Talk:Hardcore gamers

Rewriting

Did some rewriting; sectioned; toned down some of the negative opinions. Hopefully others can fill in sections such as the 'games' and 'esoteric trends' better than I can. Al001 15:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of article

A gamer is a gamer, regardless of skill. You may not like it, but it's the truth. This is nothing more than an insult disguised as a Wikipedia article. 168.26.254.115 (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 17:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this should should be reconsidered for deletion. The article is on a term with no definition and is used so loosely that it can mean an incredibly broad range of ideas. The article itself has no sources in regards to the term "hardcore gamer", is riddled with weasel words, and is cluttered with opinions that have to warrant as why they are correct over others. 24.176.166.48 (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that this should be reconsidered for deletion, or a potential merge with the Gamer page. There is no need for this to have it's own page, especially with the varying definitions people have of the term, a basic definition on the Gamer page is more then enough. Alogism | Talk 02:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The article serves no useful purpose and is simply flamebait for trolls. Not every internet phase deserves it's own page. --78.109.182.40 (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"Games" Section

This entire section is relatively pointless. The two genres most casually played are puzzles and any/all shooters, be it Centipede, 1942, or any FPS. I can understand considering people who've been jacking off to CS since it came out hardcore gamers, in the sense that they are hardcore CS players and CS is a game, but no one who plays Halo is hardcore. Likewise, no one who plays WoW is hardcore, nor Zelda, nor UT, nor FF. MGS I can agree with to a degree, as some people beat the fucking things on European Extreme, but, really, a hardcore gamer isn't defined by the games they play (unless they religiously play one of the aforementioned non-hardcore games, which defines them as a complete casual gamer). If having a list of games is a must, sleeper games are a better mention, such as one of the Katamari games, Shadow of the Colossus, or even Fear Effect. Even more effective would be mentioning somebody who actually played and completed shitty games like ET (shitty movie too, randomly), or any of the Driver games, or Mario is Missing/Mario's Time Machine. Yet more effective would be mentioning people who do speed runs on any of these games. There, by the way, is another indication of a hardcore gamer: someone who does speed runs. So, yeah, that's my various cents.

I agree with you to a point but a hardcore gamer must nort restict himself/herself to a single genre of games. A person cannot spend 18 hours on a FF game and call himself a hardcore gamer cause he is not willing to expand. A harcore gamer must have at least 5 genres that he or she enjoys playing. By the way puzzle games are not exactly popular as say role playing games and platformers but it is still a popular genre but consider this you play Katamari for dayson end as well as FEAR and nothing else taht is not a classification of gamer. On the topic of spped runs you see it is heavily debated cause the point of speed run is to ofcourse get the sortest time on a certai stage posible but at the cost of not actually playing the game properly. A majority of speed runs avoid enemies at all cost and occasion throw a grenade or two. Granted it takes a degree of skill to complete speed runs but they are not exactly playing the game instead just runnng away till the end of the level.

I have to argue that puzzle games are the most popular. Think about it, GameBoy was a hit because of Tetris. Tetris is a puzzle game, and there are still new releases that sell well. That's the best example on consoles. Then you have the internet. I read some article a few years back that pointed out a surge of women gamers, due in large part to puzzle games (with minor happenings in being accepted as equally hardcore in shooters and the like). In the present time, you have old people who just got computers and the internet, and, when they have nothing else to email and no more news to read, what do they do? They play games, be it pogo or Yahoo! Games or some secret old person game community site. What is the most played game of all time, definitely on computer and possibly out of all physical games? Solitaire (the Klondike variation, which most people believe is the only version that exists). Solitaire is destinctly a puzzle game, as you have to manipulate things to work towards a solution. This isn't to say they are the best, but they are the most popular. As for speed runs, natural and not frame-by-frame emulated perfections, you have to know a game and love a game enough to want to even attempt them. People will spend years playing a game, learning every secret, memorizing every level layout and enemy pattern, just so they are able to get a really good, relatively quick speed run. Glitch-runs can be more indicative of hardcore gamers, since, if the glitch(es) aren't well-known or published whatsoever, they have to find things out themselves. Anyway, I think the point is still moot, since most of the games listed reek of casuality (Halo, Unreal, GTA though it also fits in the second) or rely on fans of the series as the (near) sole-buyers (MGS, Final Fantasy, Zelda). Then, Warcraft/WOW/Starcraft are games that, if you like one, you like all of them. Some people just jack off to Blizzard. Quake has always been relatively lame, Counter-Strike is nothing special these days, and I haven't played Battlefield 2. One huge question I have is: Why the fuck is F.E.A.R. on the list at all? It only just came out. Here's another thing, why not have survival horror/psychological games on the list? A lot of people scare easy, hence the reason not everyone plays Resident Evil (in addition to the crappy camera/controls) or Silent Hill (in addition to not liking the need to vomit). People who can play through one of these, not to mention the entire series, deserve the mention of a hardcore game by default. And, like I said before, MGS is a game for hardcore games because, despite reliance on long-running fans for sales, there are people who beat the fuckin' things on European Extreme. Come on! That's basically the biggest challenge any game can offer. Anyway, I'm done rambling. Dudewhiterussian 05:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC) (note: no spell-checking done whatsoever. I think whatsoever is improper formatting, but I don't care).

