I enjoyed and agree with this article.

Games like FIFA top the charts year after year, and I can't help but think to myself "but it's the same game as last year". I have to step back and realise that the things that I, an Escapist-reading gaming enthusiast, use as 'identifiers' for games are nothing like those that the vast majority of people who play games will use.

I'm hopeful though that enough enthusiasts make it through to game development and cater for our particular little niche from time to time. If not I take comfort in the fact that as a PC gamer folks in my chosen gaming niche will be able to produce mods that do cater for me. (And if not, I'll damn well have to learn myself!)

In movies and books, the meat is in the story and characters. In games, the meat is in game play. Yes, "hardcore" games are formulaic in their characters and narrative and settings, but they deliver in terms of tight controls, excellent level design, and engaging in-game encounters. They also offer robust competitive and co-operative online game play.

I will agree that maybe it's time to redefine the terms "core," "hardcore," and "casual" as they apply to gamers. One rarely hears of a "hardcore" reader or a "core" film-goer, and a "casual" reader or film-goer is something a little easier to grock than a "casual" gamer. I know some "casual" gamers that play video games every single day--they are just not your big-budget releases.

As for experimental games, I'm all for them. However, video games is a hard field in which to experiment because it is an active medium. More so than books or movies or music, it's possible for two people to play the same game and have completely different takes on it. With an album or a film, one sits and watches or listens; with games, there is an element of skill, a measure of ability. You can't experiment too much and expect to build an audience if you are repeatedly telling them "you suck" or, conversely, if they grow bored.

I think all game developers should focus on not making games to appeal to either a casual or core audience, but games that appeal to everybody. Take Guitar Hero. On Easy, it's almost boring; on Expert, it's a test of dexterity and timing. It's a perfect example of letting the gamer tailor their experience based on level and not submit to some vague definition of the word "medium" when it comes to difficulty and willingness to invest time.

This article makes me wonder if the "hardcore" games will even exist in like 20 years. Games like Gears 2 and Killzone2 have huge production budgets, but like the article said the meat and potatoes of the production companies aren't these games, the "real money" is in sports games and the kind of products that Nintendo is putting out now i.e. "casual".

I shed an emo tear.

I have been aware of the fact (a fact in my view, that is) that the group of gamers who shout after Halo, Gears of War, GTAIV etc. are in minority when compared to the horde of casual gamers, but never thought they were the hardcore group. I´m not even certain if there is anything "hardcore" in gaming. Are they the ones who were around when C64 was hot stuff, those who own top-notch gaming equipment of today, or perhaps indie-gamers who call for originality and meaning and whatnot? Every group has a hint of elitism in them, but none of them are actually the ones, whose shoulder the gaming industry rests on. It´s not gamers, who strive to be the definition of gaming, that are in industry´s focus, but the ones buying games.

Anyway, the range of games is so wide and versatile today that there ought to be something for every tastes. All you need to do is pick your favourite and join the club. It is not for me to say, whether all this will be for better or for worse, but that shouldn´t stop you from enjoying the game.

A bit tired now, not sure if any of this made any sense. I´ll get some sleep and come back later to (possibly) feel embarrassed. Feel free to correct me in the meantime.

To be honest, I'm totally sure what this article was trying to tell me. We've always known the primary aim of any company is to make money, gaming related companies being no exception. However, there are somethings you have to take into account.

Principly, that casual Gaming is a fad; in the next three years, we will see a sudden drop in the sales of software and hardware which is related to casual gaming. All those millions of people who bought a Wii for Wii Sports or Wii Fit are happy with their purchases. All those people who bought DS's for Brain Training have had their fun with their little gadget. Every family I know with a Wii has bought between 0-2 pieces of software for it. That'll be the last you hear of it. It is my opinion, and the opinion of many others as far as I can gather, that the casual games market will disappear as fast as it appeared. Nintendo will hopefully wise up to this and head more in the direction of hardcore (but not completely) in order to cater for the 8th generation.

