles were basically click and sit back. The same with Kotor and NWN which was based on a more advanced D&D system. Click and forget and wait. My input only slowed combat down, which I did not want to do since it was so un-enjoyable to begin with. JA and ME at least required me to be involved.
The fact that we can have different opinions has to show you your definition is incorrect. Do you know any adult that just doesn’t have the mental capacity to pick up and play an IE game (not factoring desire, just pure ability to play or not)? You can’t say the same for Star Trail. I can’t say it for Silent Hunter 3. I’m not saying I don’t have the mental capacity to play SH3, or my wife is too stupid to play ST, I’m saying those titles are exclusive.
We have different tolerances, tastes and preferences of what we look for in a game or the qualities of a game that we consider appealing. I absolutely can’t stand the combat in Gothic 1 and 2, probably because I suck at it. But it isn’t hands-off like the BG’s, Kotors, and NWN’s. So now I have a contradiction, I like the combat in ME and JE more because it has more options and requires more input from me, but I dislike a title that has more options and needs not just input, but correctly timed input. Its taste and preferences, a discussion that is independent of hardcore.
If we say punk music we still have taste and preferences. East coast or west coast? Old-school or new school, etc, etc. But when we start talking about hardcore we see it as being versus the mainstream. Blood for Blood will never be mainstream, Sick of it All will never be mainstream, Ducky boys, swinging utters and the vandals will never be mainstream, but there are a bunch of bands that consider themselves punk but are pure mainstream. Are these bands hardcore? No, being hardcore and being mainstream have to be mutually-exclusive if the terms are going to have any sort of usefulness in any discussion. You could say “hardcore for the mainstream” if you are talking about something that skirts the fringes of mainstream accessibility I guess.
Almost all FPS games provide a greater challenge to me than rpgs. I suck at twitch games. Are these FPS’s hardcore? No. If a seven year old who can’t even get an erection or spell testicles correctly can kick my ass in it, and it sells 8 billion copies world-wide, it can’t be hardcore. Hardcore is not what I consider it, it is what the market considers. If the game was made for a specific demographic not being served by the mainstream, and sells well and is critically acclaimed by that market, but ignored by the mainstream, it is probably hardcore. It’s also probably challenging as well. But even if it wasn’t, would it not be hardcore? What if, like punk music, it’s just challenging for the mainstream to appreciate, or its core qualities just doesn’t lend itself to a broad appeal?