I like how people make post assuming that the entire mmo community is as unhappy as they are. I for one am very happy with the state of MMOs and I'm currently enjoying myself very much playing a game that has become the scapegoat as to why most players on this site are not happy.
I'm really sick of hearing about the good old days of mmos. I started with Shadowbane myself.. And while I have very fond memories of that game, let's be honest. If you weren't fighting, it was boring as shit. There was. Nothing else to do but grind. I mean, you could always do some city management and f with the vendors and prices for 5 mins.. But then it was back to grinding for hours. The concept of territory in that fame was way ahead of it's time. And while I would prefer a game that let's guilds have physical non-instanced cites, I wouldn't go back to a game with nothing to do but grind. I remember right before we quit, roaming around with a group of guildmates, looking for some folks to kill for HOURS. Cause there was LITERALLY nothing else to do.
On that note, DAOC is still running!!! If it was so damn good, why aren't the servers being overrun with all of you nostalgic players of old? I know why... And so do you...
When I was young and growing up and interested in computers everyone thought I was a geek, uncool, a nerd...basically thought they were too cool for it all (I think they were just too dumb to try and understand these things).
Now everything has been dumbed down enough for these idiots to understand that they now think they are cool. Because they now understand how computers and games work and can play them and have fun they play them for the social kudos that goes with them.
Reality is...they are still dumb and the genre has dumbed down enough so the general population can play the games. It just so happens that there are a lot of people now in the catchment area!
How much you achieve is a function of the rewards they give you for completing a task, and the length of the task. The length of the task is partly determined by how hard it is. If you fail, you have to try again. If you keep missing your window to hit an enemy in dark souls, it'll take longer. The difficulty affects the length of tasks so it affects how much you can achieve in a short amount of time.
Achievement, rewards and meaningfull progress are all different, they can be related, they can be totally different.
The length of a task and the difficulty of the task are different, they can be related and they can be totally different. You can have very difficult tasks done in short periods of time, you can have very difficult tasks that take a long time. You can have easy tasks that take a long time and easy tasks that take a short time.
Most difficult and long term tasks are broken up into smaller tasks that don't take as long, they can and are done in short peridos of time.
I've actually never seen a very difficult, long term quest or task or anything actually in game or in RL, that did not allow me to do meaningfull chunks in short periods of time.
What is meaningful progression to you if it isn't based on finishing some task or achieving something. Both of those things are going to be related to difficulty. If you have 2 games that have the same amount of progression except one is harder, the harder one is going to take longer to achieve the same thing.
Originally posted by Holophonist How much you achieve is a function of the rewards they give you for completing a task, and the length of the task. The length of the task is partly determined by how hard it is. If you fail, you have to try again. If you keep missing your window to hit an enemy in dark souls, it'll take longer. The difficulty affects the length of tasks so it affects how much you can achieve in a short amount of time.
So it's subjective if something is hardcore or not? You can't actually label a game hardcore.
You wouldn't label DS a hardcore game if you breezed through it without a problem. Even then you can still be hardcore with DS by just playing it over and over as you find it fun.
Fun is what has caused me to be hardcore as a non-competitive player.
A competitive player, if you want to be the best at SC2 your gonna have to play hardcore, no choice.
If your not competitive you can still play it casual.
A better player (more skilled) will find games to be less hardcore than an inferior player. But we're not comparing players, we're comparing games. That skilled player will find harder games to be more hardcore than easier games.
A better player (more skilled) will find games to be less hard than an inferior player. But we're not comparing players, we're comparing games. That skilled player will find harder games to be more hard than easier games.
Fixed for you. Hardcore isn't a synonym for hard you know.
How much you achieve is a function of the rewards they give you for completing a task, and the length of the task. The length of the task is partly determined by how hard it is. If you fail, you have to try again. If you keep missing your window to hit an enemy in dark souls, it'll take longer. The difficulty affects the length of tasks so it affects how much you can achieve in a short amount of time.
Achievement, rewards and meaningfull progress are all different, they can be related, they can be totally different.
The length of a task and the difficulty of the task are different, they can be related and they can be totally different. You can have very difficult tasks done in short periods of time, you can have very difficult tasks that take a long time. You can have easy tasks that take a long time and easy tasks that take a short time.
Most difficult and long term tasks are broken up into smaller tasks that don't take as long, they can and are done in short peridos of time.
I've actually never seen a very difficult, long term quest or task or anything actually in game or in RL, that did not allow me to do meaningfull chunks in short periods of time.
What is meaningful progression to you if it isn't based on finishing some task or achieving something. Both of those things are going to be related to difficulty. If you have 2 games that have the same amount of progression except one is harder, the harder one is going to take longer to achieve the same thing.
No they don't need to relate to difficulty.
Unfortunately as with all things there does come a point of subjectivity. Meaningfull progression is that point.
I believe most people would define it as how much progress they can make on a particular goal, not that they need to finish that goal.
