Re: StolenName and HangdMan

Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to you both, I've been busy as heck these last few days, and even now must be more brief than I'd like. However, I do want you both to know that I evaluated your positions both before I wrote my original post, and since then. Both of you have written very entertaining and compelling arguments, and I'm glad to be having this conversation with two well spoken indivduals.

Anyway, I keep coming back to the same problem with the "hardcore is any game that can be mastered," argument. The core of the problem is this: With the exception of games that are <i>purely and only</i> games of chance, there is probably an argument that every game is able to be mastered, or at least that there will be divisions between tiers of skill among players. Even among games of pure chance - dice throwing, slot machines, whatever - while a player's skill is not tested, his ability to know odds, and not give in to superstition is. The guy who refuses to ever put his money on a red number in roulette wheel because he was once a failed matador (write your own narrative) is a worse roulette player than the woman who understands that the game is one of chance alone, and that there are equal black and red spaces on the wheel. Of course, they're both fools for playing such a skillless, highstakes game in the first place. ;)

But let's look at non-chance based videogames. What would you propose is a non-masterable game? Let's look at some things you guys suggested. First, Hangd, you reference Wii Tennis at the end. My friend Art is an absolute monster at the game. There is in fact a return swing that is as far as we can tell, unbeatable. He dominates the game against dozens of others, strangers who have developped their own talents included. He also consistently bowls 280+ in wiisports bowling. He is a master of the homerun derby in Wiisports baseball. Similarily, in a group of gamers my friend AJ simply is better at the cowracing minigame in Wiiplay.

If these aren't casual games then I don't know what is. Wiisports is a system pack-in, and Wiiplay is one of the hottest selling titles on the platform. There is no disputing the fact that people who are <i>not hardcore gamers</i> play these games. I understand that we're defining hardcore games, and not hardcore gamers here, but their is still some validity to this argument.

You guys both also call sports games hardcore. My father is 45 now. He used to play Tecmo Superbowl with me as a kid. Now he plays madden. He doesn't know what a hit-stick is, but he can <i>successfully play the game.</i> The game, like any other skill based game can be mastered, but he hasn't done it and yet plays the game succesfully. He is currently ending his third season of franchise mode with two consecutive superbowl titles in Madden 08, on All-Pro difficulty. Do I think that I could beat him? Probably. Do I think that a "master" player could beat him? Certainly. Does this make his few-hours-a-week game experience, with success, hardcore? I just don't think it does.

CS is a very interesting example. It exists as a game that is entirely online. As such, the game's difficulty is directly related to the skill of who you are playing against, and (anecdotally) from what I can tell the playerbase is entirely hardcore at this point. They know the maps the way they know their homes, and know the differences between pistol retorts from guns that most other people couldn't' even tell apart by looks. The game <i>environment</i> has forced the game to become hardcore, with the added weight of severely intricate game design.

These examples drawn, it seems we're left with this argument:

Definitions - Casual = Not(Hardcore)

P1. All games that can be mastered are hardcore games. (From your posts)

---

a. All skill based games can be mastered. (From my post)

b. All skillbased videogames are hardcore.

----

P2. Wiisports is a casual game (from your posts, with my support)

3. Wiisports is a skillbased game (from my post)

4. Wiisports is a hardcore game. (from b)

Contradiction

We can't have it both ways.

Either, we can't have binary opposition of hardcore and casual (where one is equal to not-the-other) or we have to redefine hardcore. That's what I attempted to do in my initial post. This is the line of logic that led me to originally change my mind from depth/breadth based definitions of hardcore, and towards ease of access. My father can pick up his controller and break a tackle with LT for a 25 yard run without much practice. My mother, who hasn't played a videogame since digdug, loved wiisports tennis - despite the fact that Art could cream her without a second thought. Either we have no casual games at all, or hardcore simply can't mean what all three of us originally thought it meant - from mastery to something else. In my mind, the one things that all of these games we'd call casual (even if we dispute some of them, the ones we could agree upon) have in them is ease of access.

Thoughts? N'gai, you have anything here? Are we flailing about in the dark?

