• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

The Concept of Hardcore Gaming

Joined
Oct 2, 2010
Location
Faron Woods
It has become common these days that games are considered hardcore if they have blood, gore, HD graphics, foul language and a mature setting. It has become very common and especially in gaming sites these days you will usually see how people comment that in order to be hardcore you must play that kinds of games. You will listen how gamers say that the Wii and DS (and now the 3DS) are just meant for kids and that there are no longer hardcore games out there. I think that games are hardcore not because they are M rated, but simply because they are meant and designed for people who well… are gamers. Which means they don´t have to be M rated. It bothers me that these days’ modern hardcore games require gritty graphics and other shallow elements to be even considered good and many great games are dismissed because they are not for “adults”.

I remember that this was not a problem a few years ago. Games were games and gamers were not so divided as now. I still think that games can be colourful and cheerful and still be fantastic. That good old Mario is still as hardcore as before and that other games like Zelda, and other gaming franchises that rely on beautiful art styles, great gameplay mechanics and interesting elements are still true hardcore games. What do you guys think? Is this concept of hardcore gaming is really true or not?
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
I would think that if there really can be a division of gamers into hardcore and casual, it would be based more on game difficulty and length than on graphics, blood, and gore. World of Warcraft for instance tends to be a "hardcore" game, not due to gore, but because people who play tend to play A LOT. Really, I would think only hardcore gamers would be willing to play older games. Anyone who claims to be a hardcore gamer but won't touch classic games due to graphics isn't much of a gamer IMO. I would love to see many of todays "hardcore" gamers try to play Adventure of Link for example.
 

All Might

Remember who you are
Forum Volunteer
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Location
The Circle of Life
"Hardcore" itself is becoming dominated by a more suggestive meaning, rather than it's old definition of "nnswervingly dedicated," put simply. I feel players such as shooter gamers hate Nintendo's family-friendly franchises because they view them as "immature." Nintendo refuses to put heavy innuendo in any of their titles, a fact that doesn't please Xbox or PS3 fans on the main. When looking at the diversity each gaming company provides you can see a blatant line between what would be more fitting for an entire family, or only the members below 20; maybe more, but it's too various to say with certainty. And this is why "hardcore" no longer measures the resolve of a gamer, but how explicit the game that the gamer's playing might be.
 

PK Love Omega

PK Flash's Good Twin
Joined
Jul 28, 2011
Location
In a forest
Eh, I consider myself hardcore. I go from Action, to Platformers, to RPGs and even to Shooters like Star Fox. I even play classic Sonics. Marios, Zeldas, and even switch to the newer, HD games. I consider pretty much every boy in my school are casual, as the only play COD and Fifa,
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
"Hardcore" itself is becoming dominated by a more suggestive meaning, rather than it's old definition of "nnswervingly dedicated," put simply. I feel players such as shooter gamers hate Nintendo's family-friendly franchises because they view them as "immature." Nintendo refuses to put heavy innuendo in any of their titles, a fact that doesn't please Xbox or PS3 fans on the main. When looking at the diversity each gaming company provides you can see a blatant line between what would be more fitting for an entire family, or only the members below 20; maybe more, but it's too various to say with certainty. And this is why "hardcore" no longer measures the resolve of a gamer, but how explicit the game that the gamer's playing might be.
You are probably absolutely right about the shift in meaning. My comment was geared more as a statement of what "hardcore" should denote (if anything) rather than what it actually does. "Hardcore" both then and now holds connotations that if one is hardcore one is part of the gaming elite, in some sense the "real" gamer. I'm not sure how good it is for gamers to classify themselves in this way. If the term is to be used at all, I prefer the older usage, but alas, common usage cares little what I think.
 
Joined
May 5, 2010
Location
Canada
I think that "hardcore" games actually meant something back in the S/NES era. Back then, we had games like Castlevania, Zelda 1 & 2, Ninja Gaiden 1,2 & 3, etc. and they were very difficult to play and gamers took this abuse to play, beat and find every secrets these games held. This is my definition of a hardcore gamer. A gamer who is able to sit through the abuse games have to offer.
 

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
Hardcore I would say is more of Thareous' original definition, but that is only in the "pro" community of any game. So, while the game Super Smash Bros Brawl is by general opinion a kiddy game, there is a 'hardcore' section where only professionals play. It should be noted that said section is only where extreme dedication is given, which is what separates it from the "casual" community.

Within hardcore games themselves, there are two communities: the noob community and the pro/1337 community. Let's take Call of Duty:Black Ops for example. In the noob community, you have your silly M16 players and also noobtubers. In the pro community, everyone is running either FAMAS or AK74u with select perks and sensitivity bumped to 10 (just like me!); the pros utilize certain techniques that a "noob" would only dream of.

