VG Cats

So, to recap: games in recent years have lost something special which can't be defined but is immediately apparent on examination (except that I have no idea what it is), and in the process of eliminating this immensely enjoyable and valuable quality video games have somehow greatly broadened their appeal. Those who recognize and value this mysterious quality we call "hardcore"; those who don't, we call "casualfags" or something equally dismissive.

Does that about cover it?

From my observations, nostalgia seems to be a major aspect of nerddom in general... Whatever that may mean for this discussion.

That's what I get, Nornagest.

Well that and "I'll know it when I see it!" is a great way to shift the goalposts and make sure you and only you are hardcore and everyone else is left out of your exclusive elite hobby.

...except the industry doesn't care about arbitrary labels aside from "Hardcore - people who game as a dedicated hobby" and "Casual - people who like to play games on occasion."

I believe that quantity is a complexity that games today just don't have that often anymore. I'm probably going off-tangent from what Bobby was saying, but I prefer games that make me think, I like the challenge. I think one of the big complaints is that games today just aren't as intellectually stimulating.

edited 10th Sep '09 3:17:19 PM by Black Friday

The three games Ransoomair references directly are Mega Man, Super Mario Brothers, and Punch Out, none of which are particularly complex or intellectual. Even in terms of raw difficulty they're overshadowed by modern games — I had much more trouble with Devil May Cry 3 or Odin Sphere than any of the above.

edited 10th Sep '09 3:38:47 PM by Nornagest

I like how the three games Ransoomair references directly have gotten or are getting sequels on the Wii, supposed King of the Causal Gamer to be scorned by all the Hardcores.

I think it's safe to say that "intellectually stimulating" has about as much meaning to this debate as anything else thrown out there, because it's just as nebulous as "what is hardcore?"

Is it ball-breaking difficulty?

Is it variety of genre?

Is it lots and lots of logic puzzles?

Is it complex narrative?

What is it and why do games now not have it? Because I'll bet nobody can answer that question without having to admit that it's really "Games were different when I was a kid."

And keep in mind a lot of my doubt of "THE END OF GAMING AS WE KNOW IT" is that I've been through three successive gens now of declarations of "THE END OF GAMING AS WE KNOW IT". And quite frankly, I'm more than a little skeptical when the arguments haven't really changed any beyond "Games were better when I was a kid" and updated to whatever the current ailment of gaming supposedly is.

@Rebochan: All of those in a way, though taken to extremes they can be alienating. All it comes down to is that older gamers have a higher threshold for those and other factors than newer gamers do (Although this is perhaps debatable for certain communities). Nothing wrong with that, just that it's harder for the older gamers to be satisfied with newer titles since they seem shallow. There's your masterpieces which only the learned can appreciate and the down-to-earth fun games. Each is interesting in its own way.

That said, there's a tendency towards copycats, which, while inevitable as this form of media gets older, is just kind of irking. I won't go into much more detail on that, as I don't want a flamewar, but it's there.

edited 10th Sep '09 4:42:39 PM by Black Friday

Scott lost me with the "Potatomoto" strip, which struck me as "Scott pitches a hissy-fit that Nintendo embraced the image that douchebags like himself ascribed to them [lol kiddie kompany] first."

..sorry, the whole "Nintendo as kiddie company" thing is a bit of a Berserk Button for me. I'm actually glad that so-called "hardcore gamers" are freaking out that Nintendo is not only surviving, but actually winning this generation without them.

When I saw the infamous Nerd Rage segment, it read like a Stealth Parody, because this is a comic, and these kinds of comics are supposed to obey the Rule of Funny. I wasn't aware that the author was actually being dead fucking serious and that was actually an Author Filibuster, because there's no way anyone could actually be that anal, right?

Anyways, what signs point to that indeed being dead fucking serious?

@ Emptyeye: NO. I did not want to return to this pointless argument (which I pretty clearly lost), but no. That is a strawman.

