"Hardcore" Vs "Casual" Game(er)s

[TehLeetHaxor]

If it's on any surface there is going to be friction, simple physics. With friction comes the effort to overcome it. The motion controls wouldn't be on a surface so friction, except with the air (which would affect either case), wouldn't be an issue. We're at a stalemate: your stability and my friction.

So what's more important. Moving faster or being able to keep you aim more stable? You might be able to move onto target quickly, but if you can't keep you crosshairs steadily on target when you start firing, your going to miss a lot of your shots. Motion contols have speed but the lack of stability making them less ideal. Having an unsteady aim will make head shots very difficult. Worsened by the fact that your excitement from the game will make your hands even more shakey. In fact, it'll be almost impossible to hover your crosshair perfectly over someone's head if they're far away. Sniping will become a pain.

And it's not actually a stalemate. You're comparing a technology that doesn't currently exist with something that's commonplace in PC gaming. Plus, such an accurate motion control technology will obviously come to PC first.

 

[DarkestLink]

@TehLeetHaxor

...I have to ask...are you the self proclaimed Ruler of all Hardcore Gaming?

 

[TehLeetHaxor]

I thought the same thing xD

Apparently PC gamers are the Aryan race and he is their Adolf.

Off topic post - Check
Offensive joke - Check

No, no, no. See, if I was the Fuhrer of PC gaming, I'd would say that "console gaming should die". Instead, I simply say "PC gaming is better". There's a difference.

 

[(◕‿◕✿)]

So what's more important. Moving faster or being able to keep you aim more stable? You might be able to move onto target quickly, but if you can't keep you crosshairs steadily on target when you start firing, your going to miss a lot of your shots. Motion contols have speed but the lack of stability making them less ideal. Having an unsteady aim will make head shots very difficult. Worsened by the fact that your excitement from the game will make your hands even more shakey. In fact, it'll be almost impossible to hover your crosshair perfectly over someone's head if they're far away. Sniping will become a pain.

Wouldn't all of this just "raise the skill ceiling" though, and make it even more hardcore because of the added challenge of focusing on the target and remaining steady.

 

[Stitch]

So what's more important. Moving faster or being able to keep you aim more stable? You might be able to move onto target quickly, but if you can't keep you crosshairs steadily on target when you start firing, your going to miss a lot of your shots. Motion contols have speed but the lack of stability making them less ideal. Having an unsteady aim will make head shots very difficult. Worsened by the fact that your excitement from the game will make your hands even more shakey. In fact, it'll be almost impossible to hover your crosshair perfectly over someone's head if they're far away. Sniping will become a pain.

And it's not actually a stalemate. You're comparing a technology that doesn't currently exist with something that's commonplace in PC gaming. Plus, such an accurate motion control technology will obviously come to PC first.

You're trying too hard. You're going to bend facts anyway you want until one of us admits defeat, well I surrender. We met at a stalemate and you kept pushing, I'm not going to waste my energy on pushing back. Goodnight, I have better places to be than fighting a battle against someone that refuses to quit even though they have no base to continue on going anyway.

 

[TehLeetHaxor]

Wouldn't all of this just "raise the skill ceiling" though, and make it even more hardcore because of the added challenge of focusing on the target and remaining steady.

At this point, it becomes a handicap that doesn't exist for any reason other than to be a handicap. That's pointless.

It doesn't even matter anyways. Perfect motion controls don't exist right now and they'll obviously come to PC first when they're made.

 

[Curmudgeon]

I've come to accept a certain level of thread drift in recent weeks surrounding these topics, but this is quickly degenerating into one line yuh-huhs.

Get back to casual vs hard-core gaming or stay away.

Best,

Curmudgeon

 

[TehLeetHaxor]

Well, Wikipedia definition of hardcore gamer is:

Hardcore gamers extend gaming into their lifestyle and may represent the stereotypical “game geek”. They are frequent purchasers of games, prefer to expend significant time on games, and are more likely to try to "master" their games by completing as many objectives as possible. Hardcore gamers may take part in video game culture such as competitions, events and conventions. Competitions may involve organized tournaments, leagues, or ranked play integrated into the game. An example of this is Major League Gaming, an electronic sports organization that often holds events for first-person shooter games such as Quake. There are many subtypes of hardcore gamers based on the style of game, gameplay preference, hardware platform, and other preferences.