E.g. a simple one. One stage of a quest (a multipart part, many hours logn quest) involves killing 10 of this animal. Killing 3, 5, 10 could be meaningull. If it takes me a half hour just to travel to the area where I could kill them, I would not call that meaningfull.
Neither one of those issues needs to be hard, one is more meaningfull than the other. They could be hard, but they may not be. Making the mobs harder, or the travel harder wouldn't make it more or less meaningfull.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
How much you achieve is a function of the rewards they give you for completing a task, and the length of the task. The length of the task is partly determined by how hard it is. If you fail, you have to try again. If you keep missing your window to hit an enemy in dark souls, it'll take longer. The difficulty affects the length of tasks so it affects how much you can achieve in a short amount of time.
So it's subjective if something is hardcore or not? You can't actually label a game hardcore.
You wouldn't label DS a hardcore game if you breezed through it without a problem. Even then you can still be hardcore with DS by just playing it over and over as you find it fun.
Fun is what has caused me to be hardcore as a non-competitive player.
A competitive player, if you want to be the best at SC2 your gonna have to play hardcore, no choice.
If your not competitive you can still play it casual.
A better player (more skilled) will find games to be less hardcore than an inferior player. But we're not comparing players, we're comparing games. That skilled player will find harder games to be more hardcore than easier games.
Maybe, but as has been pointed out. Hardcore does not mean hard. So a more skilled player may find games easier, they may play them just as long, or as little though.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
A better player (more skilled) will find games to be less hard than an inferior player. But we're not comparing players, we're comparing games. That skilled player will find harder games to be more hard than easier games.
Fixed for you. Hardcore isn't a synonym for hard you know.
And did you know that the whole point of this discussion is to define the term that you're just arbitrarily defining?
Hardcore players will tend to play harder games. It's evident everywhere you look. The people who play WoW hardcore are raiding and pvping. The people who play difficult games like stacraft are known for playing them for a long time and for long sessions. Darkfall is mechanically harder than most MMOs and it houses a large proportion of hardcore players.
A better player (more skilled) will find games to be less hard than an inferior player. But we're not comparing players, we're comparing games. That skilled player will find harder games to be more hard than easier games.
Fixed for you. Hardcore isn't a synonym for hard you know.
And did you know that the whole point of this discussion is to define the term that you're just arbitrarily defining?
Hardcore players will tend to play harder games. It's evident everywhere you look. The people who play WoW hardcore are raiding and pvping. The people who play difficult games like stacraft are known for playing them for a long time and for long sessions. Darkfall is mechanically harder than most MMOs and it houses a large proportion of hardcore players.
Hardcore players does not necessary play harder games, that is not entirely true.
I am not 100% sure, but Hardcore players tend to play games which with that hardwork and dedication they can achieve above what others can not. If a game offers that possibility, then Hardcore players will work at it to get to that 1%
Regardless if the game is Hard or Easy.
Now, not saying you are entirely wrong, but Harder games does tend to make it harder for the rest of the population of gamers to challenge their new superior position, but in Easier games, a lot of Hardcore players tend to outshine the rest quicker and easier and the challenge are constant. Not many enjoys the constant fear of their #1 position get taken down, but some do and work even harder to get back their #1 when they get dethroned.
But back to topic, the older games wasn't always better, but their direction was. Not saying that Moder games are bad, they do have better graphics, better mechanics and less time consuming grind. But what is missing the direction, current MMO does not know what they want to be. They are a mixture of everything.
That is what the current Generation of gamers doesn't understand, when MMO was an substitution to Pen and Paper RPG we know what we were playing, but now in MMO, I don't know if I am playing an SRPG, FPS , Chat Room...etc Its everything but not MMORPG.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
A better player (more skilled) will find games to be less hard than an inferior player. But we're not comparing players, we're comparing games. That skilled player will find harder games to be more hard than easier games.
Fixed for you. Hardcore isn't a synonym for hard you know.
And did you know that the whole point of this discussion is to define the term that you're just arbitrarily defining?
Hardcore players will tend to play harder games. It's evident everywhere you look. The people who play WoW hardcore are raiding and pvping. The people who play difficult games like stacraft are known for playing them for a long time and for long sessions. Darkfall is mechanically harder than most MMOs and it houses a large proportion of hardcore players.
Starcraft is only difficult dependent on who your playing against.
Starcrafts games mechanics are not difficult to understand. (Again totally subjective, someone may find them hard.) They are very casual friendly.
You can have crap hardcore players. You can have hardcore Minecraft players, a game with no goal/no end.
Name me one game that is hardcore only and I bet you it isn't.
Hardcore within gaming has always meant what I've been saying. Google it. Your the one trying to redefine a meaning. Good luck, hope your hardcore enough.
Originally posted by immodium Originally posted by HolophonistA better player (more skilled) will find games to be less hard than an inferior player. But we're not comparing players, we're comparing games. That skilled player will find harder games to be more hard than easier games.
Fixed for you. Hardcore isn't a synonym for hard you know.
Hardcore as a descriptor for video games is non-standard, but it can certainly be done. It can be applied to music, which is a thing, so applying it to video games isn't outrageous.
Comparing Dark Souls and Farmville, Dark Souls could be called 'hardcore' because the game is much more stunning visually, and much harder to play compared to most of games in the same grouping of video games, even if that grouping is All Video Games. Farmville, in this scenario, would be called a 'casual' game.
The most common usage, and the usage for which the term exists is for comparing people. A player can be 'hardcore' and another player can be 'casual', even if the game they are both playing is 'casual', like Farmville.
The thing here is that when talking about players, difficulty is not relevant. It doesn't matter if the activity is Badminton or MMA Fighting. Hardcore describes the players relative to other players in the same group, not the activity.
Immodium is right in that a game will be more or less difficult depending on the skill of the player. Holophonist is right in using the term 'hardcore' to describe some games, even if that descriptor is somewhat subjective and not applied uniformly.
My judgement is final. There will be no appeals.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Hardcore as a descriptor for video games is non-standard, but it can certainly be done. It can be applied to music, which is a thing, so applying it to video games isn't outrageous.
Actually I was gonna bring up a porn analogy. You are right in that regard. Hardcore can actually mean a number of things.
I suppose a game can be classed more hardcore if the graphics are more superior. Isn't it all subjective though?
Actually games that require some sort of body stimuli I will call hardcore. Exercise is pretty hardcore for me.
Originally posted by HolophonistA better player (more skilled) will find games to be less hard than an inferior player. But we're not comparing players, we're comparing games. That skilled player will find harder games to be more hard than easier games.
Fixed for you. Hardcore isn't a synonym for hard you know.
Hardcore as a descriptor for video games is non-standard, but it can certainly be done. It can be applied to music, which is a thing, so applying it to video games isn't outrageous.
Comparing Dark Souls and Farmville, Dark Souls could be called 'hardcore' because the game is much more stunning visually, and much harder to play compared to most of games in the same grouping of video games, even if that grouping is All Video Games. Farmville, in this scenario, would be called a 'casual' game.
The most common usage, and the usage for which the term exists is for comparing people. A player can be 'hardcore' and another player can be 'casual', even if the game they are both playing is 'casual', like Farmville.
The thing here is that when talking about players, difficulty is not relevant. It doesn't matter if the activity is Badminton or MMA Fighting. Hardcore describes the players relative to other players in the same group, not the activity.
Immodium is right in that a game will be more or less difficult depending on the skill of the player. Holophonist is right in using the term 'hardcore' to describe some games, even if that descriptor is somewhat subjective and not applied uniformly.
My judgement is final. There will be no appeals.
Hear hear, and with that I have nothing left to say. New topic please
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
How much you achieve is a function of the rewards they give you for completing a task, and the length of the task. The length of the task is partly determined by how hard it is. If you fail, you have to try again. If you keep missing your window to hit an enemy in dark souls, it'll take longer. The difficulty affects the length of tasks so it affects how much you can achieve in a short amount of time.
So it's subjective if something is hardcore or not? You can't actually label a game hardcore.
You wouldn't label DS a hardcore game if you breezed through it without a problem. Even then you can still be hardcore with DS by just playing it over and over as you find it fun.
Fun is what has caused me to be hardcore as a non-competitive player.
A competitive player, if you want to be the best at SC2 your gonna have to play hardcore, no choice.
If your not competitive you can still play it casual.
A better player (more skilled) will find games to be less hardcore than an inferior player. But we're not comparing players, we're comparing games. That skilled player will find harder games to be more hardcore than easier games.
Maybe, but as has been pointed out. Hardcore does not mean hard. So a more skilled player may find games easier, they may play them just as long, or as little though.
As has been pointed out... you do realize this discussion is about what the term means, right? I'm not sure why you guys insist on wasting time on this "I'm right because I'm right" attitude.
How much you achieve is a function of the rewards they give you for completing a task, and the length of the task. The length of the task is partly determined by how hard it is. If you fail, you have to try again. If you keep missing your window to hit an enemy in dark souls, it'll take longer. The difficulty affects the length of tasks so it affects how much you can achieve in a short amount of time.
Achievement, rewards and meaningfull progress are all different, they can be related, they can be totally different.
The length of a task and the difficulty of the task are different, they can be related and they can be totally different. You can have very difficult tasks done in short periods of time, you can have very difficult tasks that take a long time. You can have easy tasks that take a long time and easy tasks that take a short time.
Most difficult and long term tasks are broken up into smaller tasks that don't take as long, they can and are done in short peridos of time.
I've actually never seen a very difficult, long term quest or task or anything actually in game or in RL, that did not allow me to do meaningfull chunks in short periods of time.
What is meaningful progression to you if it isn't based on finishing some task or achieving something. Both of those things are going to be related to difficulty. If you have 2 games that have the same amount of progression except one is harder, the harder one is going to take longer to achieve the same thing.
No they don't need to relate to difficulty.
