About Casual and Hardcore Gaming...

Where do people draw the line?

As a Nintendo fan and a fan of video gaming in general, I find it annoying whenever the company are completely dismissed by so-called Hardcore gamers. Why? What does "Hardcore" even mean, and how does a video game qualify to be "Hardcore"? I'm happy to discuss this as long as it doesn't become a fanboy flame war.

I don't see the big deal about people hating a company for going casual. These people are forgetting that it's a business. Yes, hardcore games are nice, but not only do a lot of people throw the term around (Mario game? Casual. Zelda game? Casual...these are things I disagree with), but they don't realise the success of casual games. Not everyone wants to spend hours gaming by themselves. Many want to game with other people who they know, especially if they're in the same room. Nintendo's found loads of success targeting casual gamers, which is why they're doing well.

I agree with you RawkHawk - at the end of the day it's still a business, and the wider your target audience is the more business you'll make. Besides, video games are just like other forms of mass media like cinema and music in that there's going to be something for everyone in the audience.

The gaming industry has always been about the casual consumer - one of the major selling points of the PS2 was the fact it plays DVDs, after all. Playstation fanboys shouldn't be allowed to mock Nintendo for catering to casual players when Sony consoles have the Buzz! and Singstar franchises, it's rather hypocritical (the latter of which I'm rather bad at but still play round my mates house ).

On the flipside, while I do enjoy my Hardcore games, some of them try too hard to appeal to typical "Hardcore gamers" (I.e. 18-30 year old males) by being testosterone-fuelled bloodbaths- I'm looking at you, "Halo" and "God of War". That doesn't necessarily put me off games like this, but it makes me think that developers need to branch out the term "hardcore" beyond gun-toting violence and make something that's actually grown-up, intelligent and mature (I'm sure there are examples already out there of what I'm on about, "Heavy Rain" for instance). If it's merely a case of a game being hardcore because it has fantastic, realistic graphics, then in my eyes that's just style over substance.

I agree with you there, especially on the last point. There's many people who consider a hardcore game to be one where you go around with a gun shooting people's brains out. These are the people who consider franchises like Call of Duty to be the best, the PS3 or the 360 to be the best selling franchises, and franchises without violence to be terrible games nobody wants. If that were the case, then why have Mario and Pokemon sold over 200 million games?

I agree also what has already been said. I think the term 'hardcore' has only come into play when people grind for a long period of time on a single game such as Call Of Duty or World Of Warcraft. Games such as shooters will also be aimed at the 'hardcore' as they say than compared to people who play games that appeal to the masses such as Mario, Sonic and etc.

Just a few games I mentioned there which normally get this on the Internet. However... I said Mario & Sonic because they are actually competitive games. I'm sure all of us here have played Sonic The Hedgehog 1 upto Sonic & Knuckles and Mario Bros upto Galaxy 2.

I think labelling these 'hardcore' & 'casual' helps the developer.

With many games nowadays you can play them either causally or hardcore. This includes most shooters of nowadays (including the greatest team-based multiplayer shooter of all time, Team Fortress 2, and the pile of commercial bullshit that is MW2) which can be played casually (single player, public multiplayer) or Hardcore (competitive/high level play). The same is true of MMOs, you have the casual (alt-a-holics or people who dabble in endgame but never progress far) and the hardcore (high-level raiders, high-rank PvPers).

Myself I am drawn to games that I can play hardcore. I play TF2 because it's a lot of fun, and I play a lot of public games, although most of the time I play with high-level players and sometimes I play competitive lobby matches. I play WoW to enjoy the endgame PvE and PvP content (the feeling I got when I found out we had gotten an EU first kill was phenomenal!) and I play SSFIV to be the best I can be and to rank up and thwart the puny legions of Ken players.

Street Fighter (and other 2D fighters) is actually a very good example of a game that is all about the hardcore play. Street fighter is all about being the best you can be in any given fight, and proving it by winning said fight. If you lose in SSFIV, you get nothing except a few ranking points docked and another loss added to your stats, whereas you still gain experience, honour or items (maybe even HATS!!!!""!"£!!) in MW2/WoW/TF2.

Also casual players tend to play games less often, or for less time, or on systems where the level of competitive play is irrelevantly small (i.e. iPhone, DS, PSP, Wii (for casuals), PS3 (has no games to be played competitively). Whereas hardcore players are often serious about their gaming (especially if they play at high level or if they play competitively) and often play to win, or at least have a really good game.

EDIT: also WOW one of my longest posts ever.

Wii (for casuals)

Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Mario Kart Wii. also, not all casual games are multiplayer games. you are also forgetting a lot of single player games.

PS3 (has no games to be played competitively).

it has almost all the same online games as 360. now you're just being biased.

Sid, you do realize your whole post can be summarized like this:

360 - hardcore.

everything else - casual.

at least HIDE the fact that you're biased and not make it look obvious.

Hmm, if the term "Hardcore" means you can play it for hours on end, that means for me that "Pokemon SoulSilver", "Banjo-Kazooie: Nut & Bolts" and "The Sims" are the most Hardcore games ever! Then again, the latter two are 70% faffing around with the customisation features.

I'm probably shooting myself in the foot here*, but I never really play online multi-player games (apart from the odd Mario Kart Wii nights) However, there are certainly many games I've clocked 20+ hours on in the single player modes - last night I was playing Banjo-Tooie on my trust N64 for three hours. Speaking of which, why are local multi-player games considered casual all of a sudden? I know just about anyone could pick up NSMB Wii if they wanted to, but its fans of Mario who enjoy it the most and are good enough to play it properly.

I'm probably in a minority, but I prefer games with a huge world to explore over competitive multi-player modes; both Fallout 3 and Banjo-Tooie provide this for me. Which one would people say is "Hardcore"? Putting the technical aspects of each game aside, I'd argue they're both deep, Hardcore games.


*On a professional level at least - how can I design video games if I never play the online multi-player modes? Tsk, tsk

GA, please realise that the comment about the PS3 having no games is merely topical banter designed to bait fanboys, and nothing meant seriously.

As far as Wii competitive play goes though, Smash bros. cannot be played competitively without the vast majority of the features removed, ergo is not a real competitive game, and that is the first time I have ever heard of someone refer to Mario kart as a competitive-level game. The fiddly online system the Wii has makes it impractical to try to stage any competitive tournaments on the system instead of using a more convenient platform.

Also the competitive scene on 360 is restricted mainly to fighting games, Halo and CoD games as well as Gears of War.

All the big dogs of competitive or hardcore gaming and eSports - excluding fighting games - (CS:S, StarCraft, TF2, Battlefield, WoW Arenas and high-end PvE, as well as some others) are all played almost exclusively on PC.

As far as Wii competitive play goes though, Smash bros. cannot be played
competitively without the vast majority of the features removed, ergo
is not a real competitive game

i don't see why not. some people remove them, some don't. if it has tournaments and a large following of people who play to be the best, it's a competitive game. i don't see any definition that says it can't be a competitive game simply because they change some modes.

and that is the first time I have ever
heard of someone refer to Mario kart as a competitive-level game. The
fiddly online system the Wii has makes it impractical to try to stage
any competitive tournaments on the system instead of using a more
convenient platform.

guess what? it happens. your ignorance isn't an excuse.

and neither is your attitude GA >_>

I consider hardcore as 'core' gaming such as the main and well loved franchises which people remember for always been what they are. Casual are the games that bring in practically everyone. Although when I think casual, why am I thinking Mario Party?

Sorry, but I've gotta agree with GA here on some points. I HATE it with a passion when people say 'Oh, you have to remove ________ or change ______ for the game to be competitive'. You may be making it competitive, but I'd say you're making it boring. A game can still be competitive even if it uses everything the game offers. If that were not true, game tournaments for stuff like Brawl would not use items, and a lot of them do while a lot of them don't.

I consider hardcore as 'core' gaming such as the main and well loved
franchises which people remember for always been what they are. Casual
are the games that bring in practically everyone. Although when I think
casual, why am I thinking Mario Party?

that's also a definition most people use but i tend to think it's a little loose.

some games have mixed fanbases.

I HATE it with a passion when people say 'Oh, you have to remove
________ or change ______ for the game to be competitive'. You may be
making it competitive, but I'd say you're making it boring.

i know what kind of people you're referring to and while i disagree with the idea of saying it's competitive for that reason alone, i do agree to the custom rules of what Melee had back then in order to have more of a skill/fair fight between two opponents.

i just don't go preaching around that i do it; usually i just ask and be done with it.

Aww, I like using Meta Knight as well . This comic basically sums up how competitive play in games like Smash Bros can be taken too far (took me ages to find that comic). TV Tropes has another name for it - the Stop Having Fun Guys. Doesn't this kind of defeat the point of video games in the first place? Though on the flip side, ANY video game is competitive if you obsessively try to be better than everyone else at it. Guitar Hero is a good example of a casual game with a competitive streak (Yes, as hard as it is to believe, Guitar Hero is essentially a Casual game) - I like the series and enjoy playing in on Medium, but it seems "MEDIUM IS FOR N00BZ". I can't be arsed to attempt Hard mode because it hurts my fingers, takes the fun out of playing and I might as well learn to play a REAL guitar if I'm putting so much effort into it.

I can agree with Darren's definition of what "Hardcore" means. I've been playing Mario games since the SNES era (Mario All Stars - Christmas '92), even if I say so myself that's pretty hardcore . Expect round my house, Mario Party 2 certainly ain't casual .

no it doesn't defeat the point of video games. the point of competitive play at least for most tourney people is to have it as fair as possible; pokemon has a similar way of doing things by making the tier 'uber' as well. this isn't new. this has been in tournament scenes since they've even begun.

the only reason this issue recently came up is because the casual smash fanbase finally met the hardcore fanbase during brawl hype.

if you don't like it that's fine, but criticizing it the way you people do is unnecessary. 'fun' is defined very subjectively in video games, and i suggest nobody goes around using it as if it only applies to what they like and play.

GhostAnime wrote: if you don't like it that's fine, but criticizing it the way you people do is unnecessary. 'fun' is defined very subjectively in video games, and i suggest nobody goes around using it as if it only applies to what they like and play.

That I can agree with. Though people like Roger Ebert disagree, video games are an art form. Like all art forms, there is no doubt an air of subjectivity involved. Using music as an analogy, there are certain genres I love and hate, yet in the genres I don't like there are a couple of exceptions (e.g. Dizzee Rascal is one of the few rappers I like); there are also genres that are more popular than others but are viewed with scorn by self-proclaimed 'real' music fans. Sticking with the analogy, you could compare Nintendo to a fairly popular Indie band that went mainstream (Kings of Leon, perhaps?) - Hardcore fans have been going on about said Indie Band/video game for years but no one paid attention; now everyone wants in on them and it annoys the original fans, but at the same time there are fans of other fairly obscure indie bands (Is "The Playstations" a good Indie band name? Let's assume it is for the analogy ) who claim this suddenly popular band 'sold out' by broadening their audience. It's a bizarre, irritating combination of jealously and elitism. How far can I take this analogy before it goes off the rails?

Let's compare 14-year-old Fanboys with an Xbox Live/PSN account to Scene Kids: both groups declare themselves experts because they happen to own a certain product and generally act like jerks towards competing products they consider 'beneath' them because of their popularity, despite the glaringly obvious fact they themselves have no real experience. I'm not criticising their choice to like a certain genre of music/game, just their attitude towards more mainstream products and people who happen to like it.

