360: What to get?

[Asher]

It's been done.

[snoopy369]

I think that I'll offer a third definition of 'hardcore' gamer. I think I wouldn't define it by the total hours of gaming (as my gut says someone who plays solitaire 40 hours a week isn't a hardcore gamer, and similarly for someone who plays Cooking Mama 40 hours a week), nor by their abilities at their games (as I'm not particularly good at any of the games I play, but I define myself as a hardcore gamer, or at least borderline), but by the style of their gaming.

Hardcore gamer can refer to two things, after all:
1. A player who is Hardcore in their gaming
2. A player who plays Hardcore games

just like a Strategy Gamer is usually not someone who is strategic in their gaming, but someone who plays strategy games.

Thus, a hardcore gamer is someone who is a gamer (someone who plays games reasonably frequently) who plays primarily 'hardcore' games (which I'd define as games that require some amount skill to play, rather than 'casual' games that are just timewasters which require little or no skill). I'm not sure if that's an adequate definition or not, but it's in the right direction anyway.

This is distinct from Spikey, because I'm not suggesting that a hardcore gamer actually HAVE skill. I'm suggesting it is the games the player plays that define hardcore, not the player himself. I think in the MSM uses the word that way (referring to a 'hardcore gamer' as someone who plays FPS, RTS, RPG, etc. type games, and specifically excluding people who play Solitaire, Cooking Mama, and other 'casual' games).

[Asher]

The issue is not how do you define hardcore gamers, but how do you define casual gamers. You are defining hardcore as not casual, which is a fallacy.

[snoopy369]

I define casual gamers similarly as "people who play games of a casual nature", e.g. games where relatively little skill is involved, and have a 'relaxing' nature to them. ('Relaxing', as in the game is not a thinking game, or a fast-paced action game, but relaxes the mind. Chess, for example, is not a Casual game, but Solitaire generally is (for certain values of Solitaire), and Cooking Mama certainly is. Some RPGs could be suggested as 'casual' games by this definition, and I probably wouldn't argue with that, though it is a weakness of this definition.)

[Asher]

I accept your apology.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Asher
The long and short of it was DrSpike was wrong to correct me.

The long and short of it is that despite your computer science fuelled tendency to need the world to be black and white, there is some room for interpretation. And the bulk of people that have expressed views have supported my more nuanced definition over your overly simplistic one.

It's also the case that we need to go back to what started this, which was my (tongue in cheek) proposition that there was little difference between you and the Wii casual gamers you always claim you despise.

You disagreed, but actually if one takes your definition to be accurate it's a pretty sound claim - as long as there are people that play their Wii (any games whatsoever, remember) for the same amount you play your consoles. This would appear to be an extensive group.

So either way, even if you choose not to concede the definitional point, through your attempts to shore up your shaky debating position you have forever aligned yourself in spirit with a group you regard as dangerous (from a gaming perspective) and with contempt.

This is a delicious irony, albeit not one I would expect someone with your background and training to truly appreciate.

[DarkCloud]

I define casual gamers similarly as "people who play games of a casual nature", e.g. games where relatively little skill is involved, and have a 'relaxing' nature to them. ('Relaxing', as in the game is not a thinking game, or a fast-paced action game, but relaxes the mind. Chess, for example, is not a Casual game, but Solitaire generally is (for certain values of Solitaire), and Cooking Mama certainly is. Some RPGs could be suggested as 'casual' games by this definition, and I probably wouldn't argue with that, though it is a weakness of this definition.)

?
Well, then Playing Sandbox mode in Rollercoaster tycoon would be a Casual Gamer.

A Casual gamer would play to enjoy the feel and would only make use of limited planning and prodigious use of cheats

But playing Dwarf Fortress, for contrast would involve playing to overcome a challenge.

This would require a good deal of thinking and planning.

Therefore, that would be a hardcore gamer by your definition, correct?

[Asher]

I didn't read either DrSpike or DarkCloud's posts, but I'm going to assume they are also concessions. I accept.

[Felch]

People who spend their free time debating the definition of hardcore versus casual gaming

As far as the topic for the thread goes, get either CoD 4 or Halo 3. I prefer CoD, since I enjoy the more realistic combat of hiding in shadows over glowing suits of magical space armor, but they're both good. Unless you're really into shooters you don't need both.

Lately I've been playing Operation Darkness. It's a tactical RPG, about vampire nazis and such, with craptastic camera and controls. But it's been fun. If you're looking for strategy it's something you might want to check out.

Fallout 3 is coming. That will kick ass.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Asher
I didn't read either DrSpike or DarkCloud's posts, but I'm going to assume they are also concessions. I accept.

This is the closest Asher's ever come to admitting he is wrong. Everyone remember where they were.

[Asher]

Only one concession is needed, DrSpike. Presumably you are spamming.

The question is, are you a hardcore spammer or a casual spammer? I'm going to say you're a hardcore spammer because you choose to spam me.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Felch
People who spend their free time debating the definition of hardcore versus casual gaming

agreed. Drspike is right. asher is being asher.

bottom line is it still doesn't matter.

[Asher]

The concept of hardcore gamers playing 1 hour a week while casual gamers play 40 hours a week is humourous to me and any person with an IQ above 40 (note: this does not include people who spend 39 hours a week trolling Starcraft forums for strategy in 2008).

[Zero]

i repeat. I am not a hardcore gamer.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Felch


As far as the topic for the thread goes, get either CoD 4 or Halo 3. I prefer CoD, since I enjoy the more realistic combat of hiding in shadows over glowing suits of magical space armor, but they're both good. Unless you're really into shooters you don't need both.

BAH realism. (starts another debate and runs~~~~~~)