And yes, games like Fifa, Madden, NFL and all the sports and racing titles are amongst the most successful, even if they don't carry the highest production values. And maybe the gaming market could exist without us hardcore devotees at the moment. But give it a couple of years, and Joe Normal and his wife and kids on the high street will walk straight past the game store, without even a thought of browsing for new titles. The games industry will need us.
Sports and racing games have always been around. They were the most common back in the day of arcade machines and Sega Saturn, and will continue to be important. However, these genres would not survive without hardcore games anymore, especially once the casual-gamer-Wii-Fit boom is over. The fact is that we're needed to keep innovation going, to keep things fresh, to make it worth buying a new console every generation, because it is the developments and advances in technology made through catering for the hardcore FPS fan that make newer technology and techniques possible, and available to EA and its sports divisions. If the new consoles and PC hardware weren't developed to cater for Gears 2, Killzone 2, Empire Total War and the like, then why should EA bother making a next gen football title? Why not just make it exclusively for the PS2? It will play the same and cost less to develop.
The answer is because people wouldn't bother. Even the fratboy wants a game that looks half decent on his HDTV. But these advances would potentially have not been made without the drive of the hardcore games developer.

So sure, we aren't that important now, but once all the gaming-lay-community out there have put their Wii's away in the attic, guess whose gonna come crawling back to us.

Core is a business term meaning the old market (i.e. everything that's the way it was on the last gen consoles including the sports titles, Animal Crossing and everything else) that is the primary source of profits for the incumbent. That's it. Nothing else. It doesn't mean better or worse or smart or dumb or anything. It's a market. It's a group of customers who buy items with certain properties. People try to mix terms like hardcore into it when that has zero to do with it. It doesn't matter what you do with the games you buy, you can use them as frisbees for all they care. The only thing that matters is which games you spend your money on because that's the money the corporations want and hence try to find new ways to get it out of you. There is no core culture, no core lifestyle, no core gaming, no core approach to reading reviews, there is only core purchasing.

FIFA is core. Animal Crossing is core. That you think they're casual or kiddie titles means that you still think in terms of gaming instead of business. You're abusing a business term. Meanwhile Rythm Tengoku is new market (that's the opposite of core). That may confuse you since you like it and you like core games too but people are not confined to one market. The core is about using more and more sophisticated technology, design, etc to create epic, complex games that try to rival movies or at least push the "art" forward. In fact most of the games you find on the download services of the three consoles are not core titles and yes I am including the ones people actually care about.

The oppinions of the core customers do matter when it comes to the core market (the point of a product is to please the customer so he'll buy it, not go all snob on him and tell him he doesn't deserve your product and should be glad you're lowering yourself enough to give him a glimpse at your genius, RIGHT, MR. KUTARAGI, MR. HIRAI?) but it's looking more and more like the core market as a whole is becoming irrelevant.

By the way, the core is not just us internet users, us forum goers, us review readers, the core is much larger than that. The world never revolved around internet whiners but it did revolve around the core once.

I, for one, welcome our new market overlords and laugh with glee as the ivory towers of the prestige driven game designers get obliterated in the flood of the new values. The hardcore developers were a bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the revolution came.

Every family I know with a Wii has bought between 0-2 pieces of software for it.

As always the plural of anecdote is not data. The data says on average Wii owners purchase 6 games for the system, same as the PS3.

Mario Kart can be played hardcore too.

This is too true, i myself have noticed a lack of games for 'core players' the best example is to look from the PS2 or the Xbox to their next-gen kin.
There are more independant and small-time games for the PS2 than i have time to ever play. Many of them are gems, and there used to be a time when there was a lot of coverage of them.

Having been a gamer since the Atari 2600 and Commodore 64 and having purchased many of subsequent consoles/computer systems from there on, I'd say what I look for in a good game is widely different from most gamers and non-gamers alike. I've lived through all of the different market trends that were handled no differently than how they are today. In the end, all of the niche terms like "Casual" and "Hardcore" are asinine and redundant from a consumer point of you, provided you have a mind of your own. You just buy what appeals to you and have your fun with it.

