The Greatest Barrier To Hardcore Games Is?

I would add:

1) Time needed to complete a simple task and save your progress. Non-hardcore gamers run away from games that needs to sit like 2 hours in front of the PC to enjoy it. They may not want to spend that ammount of time.
Plus, seeing a hardcore gamer (IMHO) playing like 6hs a single game, can create the illusion that the game indeed requieres 6hs a day to be played (or that it's just not suited for them).

2) Simplicity. Some gamers want something simple from the very start. If it looks complicated, they prejudge it is complicated.

2b)This sometimes include the installer. I remember hearing people around 30-50 years old complaining that they need to install the game (compatibility issues, it won't run in a slow PC, "you need driver xx.yy", etc, etc) They prefer something quick and easy, like plugging a cartridge/CD on the console and play. Not having to worry because they need 13GB of HDD (currently having 12GB free), or they lack a dedicated GPU.

These are just my opinions (well, the 2b thing is what I saw from experience).

Dark Sylinc

"i don't want to lose."
"i want to be able to save/quit/resume anytime (cauze i don't have the time to play)."
"i don't want to think (or micro)."
"i want to see the rewards of my actions now (think FPS) not 259 turns from now."
could also be read as "i only want to plan so far ahead."

Though I would note that some games that are "hardcore" do have horific interfaces.
Though most don't have bad interfaces, they just have a lot more information than people are used to having to dig through.
I'd say the biggest turnoff is that people like to lose by "whoops, guess I won't do that next time" mentality.
And in many "hardcore" games it is hard to tell exactly what cauzed you to lose, or it is something obvious, but hard to hone (like reflex speed).

Case example, starcraft. Not a hardcore game to most people, BUT at the competition level it is very much a hardcore game.
At the regular level of play, people can second by second change their strat and still feel like they have control over why they are losing.
ie, "whoops, guess i need more firebats in my next wave". But at the hardcore level, it is "whoops, guess i needed more carriers, gg." and the fix
to this is a total reevaluation of your strat from second 1 so that you can squeze out more units.
It means memorizing maps and build orders. It means knowing every strength and weekness and all the breakeven points. This stresses most people out
since they don't feel they should be expected to know all this
going into the game (and thusly say the other guy speeds too much time at this game)

Case example, civ. Not a hardcore game to most people, BUT to twitch gamers it is. There is a tonne of information given to the player
and very little in the way of direction on how to best use all that information. The perfect game that the computer plays will kick your ass on easy if you don't actually learn the game.
And this level of, well i dont want to spend 5hrs in a game to lose, then have to revise a 5hr strategy, hoping i do things better next time is what throws many people off this type of game.

I think anything can become treated as hardcore, but can the same be said for "softcore"?

Well I think games that have a lot of micromanagement in it, such as in the number of buttons, attributes, statistics, controls, parts, displayed information, etc, is the primary distinguishing factor of what makes them labeled hardcore, in that you can't really play such a game casually, or that you have to spend much of your time at the controls and management aspect of the game.

Civ 4 is hardcore these days? Yeesh...

From what I've seen of the few non-hardcore gamers (and even hardcore gamers that don't like what I'd consider more hardcore games) is that they lack attention spans. If your game doesn't reward them quickly (due to learning curve/tutorials) or often (because the game just isn't action oriented) they move on to other things.

Wow, what a collection of "asshole hardcore gamer" answers! [smile] I find it illuminating that there is a lot of faulting of the "non-hardcore" gamer, and not much examination of the hardcore games. It speaks volumes.

I definitely think there is an elitism factor that ostracizes people who just want to have a good time. This is mostly in the community, if you can even call it that, of hardcore gamers, but it gets reflected in the taunt-based, schoolyard machismo mentality that often pervades hardcore game presentation - the "are you tough enough" aliases for difficulty levels and such.

I also think that hardcore games appeal to a narrow audience of individuals who have played previous, highly similar hardcore games. Consequently, they don't need to educate the gamer on how to play from scratch, merely highlight the new "innovations" or core differences from the reigning king of the hill.

Lastly, I think that hardcore games - and hardcore gamers - are ultimately entirely about aggressive competition, or who can "pwn" who more. While this is certainly an aspect that non-hardcore gamers may enjoy from time to time, it doesn't constitute the core of their play experiences.

When I play games I don't mind complexity but I don't like steep learning curves. I don't see why its so hard to make a game that not "dumbed down" but not like net hack and kill the player 50 time before they have the slightest idea how to play either.
Also in most games that do have a steep learning curve its not even real complexity but trial and error game play.

EDIT:
The prime example of what I don't like are the rpg's that start off with a character builder that has 500 skills and option but no real information on what they all do. Usually because doing so would make it clear how badly the system is balanced.