wow, little long there...anyway, that list is pointless, but just because someone plays halo or zelda does not mean they aren't hardcore. i'm very much a hardcore gamer and i have every single mario game ever made (at least all the good ones). just because someone appreciates the games that casual gamers play doesn't make them not hardcore. ufrther, shouldn't weird little games that no one plays be more hardcore than counter-strike? i mean, what if i got good at E.T.? 142.167.232.204 21:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I believe that rhythm/music games should be listed, seeing as how there are whole arcades dedicated to nothing but in many parts of the technological world. SoAxVampyre 12:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"lol i beated everygame in the 8-bit, 16-bit, etc etc eras does that make me hardcore gamerss yet? am i cool"

That's basically what I'm seeing here. And it's the same the world over. People vying for recognition for something that they have purportedly done. So guys, let's get this straight: What defines a hardcore gamer, his skill or his xboxhueg alexandria library of video games? If you ask me, it's skill, but that's because I don't have such a huge library of games, and I'm not old enough to have played the original Donkey Kong when it first came out(another thing people count against you; your age). You ask someone who couldn't beat world 1-1 in Super Mario Brothers, but has a crap-load of games (In most cases, children with parents who have money flowing out their asses, but I digress), they'll probably say it's based on how many hellexpensive consoles they have. And of course, there's the fact that some people will be absolute gods at certain games but will only play at an above average level at others. What do you call them? "Semi-hardcore-gamers"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.90.45.197 (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's really pretty simple. A hardcore game is any game that YOU play. A casual game is one that someone ELSE plays.--RLent (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the best solution is that the article be slimmed down and merged with gamer. --XeF4 (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

stereotype

until someone can put some sources or back it up at all, I'm taking it out. this isn't the place for original research, or in this case talking off the top of your head. Oreo man 22:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, you must since you're so sure of yourself, that stereotypes are public perception and therefore not often or easily pinned to citable/sourceable definition. In journalism, when you can't concretely represent something, you don't write about it (or, alternately, do but don' get published). Case in point, there will be few-to-no sources, and none repectable that aren't biased (such as game magazines or technology mags such as Wired [linked in the article], both of which would be adverse to point out negative features of their reader base) that would publish anything about the stereotypes of gamers. They refer to dictionaries and encyclopedias for knowledge that they don't gather from direct sources. The kind of sources they interview must be considered, by the editor, publisher, or community that the publication represents and informs, authorities on their subject. Being there is no authority on the stereotypes of gamers, the best way to get this information out would be to ignore the suggested policy in this case. You have to remember that nothing in Wikipedia is concrete save providing information. If the users decide it best to ignore the policy in a specific case, or entirely get rid of it, that is the way it shall be. So, it appears at the moment to be at least 2-1 against you on the stereotype section. Dudewhiterussian 06:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC) (hating assholes who point out policies without reading them and without cross-referencing others as well as people who don't believe rules were made to be bent or broken since the day I joined wikipedia and the day I was born, respectively)

~I can try and add in a few more examples of where it has been used early on. only one i have right now: http://uk.xbox.gamespy.com/xbox/robin-hood-defender-of-the-crown/6320p1.html 2 useable quotes in reference to hardcore gamers as I can see "I don't blame the video-game industry for wanting to prove that its products have entered the mainstream, and evolved beyond their primary audience of young males. But lumping casual "gamers" like grandma in with hardcore gamers like Fatal1ty (and how do you pronounce that, anyway?) is folly." "Who do you think is going to be more interested in this retro-remake -- the casual "gamer" who doesn't know Cinemaware from Adam, or the hardcore gamer with the TurboGrafx-16 version of It Came From the Desert in his collection? " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.247.63 (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

This article is full of weasel words: "Many people who consider themselves to be hardcore gamers claim to be well-adjusted", etc. As I am not an expert on this subject, I'm not willing to go through them myself, especially since the majority of reputable sources on this topic are opinion pieces and not factual. CNash 18:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

~I agree this page has alot of subjectivity diminishing its worth. The fact that it is such a widely used term in the games industry, despite its lack of definition, only heightens the necessity for the term 'hardcore gamer' to be clarified objectively.