The hardcore I like more is the "has to be M rated, bloody, gory, etc" kind, because let's face it – you won't get the same enjoyment out of Mario or Zelda as you would Call of Duty or Battlefield. Granted, they're different genres generally speaking, but at the core as a game you will get different experiences out of the "kiddy" games vs the "hardcore" games. TAKE NOTE: The division of kiddy and hardcore games need not exist. I can still play the "kiddy" Zelda and yet be a part of the "hardcore" Battlefield community. I can still play the "kiddy" Kingdom Hearts yet still integrated in the "hardcore" Call of Duty community (which I would be had I a PS3). Ultimately, Hardcore is just a label given by people to denote if it is more serious and realistic versus the fairy tale stuff usually seen in "family friendly" centric video games.
 

MW7

Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Location
Ohio
Kind of along the lines of what Vanitas was saying, I think the hardcore/casual distinction has more to do with how people play the game rather than the game itself. For example a person doing a 3 heart run in Wind Waker (perhaps the most discriminated against Zelda game in terms of kiddiness) is more "hardcore" than a person that has played throught the campaign of Black Ops on normal but would never even think of playing it on hardened or veteran.

Level of commitment might have something to do with it as well. For example someone who has beaten Super Mario World 20+ times is probably just as hardcore as someone who put 200+ hours into Oblivion.
 

Kogasa

desu desu desu desu
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Location
Gensokyo
Gender
Kogasa
"A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it, the truth is the truth even if no one believes it"

I personally believe this. Because of so I do not feel that the shift in the perceived meaning of "hardcore gamer" means anything. I believe the definition for a hardcore gamer is someone who is dedicated to the games they play, they get into discussions about their games and follow almost everything that relates to their games. Calling someone who plays Battlefield or Call of Duty is false; this is because, contrary to popular belief, games like these are more casual than they are hardcore. The communities of fans who play these games are mostly simple-minded, and there is barely any kind of discussion to be had. In addition to this, their gameplay is extremely simple, and requires little to no effort to be decent at.

Aiming and shooting are pretty much what these games are about as they are First-Person Shooters. The whole concept of a First-Person Shooter is very simple, and series like Call of Duty do not add anything into them but small challenges and such. Although there are players who indeed immerse themselves into a much more complex way of playing, the same can be said about Super Smash Brothers which most deem casual. The point is, series like Call of Duty and many other famous First-Person Shooter games are barely more complicated to play than the generic Wii shovelware, which makes them casual games.

Games such as Zelda or any Role Playing Game provide a much more complex way of playing a game; you can go on adventures, you can solve puzzles, you can get items that you can use and items that open the world up larger for you. You can also fight a variety of enemies that require certain items to effectively fight. There are also skills that you must level up on to get to where you might want to go. These kinds of aspects require dedication, dedication surpassing how many times you pressed a button to get to level 70 on Call of Duty. These kinds of games are generally more hardcore than any First-Person Shooter can get.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
The hardcore I like more is the "has to be M rated, bloody, gory, etc" kind, because let's face it – you won't get the same enjoyment out of Mario or Zelda as you would Call of Duty or Battlefield. Granted, they're different genres generally speaking, but at the core as a game you will get different experiences out of the "kiddy" games vs the "hardcore" games. TAKE NOTE: The division of kiddy and hardcore games need not exist. I can still play the "kiddy" Zelda and yet be a part of the "hardcore" Battlefield community. I can still play the "kiddy" Kingdom Hearts yet still integrated in the "hardcore" Call of Duty community (which I would be had I a PS3). Ultimately, Hardcore is just a label given by people to denote if it is more serious and realistic versus the fairy tale stuff usually seen in "family friendly" centric video games.
I see what you're saying, but the fact that you get different kinds of enjoyment from different genres is irrelevant to one genre or another being hardcore. Maybe it's because I am one of the old guys who started playing on an NES and was blown away by the awesome graphics on Super Mario 3. The thing is, graphics have evolved, and it is only recently that the gore and graphics associated with hardcore games now has arisen. Here's the rub. Hardcore gamers have been around at least since the pacman days. Just because graphics got better and new genres evolved doesn't mean all the hardcore gamers just stopped being hardcore because they are still playing RPG's, Strategy Games, Platformers, Action Adventure Etc.

I know a few hardcore call of duty fans who are serious about what they do. I know even more hardcore Zelda fans (thanks to Zelda Dungeon). When I watch a video of some kid beating an old NES Mario game in 8 minutes, no one can tell me that the person who can do that is not a hardcore gamer while the person who's racked up a few levels on CoD is.
 

Emma

Eye See You
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Location
Vegas
"A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it, the truth is the truth even if no one believes it"

I personally believe this. Because of so I do not feel that the shift in the perceived meaning of "hardcore gamer" means anything. I believe the definition for a hardcore gamer is someone who is dedicated to the games they play, they get into discussions about their games and follow almost everything that relates to their games. Calling someone who plays Battlefield or Call of Duty is false; this is because, contrary to popular belief, games like these are more casual than they are hardcore. The communities of fans who play these games are mostly simple-minded, and there is barely any kind of discussion to be had. In addition to this, their gameplay is extremely simple, and requires little to no effort to be decent at.