Quote:

"i don't want to think (or micro)." "i want to see the rewards of my actions now (think FPS) not 259 turns from now."

By this definition, games such as chess and many puzzle games that is enjoyed by what many casual gamers would be hardcore games. In short, I don't think the instant gratification audience is the same as the casual players, although it's likely that they overlap.

I think you need to find out what it is that distinguishes a casual game from a hardcore game. I believe that the biggest differance between casual and hardcode games is the amount of time required to play (and enjoy them). So any game that is instantly enjoyable without previous knowledge and successively introduces advanced concepts would be more accessible to a more casual audience.

Games such as Tetris (simple mechanic, short game sessions), Theme Hospital (tutorial levels) and Diablo (simple game mechanic) comes to mind as games that would be easy for a casual gamer to pick up. In contrast, games such as Dwarf Fortress (obscure interface) and most MMO's (requires high time investment to play) would be hardcore games.

Then there's games such as FPS shooters, strategical boardgames etc. that are easily accessible for casual players but where hardcore gamers spend a lot of time practicing to compete at a higher level.

I remember when Sins of a Solar Empire first came out (real-time 4X game), it was considered a hardcore game. That sort of got me asking what exactly is considered a hardcore game?

I think in addition to competition, hardcore games are also about control, or the amount of fine-tuning micromanagement to which in casual games are abstracted to give a more general feeling of control. So I guess there are two types of hardcore games then, one to which cater more to competitive gamers (with popular titles played competitively) and the other catering to those who like to play around with interfaces as well as being able to control specific parts of the game (these games which are more niche).

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Assuming a prior interest, what do you think the greatest barrier is to introducing new gamers to games that are considered "hardcore?" Is it A. Overly complicated user interfaces (including high hand-eye coordination demands in many cases)?

I wouldn't say overly complicated, usually it is just poor, or not well documented.

Quote:

B. Concepts and subject matter that tends to be too esoteric?

I would call ninja gaiden a hardcore game. Ninjas and killing not esoteric stuff really

Quote:

C. A natural resistance people have to trying new things?

you already said there was prior interest so not being interested is an odd answer.

Quote:

D. An Us vs. Them attitude among hardcore game designers (manifested as an unwillingness to simplify)?

?? Are you saying the game designers go around and beat up anyone who tries to play their game if they aren't hardcore enough?

Quote:

E. Lack of good, in depth tutorials?

some do some don't usually the games are just hard.

Quote:

F. Too much of a "sink or swim" mentality when it comes to exposing complexity upfront?

Some times

Quote:

G. ???? In the last few months I've introduced two gamers to Civilization IV, a game that's probably on the extreme end of "complexity in games" scale. In both cases it helped to be able to walk them through it step by step and start out with just the basics. But both have told me they would have never picked the game from the shelf on their own. Despite its complexity, Civ is now notable for having a completely mouse driven interface. It's a game with a slow pace where you can take your time learning, and it's also chock full of lots of hints and advice (if not always useful). If you assume a prior interest, say for instance a casual games player who is now wanting games with more substance and durability, what factors do you think stand in the way of making more hardcore games accessible to non-hardcore gamers?

Did they give any reason to not picking up civ or they just don't like strategy games. Mostly hardcore games are just hard. Most people don't like the smackdown they get from games like that so they choose not to play. If you could never beat the third level of a ten level game would you go out and buy the sequel?

I agree that the need to read through the 100 pages of manual twice just to start the game is not hardcore but... outrageous. The game is meant to enjoy. Start it up, select my character, and play! That easy. Whether it's for a PC or console. What I do appreciate however is that that 100-page manual is there. Which means I can play it at my leisure or I can really dig into the game and explore the mechanics, options, and rules. When I want to.

In short, the gameplay and mechanics should be intuitive enough that I can pick up and play, but have enough depth so I can pronounce myself Divine Overlord once I've learned, understood, and used every option the game provides.

Dependence on conventions and mechanics that a long gaming career would introduce players to. When a new party-based dungeon crawling game is released (Diablo III, for instance), the majority of fans will be talking about DPS and aggro and tanking and buffing and mana efficiency on the very first day.

From that point, they'll begin to discuss the various classes and their merits, the nuances of the levelling system, the level design, the enemy behaviors, etc. This will all be done from within the hardcore gaming paradigm, where they are comfortable. For a new gamer with no prior experience with the genre, these things are foreign and baffling, and the "game" that the hardcore guys are playing won't even really be available to them. Why does the green lizard die when you hit it, while the red lizard does not? What are all those numbers on the character sheet? Why is that item's name green, and this one's name yellow? The blue bauble drains when I do some moves, but not others. Sometimes I can't do a move, even though I could do it three seconds ago. Why is my health going down when there are no enemies on the screen? What does my "level" mean, exactly?

