Rodin's "The Thinker." Courtesy of innoxiuss; edited by Level Up

The Idea: Gamers contain multitudes. Why doesn't our language reflect that?

The Thinker: Mitch Krpata

The Source: Insult Swordfighting

The Quote: The reason "hardcore" and "casual" fail as classifications for gamers is because each of those classifications contains contradictory meanings.

Essentially, when you call someone a hardcore gamer, you are saying nothing about what type of games they like to play, or the manner in which they like to play those games. You are simply saying that this guy seems to really like games. Is that helpful to anybody? If anything, it leads to the sorts of pissing matches that inevitably overwhelm online game discussion. That designation becomes a badge of honor to be defended instead of what it should be--a simple, objective term with no value judgments attached.

There's no reason a Tourist can't be "hardcore"--no reason he can't be the sort to simply rip through one game after another in search of unique experiences. No reason a Perfectionist can't be "casual," and simply try to master, say, Wii Carnival Games. A Wholesale Player may still want linear, narrative games like Okami, and a Premium Player might be getting his money's worth with quick sessions of the latest Tetris. Who in that group is the casual player? Who is the hardcore player?

So if there is no easy or quick way to combine these questions of taste and value, maybe that's a blessing in disguise. Maybe that means we can stop stereotyping ourselves and broaden the conversation. We gamers contain multitudes. It's time we realized it.

The Reaction: We thought we had made a genuine contribution to the never-ending discussion of videogames when we coined the term "hardcasual." But Krpata goes much, much further. In 11 brief, provocative posts collected under the heading "A New Taxonomy of Gamers," he eloquently argues that we should unpack the assumptions built into the overly broad terms "hardcore" and "casual." Instead, he says, we need to evaluate our tastes in videogames along multiple axes that are more precise, such as:

• intention: "skill players" versus "tourists"
• mastery: "completists" versus "perfectionists"
  
• duration: "good and too short" versus "good and too long"
• time available to play: "wholesale players" versus "premium players"
  

Reading Krpata's terrific series a few weeks ago, it was clear that this kind of language could not only be of use to journalists and gamers, but also to developers themselves. We suspect some of them already know this instinctively. But by formalizing the use of such descriptors, they might get a better sense of the multiple audiences that their games might appeal to beyond the hardcore-casual dichotomy--if only they would design their games with multiple audiences in mind, as we discussed in this extensive but thought-provoking comment thread here. And with such market-expanding products as SingStar, Guitar Hero, Rock Band, Nintendo DS and the Wii available, the need to more precisely define and cater to a variety of gaming audiences will only grow.

The Verdict: Green light. Krpata has provided an excellent start at more properly defining the range of people who play games. And we've always secretly loved the word "taxonomy."

Are "hardcore" and "casual" descriptive enough for you, or do you agree with Krpata that more precise terminology is needed? Better yet, what alternative terms or categories would you propose? Hit us back in the comments.