As a "hardcore gamer" (a term with which I no longer identify, but it was my armour at one point), I was the one defending the good games - many of which were made by Nintendo - against the hordes of casual fans who jeered and mocked me for liking games made by a kiddie company. Back then, Nintendo were "hardcore" in my book. It was the casual crowd, with their obsession with Darker and Edgier FPS games and other crap like that, who were calling them a kid's company.

edited 10th Sep '09 6:23:18 PM by BobbyG

I take no side in the console debates, but I do take a side in the debate over which games I think are better. I prefer the Darker and Edgier games that has guns and tanks and bombs. Beyond that, I'm neutral. It's kinda funny to me to see people arguing over this, honestly.

*eats popcorn*

I didn't want to get into an argument about this. I suppose it's my fault for not shutting up and just taking the hardcore bashing.

Emptyeye just hit a Berserk Button I'd forgotten I had.

"I prefer the Darker and Edgier games that has guns and tanks and bombs."

The fact that so much of the video game fandom seems to be obsessed with those puts me off a bit. I guess that's why I gravitate towards Wii, since it has more Lighter and Softer, but quirkier games. Of course, there are overcompensators, leading to some commenting about how games on the Wii are either too kiddy or too over-the-top bloody, with little in between.

edited 10th Sep '09 6:41:12 PM by Cliche

@ Bobby G: Sorry, not my intention to re-ignite that particular part of the thread either. Just had to get that "where I stopped reading the strip" off my chest is all. That said, the second paragraph was probably unnecessary on my part.

So, um, how about those anthropomorphic cats of the VG variety?

So, the Star Fox comic is definitely my favorite. Furry overtones be damned!

What annoys me about that strip is that The Word's side panel doesn't work that way. It's supposed to be ironically undermining Colbert's premises, or at least making extra jokes.

Wow, two different people unironically using “Fallout” 3 and Bioshock as examples of how more intellectual games of yore aren't being dumbed down for the masses nowadays. My faith in humanity has just dropped another notch.

What I read the strip as complaining about wasn't “Modern games are dumb, please stop making dumb games” so much as “The masses are sated by dumb games. Fine, whatever. We're not, please keep making games that aren't dumb as well.” I think that's a perfectly reasonable request.

Wow, two different people unironically using “Fallout” 3 and Bioshock as examples of how more intellectual games of yore aren't being dumbed down for the masses nowadays.

Oh, a Fallout fan? This is going to be fun! It's also going to be a bit of a tangent, since I'm not trying to argue that Fallout 3 or Bioshock are more complex than their immediate predecessors, but never mind that.

As it happens, I've played Fallout 1 and 2. I've played System Shock 2 (though not 1). I enjoyed all those games, as well as their current-gen successors. And I didn't feel the latter were being dumbed down for the gamenproletariat. Here's why.

When you port a game to a new environment (console vs. PC) or format (full 3D vs. isometric), you need to make changes, or you'll end up getting screwed by the architectural differences you neglected to work with. For example, you can't control a reticule or a cursor anywhere near as precisely with analog sticks as you can with mice, and the D-pad is even worse; among other things this makes an enjoyable isometric perspective a lot harder to do on the console, and next to impossible if the mechanics aren't based on a grid. Afterward you need to make more changes in order to account for the balance effects of what you just did, and before you know it you've touched just about all the code. Most of Bioshock's differences from System Shock 2 fall into this category; grid inventory, for example, is a lot more awkward on the console.

While you're in there, why not take out some of the complexity that the mechanics don't need, especially if your playtesters are complaining about it? It'll shorten development time, it'll make the game easier to learn, and most importantly it'll make the game more fun. That's exactly what Bethesda did with Fallout, and I applaud them for it.

Complexity for its own sake isn't a good thing at all. An example: an earlier game I worked on forced its players to light torches and other fires manually, in a multi-step process using flint, steel, tinder, and a unique skill for the task. This was done in the name of "realism and immersion". It was a disaster, for reasons which should be obvious; my successor game simplified the mechanic immensely, to everyone's relief.

edited 11th Sep '09 10:56:14 AM by Nornagest

Well, in terms of the Console Wars, you could say I've always been a Nintendo supporter, but I don't really like the Xbox360 or PS 3 because they are more like the original Xbox and not like the PS 2. I value my PS 2 over either system, especially since the few FPSs I like are the spawns of Goldeneye and Quake III Arena, and both Perfect Dark and Time Splitters are dead as series now, and the only ones really continuing the legacy of fun FPSs like Quake III is Valve.