-Austin Walker

allcritique.blogspot.com

a_walk@mac.com

In response to Austin's and StolenName's comments about hardcore vs. casual, I have to agree with SN about the level of mastery being integral to a game's definition of hardcore. If you think GoldenEye was casual, you never played a real hardcore player at that game. There are reasons why my friends never let me play with proxy mines in shooters anymore, and it all stemmed from GoldenEye. Map knowledge + spawn point knowledge + weapon spawn knowledge + proxy mines = you blowing up with every spawn. Hardcore games aren't about having multiple options at your disposal, it's about the complexity of which options are superior to other options in which circumstances. In fact, hardcore games are about knowing what to use and when, not being able to use anything anytime.

Bioshock was one of the most casual FPS's out there. With a little planning ahead of time, the entire game can be beaten with nothing more than the wrench and Electro Bolt. You have plenty of other options at your disposal, but you don't really need anything other than those two. Halo on the other hand, is about knowing when to snipe, when to 'nade, when to gun and when to run. Casual games have a one size fits all mentality whereas hardcore games have specific tools for specific jobs.

I think the biggest difference between hardcore and casual is really strategy. I'd put all the games Austin listed as casual (Madden, Halo, Tetris, Mario Party, and Super Smash Brothers) and put them in the hardcore where they belong, because the easiest way to tell if a game is casual or hardcore is to put a casual gamer and a hardcore gamer against each other. If they're constantly on even footing, its a casual game, if the other player dominates again and again, it's hardcore. N'Gai himself would testify to the fact that Halo multiplayer is anything but casual. In my small group of friends, no one plays Matt at Madden, because it's all he ever plays. No one can stop his offense and his defense steamrolls everybody. Nobody can outgun me at Halo. Jim is still our presiding tetris champ, we still joke about Vince's mark of the stigmata back from the N64 Mario Party one days, and no one can defeat Chuck's Samus in a stock battle, even when money's on the line.

Hardcore games reward hardcore gamers with either superiority over their opponents or superiority over the game, casual games keep the game even for everyone. So far, I've yet to find the ultimate Wii Tennis player (someone immune to tennis elbow perhaps?) A game is only as hardcore as it's playerbase. When you really think about it all games can be hardcore, it's merely a matter of degree.

Still flailing about,

The Hang'd Man

@ Austin: See, I fall into a different camp regarding hardcore gamers. Without writing such an elaborate post (which was well written and quite enjoyable), I'd have to disagree in regards to the more "casual" tag you've provided both titles.

Any game that can be mnastered, I would argue, can be hardcore - or at least to the player playing it. As you mention in regards to rock paper scissors, the world champ would argue it's hardcore. Like poker, which is from the outside a simple game of luck or basic understanding. That is until you find someone that's a master mathematician or has perfected the 'poker' face and can bluff his way through a game, then you've got a hardcore game.

Madden, NBA, NHL, Pro Evo Soccer, FIFA - the many different sports games available I would argue are hardcore titles, especially when you consider how complex the control systems can be. Hell, I'm not bad at playing NHL, it's fun to pick up and play but I won't dare play my little brother because he's mastered nearly every aspect of the game. He's a hardcore player.

Ever tried to play Halo on Legendary single player? I personally, would argue it's impossible to finish! However, those who play Halo day in day out, have learned all it's exploits, are masters of the game may be able to complete it without a death.

In fact, I would argue that BioShock is less hardcore than both Madden and Halo. Sure, it is deep, it has a limitless number of ways to play but in the end, it's easy. It's an extremely easy game to defeat on hard, even without the vita-chambers being present.

To be honest, I believe the status of a "hardcore" game is not necessarily 'what' the game is but instead the kind of following it can receive from players willing to learn the games every weakness, flaws, skills. You know Counter-Strike? I assume you do, it's insanely popular and yet, it's an extremely simple game in premise. You take a gun, you shoot dead the opposition and don't die yourself. In effect, it's pick up and play, hell you can kill anyone with a single shot using the pistol! However, once you get a group of people together who have mastered tactics, make use of voice communication, flanking, flash bangs, you've got a hardcore competition on your hands.

No closing summary.