Unfortunately as with all things there does come a point of subjectivity. Meaningfull progression is that point.
I believe most people would define it as how much progress they can make on a particular goal, not that they need to finish that goal.
E.g. a simple one. One stage of a quest (a multipart part, many hours logn quest) involves killing 10 of this animal. Killing 3, 5, 10 could be meaningull. If it takes me a half hour just to travel to the area where I could kill them, I would not call that meaningfull.
Neither one of those issues needs to be hard, one is more meaningfull than the other. They could be hard, but they may not be. Making the mobs harder, or the travel harder wouldn't make it more or less meaningfull.
Your whole argument is just getting more and more confused. So traveling to the area isn't considered meaningful because......? If the goal is to travel to an area and kill 10 things, that's the goal.
And it's not about what *needs* to be hard, it's about the fact that the difficulty will be a factor in determining how much you get done in a certain amount of time, which is YOUR definition of casual friendly.
By the way, all of this has been completely forgetting the fact that you're totally and completely using the term incorrectly. We went through this last night with the definition of the word casual. You tried to make the case that irregularity was related to time and so irregularity (being part of one of the definitions of casual) supported your argument that it was about the length of play sessions. But you've never explained how irregularity has anything to do with length of play session. No definition of the word casual has anything to do with YOUR definition of casual friendly.
But even assuming your definition, you're still wrong. If it's merely a description of how much you can get done in a given play session, that definition depends greatly on how difficult the task is. If you're given the task of killing 10 deer, the speed at which you complete that task is going to depend on how difficult it is to kill a deer. How is this hard?
Why should the "new generation" understand anything about things they never experienced? You're in their world, they're not in yours. The current crop is the current crop, tendency is going to be based on the norm today, just as taste will depend on today's experiences.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
A better player (more skilled) will find games to be less hard than an inferior player. But we're not comparing players, we're comparing games. That skilled player will find harder games to be more hard than easier games.
Fixed for you. Hardcore isn't a synonym for hard you know.
And did you know that the whole point of this discussion is to define the term that you're just arbitrarily defining?
Hardcore players will tend to play harder games. It's evident everywhere you look. The people who play WoW hardcore are raiding and pvping. The people who play difficult games like stacraft are known for playing them for a long time and for long sessions. Darkfall is mechanically harder than most MMOs and it houses a large proportion of hardcore players.
Starcraft is only difficult dependent on who your playing against.
Starcrafts games mechanics are not difficult to understand. (Again totally subjective, someone may find them hard.) They are very casual friendly.
You can have crap hardcore players. You can have hardcore Minecraft players, a game with no goal/no end.
Name me one game that is hardcore only and I bet you it isn't.
Hardcore within gaming has always meant what I've been saying. Google it. Your the one trying to redefine a meaning. Good luck, hope your hardcore enough.
You haven't responded to what I said. The people who are playing the mechanically difficult games are the ones who are typically considered "hardcore." That's not a coincidence.
Your rebuttal is seriously that SC2 isn't considered a mechanically difficult game? Well you're wrong. Winning a game is dependent on your opponent, playing well is NOT. You can be in a match completely by yourself and I will be able to point out dozens of mistakes that you're making. There are objectively good things to do in that game, and they're difficult to pull off. It has nothing to do with whether or not you win the game, that's the separate question.
A better player (more skilled) will find games to be less hard than an inferior player. But we're not comparing players, we're comparing games. That skilled player will find harder games to be more hard than easier games.
Fixed for you. Hardcore isn't a synonym for hard you know.
And did you know that the whole point of this discussion is to define the term that you're just arbitrarily defining?
Hardcore players will tend to play harder games. It's evident everywhere you look. The people who play WoW hardcore are raiding and pvping. The people who play difficult games like stacraft are known for playing them for a long time and for long sessions. Darkfall is mechanically harder than most MMOs and it houses a large proportion of hardcore players.
Hardcore players does not necessary play harder games, that is not entirely true.
I am not 100% sure, but Hardcore players tend to play games which with that hardwork and dedication they can achieve above what others can not. If a game offers that possibility, then Hardcore players will work at it to get to that 1%
Regardless if the game is Hard or Easy.
Hardwork and dedication at what? Getting better at the game. You have more of an opportunity to outplay somebody in a game that has a high skill cap; in a game that is difficult. Again, hardcore players tend to play more difficult games. So you can deduce that casual players tend to play easier games. So a "casual friendly" game will TEND to be easier. It doesn't mean all casual players are noobs who suck at videogames, but it does mean that if you're making a game that is targeting casual players, you're not going to want it to be super difficult.
A better player (more skilled) will find games to be less hard than an inferior player. But we're not comparing players, we're comparing games. That skilled player will find harder games to be more hard than easier games.
Fixed for you. Hardcore isn't a synonym for hard you know.
And did you know that the whole point of this discussion is to define the term that you're just arbitrarily defining?