I know the big thing now is FPS games and J-RPG's, but do I care? No. The last decent FPS I really enjoyed was GoldenEye on N64, well before the current boom in the genre. And J-RPG's have been stagnant since the 16-bit generation in my opinion (With Phantasy Star IV and Chrono Trigger being among the best). At a certain point, when everything had already been done, it either gets reiterated for the billionth time with a new paint job, or a developer tries to be so original that the game makes zero sense or has some kind of smug philosophy behind it. Personally, I miss games that required you to use your imagination. That's just me though.

So it seems that some of the only releases that appeal to me are collection discs of old games. Case in point, I bought the first 2 "Midway Arcade Treasures" for Xbox because I love games like Gauntlet, Joust, and Defender. I also bought "Intellivision Lives!" for PS2 because its a system I still own and this was a good way to preserve my ancient hardware while still enjoying the games.

I also own a Wii and, primarily, purchased it because the gimmick of the controller seemed like some good fun to be had with some friends. Consequently, the only title to make perfect use of the controller's features is the pack-in title, Wii Sports. Still, much hilarity ensued. Of course, currently, I feel like a kid again with the addition of Commodore 64 games to the Virtual Console. It's nice to have International Karate without having to drag out my C64 and hook it all up or sit through the load time.

I don't think I was trying to make much a point about the article, it was a good read. Just sort of expressing my views and motivations for buying games by comparison to others.

That I own over 20 consoles and have hundreds and hundreds of games, certain people might be inclined to label me a "Hardcore Gamer" or "Old-School/Retro Gamer." Old-School is a term thrown around too loosely nowadays and I do indeed dislike it. But I'm just an OLD gamer... with a very large back catalog and a simplified view of the industry.

The issue I see is mostly in the development of games. A boardgame has a set of rules that are for the most part static; the surface is static, there is a finite number of pieces, and you have to play it as it was intended. You could make up your own rules, and sometimes it does help to do so, but often times it's difficult to bring those new rules to a person who has the original ones so permanently ingrained in their psyche.

Being on a computer should bring more flexibility to games, but it hasn't. I've always envisioned a good game to be easy to learn, but you could peel off layers and go to the core if you'd like, to modify anything and everything. It would be like an onion. The beginners would interact with the outermost layer, and as they become more comfortable, they can delve in further. For those experienced in modding, they could go even further, going in and changing the models or adding new textures or items or maps. For those who know coding, they could go in to the core and learn how the thing works, and make total conversions.

Playstyle could also be approached in this way. I don't see how a game can't be both an arcade style and a simulator style, with variances in between. Computers SHOULD allow us this sort of customization and layering to allow us a choice in how advanced we would like to go. Some games have already done this, but in an all or nothing way.

Perhaps the shift will come sometime in the future. My bet is for an all-around hit that can take the hardest of the hardcore as well as the greenest of the greenhorns and adapt for individual style. It's not conceptually difficult; you're really just tinkering with the engine. All the textures, models, sounds and effects are the same. The executable is the heart of the game, and its smallest component. It is the deciding factor on how hardcore or how casual the game is. Harness the fluidity that technology can be, and you can literally have hundreds of different games in one, all based on skill and accessibility.

Gaming will definitely change. People now are complaining about the lack of "hardcore" (a stupid term, to be sure) titles on the Wii - in the future, as more and more "casual gamers" are brought into the fray, the amount of games like Gears of War will definitely shrink.

Ironically, when "hardcore" gaming is pushed to the background, we might start to see more innovation - as there won't be such a huge market for FPS clones, developers will need to differentiate themselves.

Maybe. Maybe nothing will change.

jebussaves88:

...
Principly, that casual Gaming is a fad; in the next three years, we will see a sudden drop in the sales of software and hardware which is related to casual gaming.
...

You young 'uns amaze me sometimes. You do realize that the entire gaming industry started from so-called "casual" gaming(I certainly wouldn't call Pong a hardcore game) and that "casual" games have always been a significant part of the gaming industry? Most, if not all of the earliest games were "casual" games; they were designed as diversions, pastimes, something to do for 15-20 minutes for a bit of fun and enjoyment. The life-consuming electronic crack constituting the current so-called "hardcore" gaming market is the real recent phenomenon. Casual gaming is not a fad. It has always been here, and it will continue to be here.

robinkom:

...
In the end, all of the niche terms like "Casual" and "Hardcore" are asinine and redundant from a consumer point of you, provided you have a mind of your own. You just buy what appeals to you and have your fun with it.
...