It's intimidating, and it's confusing, and it's alienating. I bet you could make a semester-long course on World of Warcraft, just going over how instances work, and the character classes, and the PvP rules, and the binding, and the professions, and the market, and the loot, and the quests, and the world, and the raiding system, and the group dynamics. The textbook could be 200 pages long and have 25 appendices with tables and charts and a glossary with hundreds of terms. How many of us consider WoW to be "hardcore"?

Ikaruga is a very hardcore game, same with most bullet hell STG games. Yet they are also very simple with only a few basic controls. Pretty much EVERY game genre under the sun has its share of games that largely appeal only to hardcore fans.

Stop thinking in terms of "more complexity = more hardcore" and maybe you will learn something.

From a hardcore perspective, casual gamers look to be whiners. A hardcore gamer can learn and play through just about anything, given enough reason and motivation. A game can't demand any significant fortitude from players if it wants to stay casual, and that usually leads to seriously reduced complexity and an unspeakable lack of decent challenge.

Being hardcore isn't about investing more time, it's about investing more effort. You can be as hardcore as they come, and still have very little time to play games. But being hardcore means having the capacity to endure not-so-pleasent situations to find a brighter over-all experience.

Casual gamers want fun now, and are not as willing to fight for it, where the fighting itself helps generate fun for hardcore gamers.

Quote:

Original post by Oluseyi I definitely think there is an elitism factor that ostracizes people who just want to have a good time. This is mostly in the community, if you can even call it that, of hardcore gamers, but it gets reflected in the taunt-based, schoolyard machismo mentality that often pervades hardcore game presentation - the "are you tough enough" aliases for difficulty levels and such.

I think that's more of a bully-to-bully bitch-slap mentality. Players seeking ultimate challenge enjoy a little "you can't do this" in their gaming. They want unspeakable odds and demonically unfair enemies. I seriously doubt it's any attempt to belittle gamers who don't enjoy challenge, although it may consequently do that anyway.

Quote:

Lastly, I think that hardcore games - and hardcore gamers - are ultimately entirely about aggressive competition, or who can "pwn" who more. While this is certainly an aspect that non-hardcore gamers may enjoy from time to time, it doesn't constitute the core of their play experiences.

I hope you're not associating the "pwn" crowd with the hardcore gamer crowd. That's two different factions, which may overlap now and then, but are significantly unrelated.

On second thought, after looking up the term in the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hardcore), I'd have to agree with this:

Quote:

Original post by Iron Chef Carnage Dependence on conventions and mechanics that a long gaming career would introduce players to.

So a game being hardcore isn't about the interface or micromanagement, unless if the game genre is known for its interface or micromanagement. It depends on the genre too.

A top-down shooter like Ikaruga is perhaps considered hardcore because it goes with the genre's oldest establishments.

And also, perhaps Sins of a Solar Empire also isn't hardcore because of the number of buttons or stats, but perhaps because it incorporates many traditional 4X elements as well as incorporating new space-fleet fighting concepts.

Quote:

Original post by Tangireon On second thought, after looking up the term in the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hardcore), I'd have to agree with this: Quote: Original post by Iron Chef Carnage Dependence on conventions and mechanics that a long gaming career would introduce players to.

You want to define hardcore by the concept of prior experience granting assumptions, preconceptions, and advantages? If that were true, everything in this world would be hardcore. Or is it that you want to define hardcore by the presence of this concept in large quantity?

Just about any feature in gaming is a feature that's been seen before. That means players who have seen it before don't need to learn it again. Stack enough of those on top of each other, and you simply have a game with a lot of features. Does that mean games with more features cater to hardcore gamers?

Analogies with chess fail because in chess, you select opponents based on appropriate skill levels. You don't put a grandmaster up against a hobbiest. In online games, you often get casual gamers who might play a few hours a week at most against people who play several hours a day. This is obviously never going to work for many game types (mainly so called 'hardcore' games).

'Hardcore' is often used as a cover for what would probably better be described as grindcore games, where you grind away to get better (many MMORPGs come to mind, where you have to spend 5 hours at a time, day in day out, in dungeons to get the best equipment to be able to compete, etc.). These will never be attractive to most people, as putting in that much time simply isn't something they want to or are going to do.

Then we have games which are 'hardcore' because of things like memorising build orders and doing repetitive motions as fast as possible. These are never really going to be desireable for most people simply because most people don't find that fun. Some do, great for them, but it'll remain in the market it already has, and won't take the mainstream.

(It's always amusing in games where someone uses their head and wins, despite being less good at the mindless side, eg: using macro to overcome micro in RTSes; this is usually followed by large amounts of whining by the 'hardcore' players who are 'playing the game right'; things like this provide an interesting insight into one subsection of the 'hardcore' community.)