Hardcore players will tend to play harder games. It's evident everywhere you look. The people who play WoW hardcore are raiding and pvping. The people who play difficult games like stacraft are known for playing them for a long time and for long sessions. Darkfall is mechanically harder than most MMOs and it houses a large proportion of hardcore players.
Starcraft is only difficult dependent on who your playing against.
Starcrafts games mechanics are not difficult to understand. (Again totally subjective, someone may find them hard.) They are very casual friendly.
You can have crap hardcore players. You can have hardcore Minecraft players, a game with no goal/no end.
Name me one game that is hardcore only and I bet you it isn't.
Hardcore within gaming has always meant what I've been saying. Google it. Your the one trying to redefine a meaning. Good luck, hope your hardcore enough.
You haven't responded to what I said. The people who are playing the mechanically difficult games are the ones who are typically considered "hardcore." That's not a coincidence.
Your rebuttal is seriously that SC2 isn't considered a mechanically difficult game? Well you're wrong. Winning a game is dependent on your opponent, playing well is NOT. You can be in a match completely by yourself and I will be able to point out dozens of mistakes that you're making. There are objectively good things to do in that game, and they're difficult to pull off. It has nothing to do with whether or not you win the game, that's the separate question.
The only people who call those type of players hardcore obviously don't know what the word means and need re-educating.
Originally posted by HolophonistA better player (more skilled) will find games to be less hard than an inferior player. But we're not comparing players, we're comparing games. That skilled player will find harder games to be more hard than easier games.
Fixed for you. Hardcore isn't a synonym for hard you know.
Hardcore as a descriptor for video games is non-standard, but it can certainly be done. It can be applied to music, which is a thing, so applying it to video games isn't outrageous.
Comparing Dark Souls and Farmville, Dark Souls could be called 'hardcore' because the game is much more stunning visually, and much harder to play compared to most of games in the same grouping of video games, even if that grouping is All Video Games. Farmville, in this scenario, would be called a 'casual' game.
The most common usage, and the usage for which the term exists is for comparing people. A player can be 'hardcore' and another player can be 'casual', even if the game they are both playing is 'casual', like Farmville.
The thing here is that when talking about players, difficulty is not relevant. It doesn't matter if the activity is Badminton or MMA Fighting. Hardcore describes the players relative to other players in the same group, not the activity.
Immodium is right in that a game will be more or less difficult depending on the skill of the player. Holophonist is right in using the term 'hardcore' to describe some games, even if that descriptor is somewhat subjective and not applied uniformly.
My judgement is final. There will be no appeals.
By now you must realize how controlling I am in arguments so if you think I'm going to let it go at that.... well then I'll have to readjust my respect for you.
Clarification: I don't disagree (nor have I in the past) that how difficult a game is will depend on the skill of the player. This is intuitive. To me this whole thing is about whether or not the term "casual friendliness" is related to difficulty. I say it is. I say that if you're making a game designed towards casual players, it's probably going to be on average easier and, more importantly, more forgiving. The ability to jump in and out of play sessions is also important, but that's not the only thing at play. That's where Venge and I differ. He says the only thing that matters is length of play session. I say a number of factors determine how casual friendly a game is.
A better player (more skilled) will find games to be less hard than an inferior player. But we're not comparing players, we're comparing games. That skilled player will find harder games to be more hard than easier games.
Fixed for you. Hardcore isn't a synonym for hard you know.
And did you know that the whole point of this discussion is to define the term that you're just arbitrarily defining?
Hardcore players will tend to play harder games. It's evident everywhere you look. The people who play WoW hardcore are raiding and pvping. The people who play difficult games like stacraft are known for playing them for a long time and for long sessions. Darkfall is mechanically harder than most MMOs and it houses a large proportion of hardcore players.
Starcraft is only difficult dependent on who your playing against.
Starcrafts games mechanics are not difficult to understand. (Again totally subjective, someone may find them hard.) They are very casual friendly.
You can have crap hardcore players. You can have hardcore Minecraft players, a game with no goal/no end.
Name me one game that is hardcore only and I bet you it isn't.
Hardcore within gaming has always meant what I've been saying. Google it. Your the one trying to redefine a meaning. Good luck, hope your hardcore enough.
You haven't responded to what I said. The people who are playing the mechanically difficult games are the ones who are typically considered "hardcore." That's not a coincidence.
Your rebuttal is seriously that SC2 isn't considered a mechanically difficult game? Well you're wrong. Winning a game is dependent on your opponent, playing well is NOT. You can be in a match completely by yourself and I will be able to point out dozens of mistakes that you're making. There are objectively good things to do in that game, and they're difficult to pull off. It has nothing to do with whether or not you win the game, that's the separate question.
The only people who call those type of players hardcore obviously don't know what the word means and need re-educating.
No response to the SC2 thing? This is why arguing on the internet is pointless.
A better player (more skilled) will find games to be less hard than an inferior player. But we're not comparing players, we're comparing games. That skilled player will find harder games to be more hard than easier games.
Fixed for you. Hardcore isn't a synonym for hard you know.