As an older gamer myself, I have to concur with this statement. This division of gaming into "hardcore" and "casual" is very stupid and unnecessary. The only thing of relevance is whether the game is fun for an individual to play, and that will change from person to person. But, what is even more stupid is the constant drive by an elist few to force the entire game industry to their preference and to dictate to the rest of the gaming community what they should think is a fun game. In my opinion, this is a kind of fascism, and it will completely destroy the diversity of gaming, if it hasn't already.

Regarding the disconnection of the gaming media with trends in gaming, I think this is the result of too much focus on the same 6-7 franchises, year after year, that appeal only to a select contingent. There are a lot of games out there, and, while it is not possible to cover them all, I feel that there is an extreme excess of attention is given only to same select few games all the time, shutting out many other very deserving titles.

Like it or not, the game industry is going to have to evolve and move forward or risk stagnation and collapse. If that means expanding the so-called "casual" market, the nature and design of which is poorly understood by some gamers and some game developers alike, in my opinion, then that is what it will do. However, this does not mean that the so-called "hardcore" market will be made extinct. As long as there are enough people who will buy the game, there will be developers who will make the game(you can still find scrolling sci-fi shooters, though many would claim the genre extinct, and then there are games like *shudder* Rapelay). So all this wind and fury that is made over "hardcore" versus "casual" is just another useless, unnecessary "holy" war. We're all better off to just buy and play the games we like and quit trying to proselytize others into our singular way of thinking.

porkfryrice616:
This article makes me wonder if the "hardcore" games will even exist in like 20 years. Games like Gears 2 and Killzone2 have huge production budgets, but like the article said the meat and potatoes of the production companies aren't these games, the "real money" is in sports games and the kind of products that Nintendo is putting out now i.e. "casual".

There will always be great quality indie games to fill the holes that the big names choose not to.

Good article to get the brainjuices flowing on the way hardcore gamers see themselves and their position within the market. I call the lot of us hardcore gamers, movies have moviebuffs, music has audiophiles, games have hardcore gamers, it's just the way we ended up calling ourselves.

level250geek, Robinkom, Geizr, KDR_11k:
Nice insights people.

Like in the movie industry we may not be the main income of money, but we're still the crowd that awards the prizes and scores companies their prestige (as reviewers and gamenews people are part of our ranks). And they know we'll probably stick around, so throwing us a bone every now and then is necessary for the companies so we can do their press (through word of mouth) for them. To put up an example, you might not make much money with a movie like Magnolia or a game like Mirror's Edge, but you can be damn sure people will know your name after you've been touted about on the so-manieth list of innovative or provoking titles or whatever. The comparison is not 100% accurate, but it runs along the same stretch of thought.

There's always been little gems, mass market titles and crosses between the two (who become the stuff of legends) and there always will be as long as gaming doesn't go bankrupt entirely. We've once been at the edge of that abyss and I doubt we'll ever be anywhere within a hundred miles of that place anymore.

You can see the games industry as a whole as being on a journey. The people consisting the group may change from time to time and the scenery differs by definition, but with or without us, this group will keep on moving. If anything, the hardcore gamers are like scouts to this group, hopping out to the left and right, offering up suggestions on which way to go and relating great discoveries off the beaten path to anyone who cares to listen. But in the end we're not the ones leading the group. We can merely continue offering our insights and either settle in that little village we came across or stick around the rest and see what new vistas are to be found.

aside:
Ok, got a bit melancholic there, but the image was too strong in my head to ignore.

If the big-budget game companies aren't producing the types of games I like, I can always turn to the Escapist or other online review sites to find those obscure titles that deliver what I'm looking for. Mount&Blade is one of my favorite PC games, but I didn't even notice it until the Escapist pointed it out to me.

To be fair, my last game console was the N64. After that, I got the feeling that console games were getting too repetitive. Now my sister and her husband have the PS3 (I think that's what that black box is) and Guitar Hero World Tour.