This will be the official definition. Any objections?

 

[Terminus]

Well, Wikipedia definition of hardcore gamer is:

Hardcore gamers extend gaming into their lifestyle and may represent the stereotypical “game geek”. They are frequent purchasers of games, prefer to expend significant time on games, and are more likely to try to "master" their games by completing as many objectives as possible. Hardcore gamers may take part in video game culture such as competitions, events and conventions. Competitions may involve organized tournaments, leagues, or ranked play integrated into the game. An example of this is Major League Gaming, an electronic sports organization that often holds events for first-person shooter games such as Quake. There are many subtypes of hardcore gamers based on the style of game, gameplay preference, hardware platform, and other preferences.

This will be the official definition. Any objections?

That is actually a great definition to use in quantitative terms. My only qualm is that is uses the stereotyped "FPS IS HUDKER" example, when any game involving training and/or practice can be applied. Hell, if you take the game seriously and do anything possible, especially for a competition, that's plenty hardcore. Even games like Pokemon, with an enormous casual base, have a group of very hardcore players:

[video=youtube;qQmLVGfz-xY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qQmLVGfz-xY[/video]


Now the only real issue with the Harcore/Casual debate are the elitists who attempt to put themselves above all others by just saying "my games are subjectively objectively more intense/better."

 

[67ghost]

does being hardcore or casual really matter ? N.O.

 

[Ugea]

for me i think their may be 3 titles and these are my personal views on them.

Casual Gamer- Some one who plays a simple game ( like Fb games) just for the fun and occasional time killer, but dosent really care for competition. does not like complex games

Hardcore gamer- Someone who plays games to the max, completes the game 100% and plays competitively to be the best taking it seriously, plays games for most of the day. but SOME wont play games that they considered " Casual"

A Gamer- a hybrid of both casual and hardcore, Plays Anny games of their choice for the entertainment and skill while playing the game at his or hers pace and may or may not get 100% complement. enjoys playing with friends over for some good ol fun ( unless they play games like mario party).

Thats how i see it you are ether a casual, hardcore or just a gamer.

 

[Justac00lguy]

Well, Wikipedia definition of hardcore gamer is:

Hardcore gamers extend gaming into their lifestyle and may represent the stereotypical “game geek”. They are frequent purchasers of games, prefer to expend significant time on games, and are more likely to try to "master" their games by completing as many objectives as possible. Hardcore gamers may take part in video game culture such as competitions, events and conventions. Competitions may involve organized tournaments, leagues, or ranked play integrated into the game. An example of this is Major League Gaming, an electronic sports organization that often holds events for first-person shooter games such as Quake. There are many subtypes of hardcore gamers based on the style of game, gameplay preference, hardware platform, and other preferences.

This will be the official definition. Any objections?

No one's arguing about the definition or what a "hardcore" gamer essentially is. It's just that these terms are very shallow and are used to label gamers to segregate one from another. Some use these terms in an elitist way to put them on the upper echelon in the hierarchy.

This whole "I'm better than you" state of mind is quite frankly stupid. I mean who even cares? Gaming is just a hobby (a pass time), yet people treat it as a war zone; a place to belittle others and their views. Hardcore just means dedicated - you can be dedicated to a game, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're a hardcore gamer. I can be dedicated to any given game while I still may play other games causally. What would that make me and the others who do so?

Hardcore doesn't mean complex, nor does it mean PC gamers. PC is just a platform. Yes it might have more dedicated gamer density as such people spend a lot of money just to play games (I don't see why people waste that much money; however that's just my view I'd rather spend my disposable income on something more useful in my life). Although, that doesn't necessarily mean you have to be on PC to be "hardcore". Anyone can be dedicated to a certain game or the industry itself - you can even be dedicated to games which cater towards a causal demographic in the market. No one is arguing about the validity of the terms as they do apply in some contexts; however, these terms are used in the wrong ways a lot of the time (such as you've done). Plus--like I've said before--it's a shallow label; where do people fit inbetween the lines?