In addition, I buy a second console mainly for Street Fighter and Final Fantasy.

edited 11th Sep '09 12:54:54 AM by GameGuruGG

@Nornagest: When you port a game to a new environment (console vs. PC) or format (full 3D vs. isometric), you need to make changes, or you'll end up getting screwed by the architectural differences you neglected to work with. For example, you can't control a reticule or a cursor anywhere near as precisely with analog sticks as you can with mice, and the D-pad is even worse; among other things this makes an enjoyable isometric perspective a lot harder to do on the console, and next to impossible if the mechanics aren't based on a grid.

But, as an example, there was no reason to change Fallout's format for consoles, since its depth lay in the scenario and backroom statistics. Unlike more intricate titles (Baldur's Gate, Temple of Elemental Evil, Exile/Avernum… Dragon Age on a console should be… Interesting), Fallout's interface is moronically simple as RPGs go, and its hex grid-based mechanics are also chunky enough to easily suit a TV or handheld.

I mean; you've got a “cursor” that can only resolve to one hex, so it might as well just be replaced with a direct hex selection; a contextual menu with only a handful of possible actions, easily mapped to face buttons; an interface bar on the bottom which likewise has just a few relevant commands, also easily remapped and jettisoned for screenspace; simple single-window screens for inventory, dialog, trading/looting, stats, journals, et cetera; no ability nor need to scroll the camera and do anything else at the same time, leaving ample room for rotation, panning, and zooming; only one character to control… An isometric Fallout title might even be easier to play with a gamepad than a mouse in most situations. The choice to dumb Fallout down to an FPS was just that, dumbing it down (and recycling Oblivion, of course.)

I feel that a lot of the rage over F3 could have been deflected if Bethesda hadn't called it that. Maybe “Fallout 101” or something, leaving the possibility of an actual F3 (Vegas) open more obviously, and selling their game as what it really is: An above-par gaiden game.

Well, we've started a console war, a "Core" war, and a "Fallout" war. How many other wars can we touch off?

The choice to dumb Fallout down to an FPS was just that, dumbing it down

There's nothing intrinsically wrong ("dumb", "simple") with an FPS interface as opposed to a grid-based one, especially when you've got VATS allowing you to play in what's essentially a turn-based fashion if you so desire. Deus Ex had essentially the same interface minus VATS, and that was a deeper game than most anything on the market then or now.

Do you have any idea how much effort it takes to develop a new game engine? The Fallout engine hit its limits almost ten years ago, and a complete rewrite would have been necessary to bring it up to current-gen standards; when there are alternatives, the business case for doing that is very difficult to make. Since Bethesda already had the Gamebryo engine lying around, it would have been foolish for them not to use it — especially for a setting that's more amenable to a shooter format than the Elder Scrolls games are.

edited 11th Sep '09 10:55:54 AM by Nornagest

I'm trying to remember when my favorite games came out for last-gen consoles - 2001, 2006? The industry seems to follow a crazy monsoon pattern for release dates, so I'm not going to judge this gen until it's over.

A note on the hardcore debate:

Part of the problem between the whole 'Hardcore Vs. Casual' debate as I see it is that there doesn't appear to be any definition for what one or the other is. I've seen at least three different definitions as to what a hardcore game is (the 'Nintendo Hard', 'Retro Games', and the 'Darker and Edgier' definitions), none of which mesh well with each-other. Even then, depending on who you ask, some genres may or may not be considered hardcore. Are FPS' hardcore? MMORP Gs? What about point-and-click adventures? Hack and Slash games? The only games that appear to be definable as 'hardcore' are H-games, and for entirely different reasons.

Seriously, how are you supposed to have a debate over hardcore vs. casual games when nobody actually knows what the hell a 'Hardcore' or 'Casual' game is?

edited 11th Sep '09 2:19:37 PM by Miijhal