Ahem, going back to your point GA, people should be allowed to enjoy video games however they want to (I just prefer single-player adventures to online competitions - I'm just not a competitive person) as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's fun.

How far can I take this analogy before it goes off the rails?

are you trying to figure out why competitive smashers are angry?

if you want to know why it depends on who you ask. some are angry because they're being misrepresented by "FOX ONLY" comics that do nothing but further the misconception of a competitive smasher.

some are angry because they just don't like Brawl.. which is fine too. some don't like Melee. i think what you mean by sold out is basically being angry at Sakurai? from recent memory by going on Smashboards, the only thing they're angry at him for is tripping and maybe the general mechanics of Brawl in (game pace/speed). none really are particular mad because he 'broadened the audience'.

I'm not criticising their choice to like a certain genre of music/game,
just their attitude towards more mainstream products and people who
happen to like it.

i'm just curious.. (and this can go to anyone) how many competitive smashers; or better yet, competitive gamers have you actually spoken with?

Scabby Sid wrote:As far as Wii competitive play goes though, Smash bros. cannot be played competitively without the vast majority of the features removed, ergo is not a real competitive game
.

Ok, given the sheer amount of travelling I've done, money I've spent, people I've met and tournament I've both attended and hosted (And I'm pretty sure alot of people can vouch for me) I can safely say SSBB is a competitive game

Just because you don't have the old Melee tech anymore, doesn't make the game any less competitive, it just shifts the aim to timing, move placement and tactics.

This may seem ranty, but that statement really pissed me off, plus its 3am and I can't sleep xD

And after reading the rest of the topic, is delighted in the irony of the conversation asking about 'Angry Smashers' and I just poster that^

Beautiful.

I hate competitive brawling personally. I don't mind it in tournaments obviously, but when I'm on WiFi and people feel the need for every single stage to be either Final Destination or Battlefield, it pisses me off. Items don't actually annoy me in Brawl, surprisingly. I understand that Brawl can be competitive though.

The rules for Tournament Brawl is pretty good tbh

The random stages for the first of a best of 3 are:
Battlefield
FD
Yoshi's Island Brawl
Smashville
Lylat Cruise

Then you have counterpicks, with are rather vast and vary area to area.

Stages like Hanenbow aren't fun for me, there just now. So I'm glad in my mindset it's banned.

And you can't say that the competitive rules are fun, in my hometown, 3 or 4 of us meet up and play strictly to this ruleset, our fun comes from the thrill of battle, the one on one bit, your moves versus his, a battle of wits and skill. and it's so rewarding to win a long draw out battle or pull off that skill kill or recovery.

Personally, I don't find that as fun as adding in items and all stages, but hey, different strokes and all that. Is that the right saying?

Lylat Cruise? That's a new one o_O

Yeah, there's 5 in some areas, for in others, you can add and take as the TO pleases

Like my tournaments so far are renowned for having Brinstar as a neutral and Skyworld as a counterpick, you have to start stage striking at that point though.

RawkHawk wrote:Personally, I don't find that as fun as adding in items and all stages, but hey, different strokes and all that. Is that the right saying?

That's indeed true. Fair enough, I can understand why in official (or semi-offical) tournaments you'd have certain stipulations in what items and levels are available. I just wouldn't want these rules forced on me when I'm just having a 'for fun' match with my friends.

Let's look at the flip side - sure there are some very good casual games out there, but how come the majority of them are shovel-ware? Why do companies assume they can get away with putting less effort into these games just because they fall into the 'casual' category? You could argue that they can't compete with Nintendo's budget, but considering the quality of some Indie and lower budget titles this shouldn't really be an excuse. I'd argue the same about films for children (the pre-Toy Story 3 trailers REALLY annoyed me) - just because they're young doesn't meant you should patronise them. In both cases it's the quality and uniqueness of the product that make it a success, not what genre/demographic it happens to be part of.