And did you know that the whole point of this discussion is to define the term that you're just arbitrarily defining?
Hardcore players will tend to play harder games. It's evident everywhere you look. The people who play WoW hardcore are raiding and pvping. The people who play difficult games like stacraft are known for playing them for a long time and for long sessions. Darkfall is mechanically harder than most MMOs and it houses a large proportion of hardcore players.
Hardcore players does not necessary play harder games, that is not entirely true.
I am not 100% sure, but Hardcore players tend to play games which with that hardwork and dedication they can achieve above what others can not. If a game offers that possibility, then Hardcore players will work at it to get to that 1%
Regardless if the game is Hard or Easy.
Hardwork and dedication at what? Getting better at the game. You have more of an opportunity to outplay somebody in a game that has a high skill cap; in a game that is difficult. Again, hardcore players tend to play more difficult games. So you can deduce that casual players tend to play easier games. So a "casual friendly" game will TEND to be easier. It doesn't mean all casual players are noobs who suck at videogames, but it does mean that if you're making a game that is targeting casual players, you're not going to want it to be super difficult.
This whole statement is just false.
High skill cap does not equal difficult game.
Again, hardcore players tend to play more difficult games. This is an unsupported assumption.
So you can deduce that casual players tend to play easier games. This is an unsupported conclusion based on an unsupported assumption.
So a "casual friendly" game will TEND to be easier. This is an unsupported conclusion based on an unsupported assumption.
If your targeting casual players you will make your content, however hard it is, able to be broken down, or accomplished in shorter time periods.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
No response to the SC2 thing? This is why arguing on the internet is pointless.
There's nothing more to discuss. You find SC2 mechanics hard, I find it easy. SC2 is a casual game. Theres nothing more to discuss. Good luck however in your mission.
Hardwork and dedication at what? Getting better at the game. You have more of an opportunity to outplay somebody in a game that has a high skill cap; in a game that is difficult. Again, hardcore players tend to play more difficult games. So you can deduce that casual players tend to play easier games. So a "casual friendly" game will TEND to be easier. It doesn't mean all casual players are noobs who suck at videogames, but it does mean that if you're making a game that is targeting casual players, you're not going to want it to be super difficult.
I think you are generalizing a bit too much here. There are hardcore players of casual games too. Take a game like Bejeweled for example and you'll find there are hardcore enthusiasts who play that. I consider myself as hardcore as they come and I play casual games from time to time. Some hardcore gamers play a wide variety of genres while others stick to only a single genre or even game and play that exclusively. To clarify a Hardcore gamer to me is someone who plays 20 hours or more (probably closer to 40) a week on games.
I define Hardcore games a bit differently. To me Hardcore games aren't necessarily about difficulty (though by nature because they tend to be so unforgiving they are time consuming and can be regarded as difficult) but a game with very unforgiven mechanics. Things like Permadeath for example are Hardcore mechanics. Hardcore games cannot be played in short 5-30 minute sittings like Casual games and generally require 2+ hours of gametime to make any sort of minimal progress on. From a MMO perspective games like Eve, Ultima Online, and Darkfall are hardcore while games like SW:TOR and WoW are less so and some browser MMOs like Realm of the Mad God would be considered casual. As someone who considers themselves a hardcore gamer I actually prefer the in between over casual or hardcore, but that's just personal preference.
Comments
I'm really sick of hearing about the good old days of mmos. I started with Shadowbane myself.. And while I have very fond memories of that game, let's be honest. If you weren't fighting, it was boring as shit. There was. Nothing else to do but grind. I mean, you could always do some city management and f with the vendors and prices for 5 mins.. But then it was back to grinding for hours. The concept of territory in that fame was way ahead of it's time. And while I would prefer a game that let's guilds have physical non-instanced cites, I wouldn't go back to a game with nothing to do but grind. I remember right before we quit, roaming around with a group of guildmates, looking for some folks to kill for HOURS. Cause there was LITERALLY nothing else to do.
On that note, DAOC is still running!!! If it was so damn good, why aren't the servers being overrun with all of you nostalgic players of old? I know why... And so do you...
Can only really go on my experiences....
When I was young and growing up and interested in computers everyone thought I was a geek, uncool, a nerd...basically thought they were too cool for it all (I think they were just too dumb to try and understand these things).
Now everything has been dumbed down enough for these idiots to understand that they now think they are cool. Because they now understand how computers and games work and can play them and have fun they play them for the social kudos that goes with them.
Reality is...they are still dumb and the genre has dumbed down enough so the general population can play the games. It just so happens that there are a lot of people now in the catchment area!
How much you achieve is a function of the rewards they give you for completing a task, and the length of the task. The length of the task is partly determined by how hard it is. If you fail, you have to try again. If you keep missing your window to hit an enemy in dark souls, it'll take longer. The difficulty affects the length of tasks so it affects how much you can achieve in a short amount of time.Achievement, rewards and meaningfull progress are all different, they can be related, they can be totally different.
The length of a task and the difficulty of the task are different, they can be related and they can be totally different. You can have very difficult tasks done in short periods of time, you can have very difficult tasks that take a long time. You can have easy tasks that take a long time and easy tasks that take a short time.
Most difficult and long term tasks are broken up into smaller tasks that don't take as long, they can and are done in short peridos of time.
I've actually never seen a very difficult, long term quest or task or anything actually in game or in RL, that did not allow me to do meaningfull chunks in short periods of time.
What is meaningful progression to you if it isn't based on finishing some task or achieving something. Both of those things are going to be related to difficulty. If you have 2 games that have the same amount of progression except one is harder, the harder one is going to take longer to achieve the same thing.So it's subjective if something is hardcore or not? You can't actually label a game hardcore.
You wouldn't label DS a hardcore game if you breezed through it without a problem. Even then you can still be hardcore with DS by just playing it over and over as you find it fun.
Fun is what has caused me to be hardcore as a non-competitive player.
A competitive player, if you want to be the best at SC2 your gonna have to play hardcore, no choice.
If your not competitive you can still play it casual.
A better player (more skilled) will find games to be less hardcore than an inferior player. But we're not comparing players, we're comparing games. That skilled player will find harder games to be more hardcore than easier games.Fixed for you. Hardcore isn't a synonym for hard you know.
No they don't need to relate to difficulty.
Unfortunately as with all things there does come a point of subjectivity. Meaningfull progression is that point.
I believe most people would define it as how much progress they can make on a particular goal, not that they need to finish that goal.
E.g. a simple one. One stage of a quest (a multipart part, many hours logn quest) involves killing 10 of this animal. Killing 3, 5, 10 could be meaningull. If it takes me a half hour just to travel to the area where I could kill them, I would not call that meaningfull.
Neither one of those issues needs to be hard, one is more meaningfull than the other. They could be hard, but they may not be. Making the mobs harder, or the travel harder wouldn't make it more or less meaningfull.
Maybe, but as has been pointed out. Hardcore does not mean hard. So a more skilled player may find games easier, they may play them just as long, or as little though.
Fixed for you. Hardcore isn't a synonym for hard you know.
And did you know that the whole point of this discussion is to define the term that you're just arbitrarily defining?Hardcore players will tend to play harder games. It's evident everywhere you look. The people who play WoW hardcore are raiding and pvping. The people who play difficult games like stacraft are known for playing them for a long time and for long sessions. Darkfall is mechanically harder than most MMOs and it houses a large proportion of hardcore players.
Hardcore players does not necessary play harder games, that is not entirely true.
I am not 100% sure, but Hardcore players tend to play games which with that hardwork and dedication they can achieve above what others can not. If a game offers that possibility, then Hardcore players will work at it to get to that 1%
Regardless if the game is Hard or Easy.
Now, not saying you are entirely wrong, but Harder games does tend to make it harder for the rest of the population of gamers to challenge their new superior position, but in Easier games, a lot of Hardcore players tend to outshine the rest quicker and easier and the challenge are constant. Not many enjoys the constant fear of their #1 position get taken down, but some do and work even harder to get back their #1 when they get dethroned.
But back to topic, the older games wasn't always better, but their direction was. Not saying that Moder games are bad, they do have better graphics, better mechanics and less time consuming grind. But what is missing the direction, current MMO does not know what they want to be. They are a mixture of everything.
That is what the current Generation of gamers doesn't understand, when MMO was an substitution to Pen and Paper RPG we know what we were playing, but now in MMO, I don't know if I am playing an SRPG, FPS , Chat Room...etc Its everything but not MMORPG.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
Starcraft is only difficult dependent on who your playing against.
Starcrafts games mechanics are not difficult to understand. (Again totally subjective, someone may find them hard.) They are very casual friendly.
You can have crap hardcore players. You can have hardcore Minecraft players, a game with no goal/no end.
Name me one game that is hardcore only and I bet you it isn't.
Hardcore within gaming has always meant what I've been saying. Google it. Your the one trying to redefine a meaning. Good luck, hope your hardcore enough.
Hardcore as a descriptor for video games is non-standard, but it can certainly be done. It can be applied to music, which is a thing, so applying it to video games isn't outrageous.
Comparing Dark Souls and Farmville, Dark Souls could be called 'hardcore' because the game is much more stunning visually, and much harder to play compared to most of games in the same grouping of video games, even if that grouping is All Video Games. Farmville, in this scenario, would be called a 'casual' game.
The most common usage, and the usage for which the term exists is for comparing people. A player can be 'hardcore' and another player can be 'casual', even if the game they are both playing is 'casual', like Farmville.
The thing here is that when talking about players, difficulty is not relevant. It doesn't matter if the activity is Badminton or MMA Fighting. Hardcore describes the players relative to other players in the same group, not the activity.
Immodium is right in that a game will be more or less difficult depending on the skill of the player. Holophonist is right in using the term 'hardcore' to describe some games, even if that descriptor is somewhat subjective and not applied uniformly.