-I know my own opinion unavoidably gives bias to any additions I make, but so long as I try to rein in my criticism, I feel I am able to state what appears to be the facts. -In my own experience of following the games industry, further through the games-orientated media (which in honesty I generally hold in contempt), there has been a pattern of change, at least in the last ten years, which is based on the principal of making money rather than good videogames. This is no revelation of course, but it is rather the changes that are note-worthy. -For the sake of brevity such changes are- the acceptance of yearly updates, videogames refered to as IP, adding subtitles to a game rather than stating what number in the series it is, micro-transactions and of course the establishment of the terms 'casual' and 'hardcore' gamer.

- Specifically with the phrase 'hardcore gamer', connotations are negative. Apart from the implied zealotry of the word hardcore, it is the combination with the word gamer which manages to yield all the negative stereotypes that are still prevalent in the 'opinion of mainstream society'*. A shut-in, a recluse, socially-maladjusted etc. -From the perspective of "Who benefits most?" from the use of this term then, the argument arises that the phrase orginates from games publishers. -Such an argument works for example, on the basis that any person who takes an active interest in games, more-over is aware of such patterns as yearly-updates for example, is labeled a hardcore gamer. Said hypothetical person is unhappy because this years version of his favourite game series(as opposed to a sequel), has fewer features than its predecessor the year before. By the games publisher being able to categorise this person as 'hardcore', immediately they no longer need to be focused on because the 'casual' group so vastly out-number the 'hardcore' gamers.

-Taken further, it is the games journalists who use the undefined terms hardcore and casual so readily who make the scenario worse. If you take the common example of magazines guaranteeing review scores for exclusives, any person who would be vocal about a misleading review could be ignored on the basis of being a 'hardcore gamer', rather than a games journalist admitting they have no integrity. - -Of course these are only examples. However the precedent does now seem set, hardcore gamers standards are higher, casual gamers lower. Casual gamers are good, hardcore gamers are bad.

Purchasing Playstation, Nintendo, and XBox consoles?

Would hardcore gamers get all the console systems from various game console eras?

Flashn00b 02:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. A hardcore gamer can also be a fan of just one company's system. Zomic_13 02:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Proposal for Deletion

Does this really warrant an article? This is a subset of 'gamers' and should be mentioned in that article. The term 'hardcore' is extremely subjective and not strictly defined, so saying that someone is a 'hardcore' game has different connotations to different people. Does hardcore mean that they play on only the hardest difficulties? Do they play with some sort of handicapped involved that should give them a disadvantage? Are they just really good at what games they play? Is someone who gets all the achievements for a game considered 'hardcore'? The fact that everyone does not answer these questions the same means that the word is not defined well enough to have a NPOV article. Opinions on the matter? And I mean opinions on whether the article should be deleted, not on your definition of hardcore. Fllmtlchcb (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Types of gamers

---

Merge Proposal

• Against There's no reason to merge this or the several others tagged for merge by a new editor who created a new almost entirely WP:OR based article that most likely will be deleted. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Against notable subject. Not sure what the article Types of gamers adds to the gamer one. --Muhandes (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another comment

This entire article is wrong, wrong, wrong. "Core gamers" is a marketing term that refers to the main body of gaming customers. This is the term used by companies like Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. The general audience has gotten this massively confused with "Hardcore gamers", a term that refers to gamers who play very difficult genres (e.g. Japanese Shoot'em Ups) or otherwise demonstrate "hardcore" tendencies such as completionism, competitive play, and/or speed trials. It's bad enough that the average person on the street gets the two confused without Wikipedia propagating the same confusion. If you're going to edit this article, please do your research and get it right. --Jbanes (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Or alternatively, you can go bold and do it yourself. --Muhandes (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, it's on my list. This, MVC, and about half-dozen other articles in strong need of attention. I just wanted to post here in a weak attempt to stem the bleeding while I try to find some time. --Jbanes (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)