I like to be referred to as a gaming enthusiast or hobbyist. Hardcore gamer just sounds extreme and juvenile trying to promote self importance. The term casual reinforces that self importance and seems to punish people for being employed, married or social. If I was to describe any element of gaming as 'hardcore' then it would be an over the top to the point of gratuitous focus on one game. I know a lot of 'hardcore' World of Warcraft players. Irrespective of how often their daily lives allows them to play games, I think using the term 'hardcore' in this instance illuminates the fact that these people play Warcraft a lot more than other games and the term hardcore has more meaning (and here I would class it as slang as opposed to a genuine term!). It can also be used to reference a skill or trick that is obviously acquired after a lot of play time. Countering 12 consecutive strikes in a beat em up might cause someone to say "That was pretty hardcore man." Here, hardcore is a compliment in recognition of someone's commitment and I fear people referring to themselves as hardcore is bathing in this praise with no merit usually. It is for others to say you are a genius, not proclaim it yourself as that is arrogance. Referring to a person that plays video games in general as hardcore is ambiguous and like I mentioned comes across as an elitist self referencing label. I thank you
It means different things to different people. The point being, in this way, it was used to say "people who play many different kinds of games and care about gaming more than the average person".
I think if Nintendo are to capture the Sony audience (which I hope to God they do not!) then it isn't about hardcore and casual markets. It's about story. Back of the box blurb for typical Sony game sounds like a film! That makes a certain type of audience happy. No mention of 'innovative combat system' or 'camera brings a new dimension to platforming'. Nah. Your typical Sony fan wants "Betrayed by his sister who he thought was dead, John must overcome all odds on his own and kill everyone who appears in the game, before time runs out". It leaves me always wondering what the bloody game plays like, but sells like hotcakes on their system (oh and it probably has a real soundtrack too!). I am not going to crusade saying these are not video games, because I would be wrong lol, but Sony do not sell their games as games. Nintendo do, because they try to innovate em all the time. And that is why I think they will always be relevant and no need to panic.
I never drive faster than I can see. Besides, it's all in the reflexes.
@Operative I don't hate him. But I'm beginning to question how fit he actually is to run nintendo in its current state, and no it's not because of how long nx reveal is taking
@GrailUK
Lol. I remember somebody else saying that a lot of games these days (let's face it, mostly on Sony and Microsoft consoles) feel like the producer/designer/whatever wished they were making a movie, not a game.
And I've read countless, countless posts on other sites where people LITERALLY stated something along the lines of: "I don't care if the gameplay is terrible, as long as the story is good."
Call me old school, but dang. I CANNOT share that sentiment. For me, if the gameplay is subpar, no matter how "amazing" the story, I just can't do it. I tried to drag myself through FF XIII - the story did NOT make it bearable for me. I couldn't finish Uncharted 1 because the gameplay was so dang clunky and repetitive with almost zero "fresh" moments. Games have often told stories, but the gameplay had to come first. Back in "the day," it was out of pure necessity: graphics weren't advanced enough to convey a lot of plotlines, so the gameplay had to be the addictive element. But I think we're losing the sense of the very word "game."
More and more, I'm feeling a pretty big disconnect with most gamers. And it seems like my only sanctuaries left are Nintendo (for their game philosophy), and PC (due to the sheer amount available, there are always games that appeal to everyone).
@GrailUK Huh? I have a PS4 and there exist very few of those games you mention. I'm not sure if I've ever seen a game exactly like that lol. It's actually more of the opposite. Most of last E3's conference was live demos for example; gameplay. I mean, yeah they hyped up the story in Uncharted 4, but in the end, the gameplay was good too; and we got plenty of gameplay demos of that game as well. If you could name a few of those game you're talking about, that would help, cause it looks like you're thinking of something completely different.
@rallydefault I hear you, and if I could thumb up your post I would. Once upon a time, it was about seeing what a video game could do...and the story was just an excuse to do it. Princess kidnapped or evil force needs to be defeated. Nowadays, there isn't so much what a video game can do (within limitations of a system), it's who has the sexiest Princess or the most epic evil force because inventing made up nonsense and making each iteration more and more lifelike is a lot easier than reinventing yourself by using creativity and imagination.
I never drive faster than I can see. Besides, it's all in the reflexes.
@Octane Like I said, I am not criticising them as games. More how they are marketed that Nintendo avoids.
"Joel and Ellie brought together by harsh circumstance must survive a brutal journey across the US in a dangerous post-pandemic world"
"Before he was a God he was a Man"
"An unprecedented story..." (This was Destiny's first selling point hahaha!)
etc etc - mean nothing gameplay wise but sell you on a story like a film.
Splatoon - "Shift shape, shift gear" The opposite. No story but hint at gameplay.