My judgement is final. There will be no appeals.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Actually I was gonna bring up a porn analogy.
You are right in that regard. Hardcore can actually mean a number of things.
I suppose a game can be classed more hardcore if the graphics are more superior. Isn't it all subjective though?
Actually games that require some sort of body stimuli I will call hardcore. Exercise is pretty hardcore for me.
Hear hear, and with that I have nothing left to say. New topic please
As has been pointed out... you do realize this discussion is about what the term means, right? I'm not sure why you guys insist on wasting time on this "I'm right because I'm right" attitude.
Your whole argument is just getting more and more confused. So traveling to the area isn't considered meaningful because......? If the goal is to travel to an area and kill 10 things, that's the goal.
And it's not about what *needs* to be hard, it's about the fact that the difficulty will be a factor in determining how much you get done in a certain amount of time, which is YOUR definition of casual friendly.
By the way, all of this has been completely forgetting the fact that you're totally and completely using the term incorrectly. We went through this last night with the definition of the word casual. You tried to make the case that irregularity was related to time and so irregularity (being part of one of the definitions of casual) supported your argument that it was about the length of play sessions. But you've never explained how irregularity has anything to do with length of play session. No definition of the word casual has anything to do with YOUR definition of casual friendly.
But even assuming your definition, you're still wrong. If it's merely a description of how much you can get done in a given play session, that definition depends greatly on how difficult the task is. If you're given the task of killing 10 deer, the speed at which you complete that task is going to depend on how difficult it is to kill a deer. How is this hard?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You haven't responded to what I said. The people who are playing the mechanically difficult games are the ones who are typically considered "hardcore." That's not a coincidence.
Your rebuttal is seriously that SC2 isn't considered a mechanically difficult game? Well you're wrong. Winning a game is dependent on your opponent, playing well is NOT. You can be in a match completely by yourself and I will be able to point out dozens of mistakes that you're making. There are objectively good things to do in that game, and they're difficult to pull off. It has nothing to do with whether or not you win the game, that's the separate question.
Hardwork and dedication at what? Getting better at the game. You have more of an opportunity to outplay somebody in a game that has a high skill cap; in a game that is difficult. Again, hardcore players tend to play more difficult games. So you can deduce that casual players tend to play easier games. So a "casual friendly" game will TEND to be easier. It doesn't mean all casual players are noobs who suck at videogames, but it does mean that if you're making a game that is targeting casual players, you're not going to want it to be super difficult.
The only people who call those type of players hardcore obviously don't know what the word means and need re-educating.
By now you must realize how controlling I am in arguments so if you think I'm going to let it go at that.... well then I'll have to readjust my respect for you.
Clarification: I don't disagree (nor have I in the past) that how difficult a game is will depend on the skill of the player. This is intuitive. To me this whole thing is about whether or not the term "casual friendliness" is related to difficulty. I say it is. I say that if you're making a game designed towards casual players, it's probably going to be on average easier and, more importantly, more forgiving. The ability to jump in and out of play sessions is also important, but that's not the only thing at play. That's where Venge and I differ. He says the only thing that matters is length of play session. I say a number of factors determine how casual friendly a game is.
No response to the SC2 thing? This is why arguing on the internet is pointless.
This whole statement is just false.
High skill cap does not equal difficult game.
Again, hardcore players tend to play more difficult games. This is an unsupported assumption.
So you can deduce that casual players tend to play easier games. This is an unsupported conclusion based on an unsupported assumption.
So a "casual friendly" game will TEND to be easier. This is an unsupported conclusion based on an unsupported assumption.
If your targeting casual players you will make your content, however hard it is, able to be broken down, or accomplished in shorter time periods.
There's nothing more to discuss. You find SC2 mechanics hard, I find it easy. SC2 is a casual game. Theres nothing more to discuss. Good luck however in your mission.
I think you are generalizing a bit too much here. There are hardcore players of casual games too. Take a game like Bejeweled for example and you'll find there are hardcore enthusiasts who play that. I consider myself as hardcore as they come and I play casual games from time to time. Some hardcore gamers play a wide variety of genres while others stick to only a single genre or even game and play that exclusively. To clarify a Hardcore gamer to me is someone who plays 20 hours or more (probably closer to 40) a week on games.
I define Hardcore games a bit differently. To me Hardcore games aren't necessarily about difficulty (though by nature because they tend to be so unforgiving they are time consuming and can be regarded as difficult) but a game with very unforgiven mechanics. Things like Permadeath for example are Hardcore mechanics. Hardcore games cannot be played in short 5-30 minute sittings like Casual games and generally require 2+ hours of gametime to make any sort of minimal progress on. From a MMO perspective games like Eve, Ultima Online, and Darkfall are hardcore while games like SW:TOR and WoW are less so and some browser MMOs like Realm of the Mad God would be considered casual. As someone who considers themselves a hardcore gamer I actually prefer the in between over casual or hardcore, but that's just personal preference.
/laugh
The only way to win is stop replying to his circular arguments