Aiming and shooting are pretty much what these games are about as they are First-Person Shooters. The whole concept of a First-Person Shooter is very simple, and series like Call of Duty do not add anything into them but small challenges and such. Although there are players who indeed immerse themselves into a much more complex way of playing, the same can be said about Super Smash Brothers which most deem casual. The point is, series like Call of Duty and many other famous First-Person Shooter games are barely more complicated to play than the generic Wii shovelware, which makes them casual games.

Games such as Zelda or any Role Playing Game provide a much more complex way of playing a game; you can go on adventures, you can solve puzzles, you can get items that you can use and items that open the world up larger for you. You can also fight a variety of enemies that require certain items to effectively fight. There are also skills that you must level up on to get to where you might want to go. These kinds of aspects require dedication, dedication surpassing how many times you pressed a button to get to level 70 on Call of Duty. These kinds of games are generally more hardcore than any First-Person Shooter can get.
Oh my favorite quote!

On the one hand, I do agree that Nintendo games aren't really qualifying as hardcore games anymore. But I don't agree that hardcore games have to be mature, vulgar, and gorey. To me hardcore is a game that focuses on the game being high quality and practical to play aimed at a specific target group. And "softcore" or casual games are lighter games that rely on gimmicks instead of practicality and that are aimed at much larger audience.
A few notable Nintendo games I think do qualify as hardcore. Such as the Zelda and Mario galaxy games. But a majority of Wii games are more causal. So it's not really about a specific genre, but the nature of the game itself and how it's presented.
 

Zen

Guardian of Courage
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Hyrule
"A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it, the truth is the truth even if no one believes it"

I personally believe this. Because of so I do not feel that the shift in the perceived meaning of "hardcore gamer" means anything. I believe the definition for a hardcore gamer is someone who is dedicated to the games they play, they get into discussions about their games and follow almost everything that relates to their games. Calling someone who plays Battlefield or Call of Duty is false; this is because, contrary to popular belief, games like these are more casual than they are hardcore. The communities of fans who play these games are mostly simple-minded, and there is barely any kind of discussion to be had. In addition to this, their gameplay is extremely simple, and requires little to no effort to be decent at.

Aiming and shooting are pretty much what these games are about as they are First-Person Shooters. The whole concept of a First-Person Shooter is very simple, and series like Call of Duty do not add anything into them but small challenges and such. Although there are players who indeed immerse themselves into a much more complex way of playing, the same can be said about Super Smash Brothers which most deem casual. The point is, series like Call of Duty and many other famous First-Person Shooter games are barely more complicated to play than the generic Wii shovelware, which makes them casual games.

Games such as Zelda or any Role Playing Game provide a much more complex way of playing a game; you can go on adventures, you can solve puzzles, you can get items that you can use and items that open the world up larger for you. You can also fight a variety of enemies that require certain items to effectively fight. There are also skills that you must level up on to get to where you might want to go. These kinds of aspects require dedication, dedication surpassing how many times you pressed a button to get to level 70 on Call of Duty. These kinds of games are generally more hardcore than any First-Person Shooter can get.
I just about completely agree with this. Not only is gameplay one of the key factors that determine a 'hardcore' game, but sadly graphics and effects (such as sound and flashy stuff) take part of it too. I personally think gameplay is waaaay more important, but from what I see, the video gaming society seems to have more worries about those instead of the gameplay. This may have caused many consumers to look more towards those factors instead of gameplay. From there, the term 'hardcore' to me has been changed to include more of what you see rather than what you play. What you see usually involves as mention earlier, gore, blood, violence, etc.
 

Thatlinkisaspy!

(not really)
Joined
May 20, 2011
Location
West Mifflin, Pennsylvania
At the school I go to, about 99.9...% of the people think call of duty is better than anything Nintendo just because of the graphics. Me and my best friend are the only ones who disagree with this. Yesterday took the bar lower with people saying FLASH games are better than Nintendo (really did happen). I bet people these days only judge games by the graphics (I judge by gameplay).
 

Zen

Guardian of Courage
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Hyrule
At the school I go to, about 99.9...% of the people think call of duty is better than anything Nintendo just because of the graphics. Me and my best friend are the only ones who disagree with this. Yesterday took the bar lower with people saying FLASH games are better than Nintendo (really did happen). I bet people these days only judge games by the graphics (I judge by gameplay).
You bet this is true! I asked my friend if he rather played those old school mario games (which is actually really fun and challenging) or a High-graphic game that sucks in terms of gameplay. He chose the high-graphic game.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom