Basically I'm trying to codify simple rules to outline whether or not you're a goddam casual.
If you have a suggestion, post the game and what number rule you're referring to, e.g. Ocarina of Time - 3.
Obviously, the zeroth rule is "People who worry if they are/aren't hardcore are posers."
The idea isn't too establish elitism, more to identify if a person can justifiably call games their hobby or pastime and to introduce people to good fucking games a la the Patrician-core list image.
1.Has at least a working knowledge of:
1a)
2. Have played to completion:
2a)
3. Considers one of these games to be the best ever:
3a)
Pic unrelated, but cute.
>>321051217
1.Has at least a working knowledge of:
1a) Dicks
2. Have played to completion:
2a) Dicks
3. Considers one of these dicks to be the best ever:
3a) His dad's
Yeah that's OP alright.
It's all relative and means fuck all. Here, if you like a game someone doesn't like, you're a casual. If you don't like a game someone does like, you're a casual. There is no such thing as hardcore.
>>321051217
Why did they made Fi so cute ?
CUTE !
>>321051217
You've already failed.
There's really just a two prong test.
The first is whether the person themselves believes if they're casual or not. Most normies would say yes, even if they played X or know about Y. Maybe they played lots of games as a kid but grew out of it or something, who knows.
The second is whether other gamers would reasonably believe that person is a gamer. It's very vauge but for good reason, being a gamer isn't black and white. Like, maybe you play games for 8 hours a day but it's all Candy Crush. The second anyone tries to pin down an exact definition we all turn autistic as fuck and everything goes to hell. But we all have the same general idea of what a gamer should be even if we can't quite explain it, so the consensus view should be enough.
>>321051739
I agree.
>>321051217
whether they're good or not. You need to excel at a game with a high skill ceiling to be hardcore. I don't care if you've played a million shitter JRPGs or a million shitter adventure games if you can't git good at anything that poses a real challenge.
>>321051217
To me the difference between hardcore and casual gamers is just time spent playing any game. That's it. Doesn't matter if they're good or not either.
A good way to tell is if they have bags under their eyes. That's a hardcore gamer.
>>321053324
That sounds a bit open to abuse though. Someone could of been a hardcore gamer since they were a kid but have to cut back due to adult responsibilities and become "casual" despite no change in their mindset or gaming ability.
Meanwhile every 14 year old playing Minecraft for 4 hours after school is now a hardcore gamer.
>>321053729
I agree with this though.. the kids are now more hardcore than the adult.. who has become a casual.. who casually plays.. it's the literal definition of the word
>>321051217
>>321053729
The terms hardcore and casual don't apply to a player's ability.
Someone who plays casually may very well be more competant than a hardcore gamer.
Who cares? Hardcore is not a badge of honor, it means we're relegated to the rare, unappreciated section of the medium. I'm jealous of people who can enjoy most games they play.
>>321053937
If Super Mario Wii U is so softcore then why am I literally the only guy I know who has beaten the game?
I'm genuinely curious. Mario seems to be a big weakspot for a lot of people.
>>321053937
This post infers the more things the game has going on the more hardcore the player.
Which is retarded reddit tier ideaology
>>321054127
Mario, despite being simple, is still a franchise were if you miss a jump by a centimeter, you instantly die and have to replay a huge chunk of the level. It's merely unnecessarily punishing.
I would probably never refer to anyone else as a hardcore gamer. And if I did, it would be in a patronizing manner because that clearly implies I've risen above hardcore.
>>321053937
I would put Dark Souls in softcore. It tries to emulate classic action RPG experiences like Gothic with a depressing atmosphere like Soul Reaver, but comes short because of technical flaws and the studio's lack of design/programming skill.
Oh, and it also qualifies for the "focuses more on advertising" clause.
>>321054182
Complex games are intrinsically more suited to hardcore play that simple games. There's more to dissect and analyze.
>>321054297
That's just your opinion.
I think it's critical that you have to start over until you get things right. How else are you supposed to feel good about beating something?
Games like Darksiders, where you are revived in the room you died with full health, feels so unsatisfying, since you never get a second chance to show the game that you could beat the room with whatever health you had. (It also makes the potions useless, in a sense.)
>>321054515
Though by that logic, Civilization (where losing requires much effort on the player's part) is more hardcore than the arcade version of Gradius III, commonly cited as impossible to beat without practice through cheating.
>>321054604
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing about punishment for failure. I'm just saying it doesn't make the Mario games harder because the second run of a level is going to be easier than the first.
Compare to the likes of DCSS, Monster Hunter or Battletoads where your 100th run of a segment might be much much more challenging than the first time you played it due to its random nature.
>>321054692
He didn't say that it applies to every single complex game out there, though.
>>321054515
What about all those hardcore hard as balls platformer games then? They're usually pretty straight forward and simple in mechanics but they certainly aren't for casual gamers.
>>321054928
>mechanical skill
Not the guy you're replying to, but I'd say that's covered under the time investment requirement.
>>321054928
Again, he didn't exclude games with simple mechanics.
>>321054692
But Gradius 3 has enemy timing, placement frame data and movement planning to examine. Civ has the average player interfacing with more, but it's laid pretty bare.
>>321054453
You're....a boss to surpass The Boss?
>>321054984
The problem with time required is that it assumes everyone is starting from the same place. It might take a casual 60 hours to beat the game but that's because learn how to play the game. A hardcore player may already know the controls from their experience playing other similar games and finish it in 30 hours. Surely you're not going to say the second guy is casual because he spent less time on the game.
>>321054515
Dumbo buckethead plays train SIM.
He does a half decent job.. he plays it twice a week.
Layton pinsuit plays angry birds in his spare time nearly every smoko lunch and after work. He has pin point accuracy on his tragectories and bests everyone's high scores.
Now what? Dumbos a hardcore gamer to you right?
>>321055150
I meant the time required to understand and absorb the game's mechanics, dude.
>>321053937
>EO
>hardcore
good meme
>>321051739
>gamer
>>321055228
I don't know, a casual could feasibly read up on the mechanics and still be a casual.
>>321055294
If you don't break it by abusing oversights it can be a real motherfucker. No 7th of course, but still.
>>321051217
>Basically I'm trying to codify simple rules to outline whether or not you're a goddam casual.
why?
>>321055382
>a casual could feasibly read up on the mechanics and still be a casual.
Hence "absorb," dude.
>>321055354
Such a weird term to get hung up on. To call someone a gamer means they possess the capabilities to play games, which you should realize is far from everyone. Unlike movie-goers and book-readers.
OP here, I see the flaw in trying to use hardcore vs casual.
What if, we took the rules on their own.
What games/genres should you have a working knowledge of to have sufficient basis for your opinions?
What games should you play to completion to have a reasonable claim to being "good at f games"?
What games can be justifiably called the best game ever, for a collection of reasons?
>>321055514
>What games/genres should you have a working knowledge of to have sufficient basis for your opinions?
All of them.
>What games should you play to completion to have a reasonable claim to being "good at f games"?
Most of them.
>What games can be justifiably called the best game ever, for a collection of reasons?
One of them.
>>321055454
Let's use Super Mario Bros as the example, the very first one. Mechanics are pretty simple, you run and you jump and you get to the end flag.
Learning these mechanics isn't hard at all, anyone could do it. I literally started playing video games when I was three and even my retarded child self could do it.
Absorbing the mechanics isn't too hard either. Doesn't take too long before even a complete beginner to video games understands jumping on goobas, jumping over holes and jumping into the flag.
Most people can't finish Super Mario Bros.
It's true, casuals will find it hard. They can still understand all the mechanics and be able to apply them but they won't make it to the end of the game.
Surely being hardcore is more than "knowing how to play the game". Everyone knows how to fucking play Super Mario Bros, doesn't mean everyone is hardcore enough to actually finish the damn thing.
>Basically I'm trying to codify simple rules to outline whether or not you're a goddam casual.
You're not a casual if you
a) Can form actual opinions on games and not follow a hivemind or marketing
b) Play games
If you can form your own opinions and not just play whatever the media tells you, being the internet or other, then you'd know that most games put out are garbage, so you wont play them, therefor you wouldnt be playing casual trash.
>>321051217
Going based on completion/playing of games is fucking asinine.
I consider myself somewhat hardcore, but don't go around spewing it in people's faces. I don't plat games, because I think epeen is fucking retarded. I still play shit like pokemon.
But do I play every game on the hardest difficulty? Yes.
Do I make it a point to A/S rank every mission in every game? Yes.
If a game is difficult/has a high skill ceiling, does that make me more likely to buy it? Yes.
Do I play with self-imposed difficulties if the game is too easy? Yes.
Have I ever played Ninja Gaiden Sigma? No.
Have I ever finished Dark Souls? No.
But I unlocked the Handcannon in RE4 in a single sitting. I recently finished Castlevania 3 and Zelda2 for the NES.
The problem is that nobody set any guidelines. We just sort of noticed there was a clear difference between hardcore and casual.
We need to make a council. A few elite members that have proven their complete mastery over video games dictate which games are and are not hardcore.
>>321055748
I don't think it's really that they "can't" finish it but more that they "won't" finish it. That's what makes them a "casual".
>>321055806
I agree with you.
>>321055748
>Most people can't finish Super Mario Bros.
Well then they haven't properly absorbed the mechanics or developed a skillset required for finishing it. End of story.
Time investment
>Know somebody who is great at F-Zero X
>He can't beat Mario games for shit as he doesn't play a lot of platformers
>>321051217
I would fuck that sword
>>321055514
>What games/genres should you have a working knowledge of to have sufficient basis for your opinions?
It entirely depends on the genre you say you specialize in. If you said that You're hardcore into platforming, you better have at least researched (preferably played) a wide number of platformers ranging from classics to modern entries. Your opinions about individual games can be whatever you want them to be, but if you truly appreciate the genre for what it is you'll form your own opinion through experience.
>What games should you play to completion to have a reasonable claim to being "good at f games"?
Not everyone has the drive to complete games, and completion alone is not a good measure of how much one plays video games. You sometimes get people who can say things like "no, I haven't completed Devil May Cry 3 on every difficulty, but I can beat the game on hard and not get my ass beat! I even came up with some of my own ways to combo, but I have problems adapting them to Dante Must Die." It shows that they have knowledge of how the game works, but they haven't completed the game.
>What games can be justifiably called the best game ever, for a collection of reasons?
This is a silly question, you're fishing for opinions.
The point I'm making is that "hardcore/casual" is a spectrum of how much time and effort you're willing to put into video games. It's not a trophy list or gamerscore (although those are metrics by which one can measure time and effort), it's just a cursory willingness to play and get good at the games you like.
That doesn't make mobile games any less terrible, though. The companies pushing shit like that are scum.
>>321054297
>unnecessarily punishing
>it's only unnecessary if Nintendo is challenging me
>>321051217
"If this person did not play games, would he lose a significant part of his personality or lifestyle?"
>>321051698
>>321053937
Vanquish isn't hard core da fuq?
>>321051868
So I have to be a tourneyfag to be a gamer? Fuck off with that. Its my hobby that I enjoy, not something I want to go all autisitic over my skills.
>>321054481
Decent bait, looks like you tried