Mario 3D World - "Run, Jump in Worlds filled with fun." Again, no mention of Peach being taken or anything! HOW ON EARTH AM I MEANT TO KNOW WHAT THIS GAME IS ABOUT??? (LOL)
Edit* I apologise I missed the grand father of all film makers...I mean game creators.
"After waking up 5 years yada yada revenge yada yada" (I'm gonna get hate for that one lol)
@GrailUK Destiny is Activision (and a rubbish game anyway). Still I don't see how that is any different from ''Mario and his friends go on adventure to save the mushroom kingdom and defeat the koopa king Bowser''. I mean, I could argue that the Last of Us' text also points to the fact that the game is survival based. Does it really matter in the end? It's just a text on the back of a box; and then you're also focussing on a story-heavy game. Now compare that to Tearaway, Infamous Second Son, Gravity Rush, or even Bloodborne; and they all have these descriptive gameplay texts that you're talking about. I think you're just grasping at straws here. If you look long enough, you'll find what you want to see.
@Octane
He's not grasping at straws, I just don't think you're quite getting what he's saying, and I don't think you're really holding to a good definition of what "gameplay" even is. By "gameplay" we mean the "feel" of the game along with its actual routes of play: controls, the systems in place that guide character movement and combat, input options presented to the player, straight down to the responsiveness of menus, etc. It's the way Link "feels" in A Link Between Worlds when you guide him with the stick. The way swinging the sword feels so smooth. The way you can use items creatively to take on enemies. The mini games that ask you to play the game differently. All of that (and more) is gameplay.
The bottom line is that, yea, a lot of games are coming out and have been coming out that focus more on their plots rather than the gameplay.
The perfect example of this is Witcher III. All but its staunchest defenders admit that many elements of its actual gameplay are weak, most noticeably the combat. BUT, the game is still revered due to its excellent story and storytelling.
It's the perfect example, for me, of a divergence in viewpoints. I tend to enjoy Nintendo games because, generally, they concentrate more on fun gameplay rather than epic plots lines (they've said as much in numerous interviews). How long do you think Nintendo spent on making the "feeling" of Mario's movement in 3D World in contrast to the amount of time they spent crafting the story? Now ask yourself the same question for a game like Witcher III. Chances are you're going to come up with very different results (not necessarily opposite, just different).
Hopefully they make a big event to announce the NX, like the old Spaceworld with the Gamecube announcement.
I still remeber when they revealed the Wii U, it was underwhelming. Nothing that got the hype moving for the console, or that made journalists say "yeah, this is the next big thing".
Gamers in this thread might not like labels, but it is a fact that some gamers play video games much more often than other gamers. Those gamers play video games for hours, and video games that can play like movies will naturally appeal to those gamers more than mobile/portable or casual video games.
People don't fit into neat boxes like this. Especially those who are heavily invested in the media. Someone who is heavily invested in the media will almost by definition consume a wider variety of content. Which is why I've said a few times that the NX as a different platform for consumption will appeal to those consumers who consume the most. The dedicated, the "hardcore". This idea that there are casual consumers over in this one space enjoying one kind of content and more dedicated gamers in another space consuming something else? It's nonsense.
I know people who buy the most powerful console there is once in a blue moon. They then buy a couple of games for it that you'd probably describe as "core games". But that's it. I'd call these people casual gamers. At the same time I know people who buy into multiple systems and they buy and play games on all of those systems. But most of the time they'll just be playing "casual" games like Hearthstone, Candy Crush, Animal Crossing and so on. Yes there are also the classic stereotypes. The casual gamer who just has a tablet to play Candy Crush and does nothing else. The core gamer who gets the highest end machine and plays through huge RPGs and epic stories. But most people are none of these extremes.
Take me for example. This current generation I've got a Wii U a 3DS and a PC. In the past 5 years or so I've brought about 20 retail games on each of these and quite a few more indie releases. About one retail game a month on average. A lot of those games are releases like Bayonetta 2, GTA, Assassin's Creed, Tomb Raider etc. But if I looked up which games I spent most of the time playing? It'd probably be games like Animal Crossing, Splatoon and Rocket League. Am I going to get an NX? 100% Am I a casual or a "hardcore" gamer? .....
(Directed at no one in particular) ... You can find a rumor or quote to support a whole bunch of possibilities. Here's the Iwata quote that points to multiple NX machines:
And for those of you who don't like the current hybrid rumor, here's a crazy flood of NX rumors that claims the Eurogamer version is bunk (from rjejr):
This version: separate dev kits for home console (AMD/x86, >PS4 power) and portable (ARM), cartridge media, portable's cartridges can work on home console. NVidia might not be involved. So there you go. Choose to believe one or the other. Or wait for the September reveal. Oh wait, that's a rumor too.
Forums
Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread
Posts 2,421 to 2,440 of 69,785
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic