You mean this one?What's wrong with my definition again?
There's an old D&D P&P adventure that is infamous because in essence it is one giant deathtrap. I never played it and don't know the name of it, but even I heard about how downright evil it was. That is the only thing that can compare to Wizardry IV.
Why limit yourself? I think it´s perfectly legitimate to compare it to someone more dedicated as well, just mention the context.If you're going to talk about how hard something is, you have to compare it to the average person - not someone dedicated to playing precisely that kind of game.
Nothing´s wrong with it imo, as that´s pretty much how I´d define it as well. Of course, how large the required investment needs to be to guarantee the game hardcore label is on everyone´s individual consideration.
Why limit yourself? I think it´s perfectly legitimate to compare it to someone more dedicated as well, just mention the context.
With all that said, I DESPISE the term "hardcore", which is why I personally prefer to use the term "enthusiast". Too many people misunderstand each other when they use hardcore, because there's too much stigma attached to make it into a sound discussion.
Someone who plays video games as a primary hobby. They tend to spend large amounts of time playing games, often in excess of two or three hours a day. Hardcore gamers tend to care less about graphics then casual gamers. While some specialize in a single genre, they typically have fairly diverse taste in games, frequently playing a wide variety of games from different genres. They'll often seek out obscure and older games, based on word of mouth or positive critical reception. Hardcore gamers put good gameplay above all else, and don't mind if a good game has poor (or even nonexistent) graphics, sound, characters and plot.
The stereotypical hardcore gamer is out of shape, and has poor hygene. They spend a lot of their disposable income on video games, consoles, or PC upgrades, and a large percentage of their free time either playing video games or discussing them, online and off. They wear either black clothing, or T-shirts with geeky pop-culture references, often to video games. Their social skills may be sub-par, and they may be less likely than others their age to have many friends, a jobs and a girlfriend/boyfriend. Some of these stereotypes are negative, and they certainly don't apply to all hardcore gamers, but there's a fair amount of truth to them.
With all that said, I DESPISE the term "hardcore", which is why I personally prefer to use the term "enthusiast". Too many people misunderstand each other when they use hardcore, because there's too much stigma attached to make it into a sound discussion.
Yea, "Enthusiast" is what I would call myself, as well. I suppose I can't really be hardcore because I actually play a very limited amount of time. But I am very interested in games, so I don't just play them for fun. I also scrutinize them, think what I like about them, and why, etc. I have opinions on what I think is good or bad, and what I'd like to see done in games in the future. And generally I hold the opinion that games are a medium that can express moods, ideas, and allows artistic expression, in addition to merely being entertaining. Just like books and cinema and all other forms of art/entertainment…
Why do I always end up skipping posts in threads where both DA and Alrik post?
But as a developer myself and being often in a situation where i can do an easy boring work and hardcore programming work for the same money i'll go with the easy boring shit.
The concept has its meaning only when we´re comparing games to each other and we´re not using these silly "casual"/"hardcore" terms in a binary way imo.Obviously, but as I mention below - it doesn't really make sense when trying to determine whether a game is "hardcore" or not. In that way, no game would ever be casual or hardcore - and as such, the concept loses its meaning.
I´d call it quite meaningless because even though now I know you consider Gothic to be a game which requires SIGNIFICANT amount of investment from "most gamers", I can´t really deduce what amount will I, a reader and potential player of the game, need to invest. The information would be only useful to me if you´d mentioned some other games for comparison. Do I need to invest more than in the case of Wizardry 8? Oblivion? ArcaniA?I call Gothic a hardcore game, because most gamers would need to invest SIGNIFICANTLY before succeeding in the game.
I agree.
The term "hardcore gamer" is tainted with many prejudices:
Urban Dictionary: hardcore gamer
The concept has its meaning only when we´re comparing games to each other and we´re not using these silly "casual"/"hardcore" terms in a binary way imo.
For example, if this was said in a review:
I´d call it quite meaningless because even though now I know you consider Gothic to be a game which requires SIGNIFICANT amount of investment from "most gamers", I can´t really deduce what amount will I, a reader and potential player of the game, need to invest. The information would be only useful to me if you´d mentioned some other games for comparison. Do I need to invest more than in the case of Wizardry 8? Oblivion? ArcaniA?
Then, even though I could still end up in disagreement with your assessment that Gothic is a "hardcore" game, I´d probably have much better picture about how demanding the game will be for me.
Creating "casual"/"hardcore" as some kind of absolute categories where all games can be shoveled in is for naught, as far as I´m concerned.
And for the record, I rather despise the "hardcore" term as well.
They are obsess with numbers most publishers and developers actually admit to go excessively by Metacritic. I dont know why the industry pays so much attention to metacritic numbers but I feel thats a bad way to run a business, metacritic isnt exactly reliable in my opinion but, metacritic rules all. Thats where the suits get their 'facts' from.