 

[Kybyrian]

You never gamed on a PC have you?

Firstly, ALL console FPS have aim assist. Even when you turn it off in the menu, it's still on, just to a less degree. This is a well known fact and I challenge you to refute it. You want to see a console game that doesn't have aim-assist? Try CS: GO on the PS3. It's basically unplayable without plugging in a USB keyboard+mouse.

Secondly, do you really think a gamepad is more accurate than keyboard+mouse? Microsoft did an experiment a few years back. They wanted to see if they could have multiplayer between Xbox and PC versions of the same FPS. They put some of the best console players they could find against some average PC gamers. Guess what happened? The console gamers got completely destroyed every time. So much so, that they scrapped the project because experienced console players, even with aim-assist, couldn't defeat average PC gamers.

Because gamepads can't aim accurately, even with aim assist, the skill ceiling is much lower. Average PC gamers can easily defeat expert console gamers, as Microsoft's experiment shows.

And that point about CS vs CoD, don't even get me started. Go out and actually try playing CS. Maybe after your 5th match with no kills and getting kicked for being useless to the team, you'll soon realise what sets a true "hardcore" fps from a "casual" FPS like CoD.

1. Yes, I've gamed on a PC before. No, I did not enjoy it.

2. No, they do not have aim assist. Do you know what aim assist is? Once again, have you ever played a console game online? You're acting like aim-assist is even an OPTION. In multiplayers modes there is no aim-assist option in the menus because it doesn't exist. You can't tell me with any reasonable proof that aim-assist in all online console games exists. Want to see aim assist? Turn it on in single player and then go to multiplayer. Aim assist is nonexistent. Maybe it was there in the past, but it's certainly not now.

3. I'm going to say they're equally as accurate. Do you know what accurate means? It means that I can pinpoint any location on the screen I want. With sensitivity adjustments you can have the same feel on either a mouse or keyboard. You can adjust sensitivities on mice too. You may be able to, without adapting, pinpoint a certain location on a screen more quickly with a mouse at first. Yes, a control stick is less beneficial to that effect, but it's possible.

By the way, I have played CS on the PS3. No, it's not unplayable, not even a little.

 

[Sydney]

Noticed this has come up in quite a few threads lately, so I'm putting this here as a place to address/discuss all the claims about Nintendo and "casual gamers" and what is "hardcore", etc. So, discuss.

It is a ridiculous dichotomy, in my opinion, that serves no real purpose other than to boost the ego of the person using it.

The real question that should be asked is, who cares? At the end of the day, you either play video games or you don't. Why do we have to divide ourselves into different classes of gamers?

 

[TehLeetHaxor]

1. Yes, I've gamed on a PC before. No, I did not enjoy it.

2. No, they do not have aim assist. Do you know what aim assist is? Once again, have you ever played a console game online? You're acting like aim-assist is even an OPTION. In multiplayers modes there is no aim-assist option in the menus because it doesn't exist. You can't tell me with any reasonable proof that aim-assist in all online console games exists. Want to see aim assist? Turn it on in single player and then go to multiplayer. Aim assist is nonexistent. Maybe it was there in the past, but it's certainly not now.

3. I'm going to say they're equally as accurate. Do you know what accurate means? It means that I can pinpoint any location on the screen I want. With sensitivity adjustments you can have the same feel on either a mouse or keyboard. You can adjust sensitivities on mice too. You may be able to, without adapting, pinpoint a certain location on a screen more quickly with a mouse at first. Yes, a control stick is less beneficial to that effect, but it's possible.

By the way, I have played CS on the PS3. No, it's not unplayable, not even a little.

Go log into a match. Move your crosshairs straight onto another player. Then have that player move very slowly sideways. You'll see that the crosshairs will momentarily FOLLOW the other player's movements for a bit before snapping back. That's aim assist.

Try position your crosshairs close by another player then scoping in with iron sights. The sight will snap onto the player, even if your original aim was a bit off.

Seriously, don't even try to argue how controllers are anywhere near as accurate as mouse and keyboard. Why did those console FPS players get destroyed in Microsoft's experiment? Why does no one use controllers for FPS on PC?