Actual skill based hardcore, where your ability to think, react, use skill, etc., to win are less common, I'd say. Many FPSes can fall into this catagory. It's interesting to note that a lot of players never go online, but play against bots, often because, that way, they can control the skill level they are playing against. Very few people like getting totally 'pwnd' by an online player who plays ten hours a day. Without honing their skills by practice, they aren't going to be able to compete, and so don't.

So basically, some games, by their very design, are intended to require vast time expenditure (oddly enough, mainly games where you pay by the month; funny that). These won't appeal to new gamers without a redesign from the ground up on the incentives (Guild Wars is a good example of that). Some require memorising specific orders, doing things very fast, etc., and many people just don't enjoy that sort of thing.

For the skill based section of games, I'd suggest implementing proper skill segmentation. Doing that without it being open to abuse and working properly, however, is tricky.

To me hardcore games require lots of play time and/or effort inorder to become proficient with the game.

This can be a turn basied game like Civ. A complex interactive fiction like a Mind Forever Voyaging. Or a fast action bullet hell game like Mars Matrix requireing lots of practice just to be proficient within the gameplay.

Additionaly hardcore players may frequently replay a particular game just to relive the experience or to further polish thier skills. In contrast non-hardcore gamers typicaly move on once a game is considered "beaten".

Typicaly hardcore gamers are more interested in niche subgenres of a larger established game genre. Tending to seek out more esoteric games than what may appeal to the more casual gameing masses. this should come as no suprise as such niche games often are developed by, and for, the hardcore gamers.

It's this kind of debate. Again.

I think that some of the definitions expressed (or implied) here are too much on the extreme side.

I assume that casual games are your typical board puzzle, card, brick, platform and bouncing ball based games. Now it might be just me, but I get the feeling from this thread that people are using the term hardcore for all the remaining games and genres by definition.

The term "hardcore" game (or hardcore anything) naturally implies that it is difficult to learn, difficult to play, incredibly difficult to master, and that people playing it need to be extremely dedicated (ie. "hardcore"), skilled, or even talented to get any value (enjoyment) out of playing that game.

I might be too hardcore with my 5-6 hours of gaming weekly over the last few years, but I couldn't possibly apply that definition to most (or even many) non-casual games around.

Starcraft is as hardcore game as it gets (perhaps the ruling champion in that category), yet it is simple to get into, you can still casually play through the campaign missions, enjoy the good story and complete it without being anywhere close to an RTS guru. You can even have fun in multiplayer against people with a similar skill level. Most games don't last longer than 30 minutes. Where is the problem?

Similarly, people might work out in-depth statistics and spreadsheets when it comes to RPG mechanics, but your average Diablo/WoW player will never bother with that, nor does he need to bother with that or know anything about that. Ever. It is not a requirement to be able to play and enjoy the game.

Ultimately I think that these debates are a little artificial on such a generalized level. Games which are genuinely hardcore (simulations, manager games, some strategy games) are like that because it's their goal to be like that, and they cater to the specific group of users that enjoy it. Other than that, I don't see much of a learning curve or difficulty barrier in vast majority of non-casual games.

Then again, there are games which are simply poorly designed, but that is a different subject altogether.

Quote:

In contrast non-hardcore gamers typicaly move on once a game is considered "beaten".

Many non-hardcore gamers do not consider games to ever be "beaten", merely enjoyed. Games which I get to the end of and feel 'glad that's beaten' are ones which have had something dragging me on to completion, but which I haven't really enjoyed (or stopped enjoying due to some annoying design decisions). More often than not, a great game which I move on from, I'll be sad I'll never be able to play it again afresh, without knowing everything that is going to happen.

In some games this means moving on after finishing it, but mainly when the enjoyment is mainly there in the first play though (look at Myst, for example; heck, I actually "beat" that game second time through once in around 5 minutes, due to a bug I had to avoid. If you haven't played it, you don't get that, but you really should have played it given its importance, influence and success).

This doesn't, however, mean casual players move on. Look at minesweeper, etc. I'm not a hardcore player - the more games are designed to be 'hardcore', the less I like them. I'm not what you'd call a casual gamer, but I'm also not hardcore. Call this segment the middle-way gamers.

Casual gamers and middle-way gamers like intuitive gameplay and controls; we don't want to have a struggle to actually play the game in the first place, or a struggle to be able to play the game properly (grinding, etc.). However, I'd say, at least with middle-way gamers, we enjoy a fair challenge. In fact, you might even go so far as to say that the challenge is the important part, what drives us (and other parts in games, story line, characters, etc.). By contrast, "hardcore" gamers (which they tend to call themselves; I and many others have other far less flatering names for them) are often mainly driven by a desire to win.

The focuses and drives are very different for the separate groups.