Originally Posted by Gon
He didn't actually define it, just used the (quite ambiguous) term right off the bat. As hardware is not considered a part of the definition by many people, it seemed to prudent to avoid the whole mess in the first place, and use some term on which there is less disagreement instead. First I suggested it to him (though ambiguously - sorry for that), then to you:
There are gaming machines designed for the "hardcore" market as defined by high frame rates in graphically demanding games. This is probably one of the most common meanings of the term and tightly coupled with hardware performance.
Definitions can be useful, or not useful. Typically they are useful when many people share them. You could define "violins, sheep, and Crysis" as "softcore" right now, and it wouldn't be true or untrue, just useless.
Except that Crysis is a graphically demanding game that is associated with the hardcore market. Therefore not useless to the discussion except to you because you refuse to accept the common tie between "hardcore gamer" and high performance rigs.
I said "should be shed", because a significant part of people don't associate it with hardware. So, a less ambiguous word could be used instead and would not fuck up a discussion like it did now.
1) Show your support for the assertion that "a significant part of people" do not associate high performance rigs with hardcore gaming.
2) It ignores the fact that people DO associate hardcore gaming with graphically demanding FPS games and fast rigs. At least TWO within this thread: Melgross and myself.
You, on the other hand, want to label genres "hardcore". Okay. Why I see little point in doing so, is that the genres are so broad. Wargames encompass Advance Wars on the DS, as well as those 2D WWI games where the players of the game are familiar with European statesmen on a first name basis. Do you find it *useful* to lump them both together as "hardcore", along with Civilization, Final Fantasy, C&C3 and Silent Hunter 4?
Apple does not make a handheld game system (excluding for the moment the iPod and iPhone) so the only games under discussion for the Macintosh line of computers would be...you guessed it...computer games. Largely PC ones.
Therefore Advance Wars does not apply to the discussion. Games like Heart of Iron and other wargames are "non-casual"/"hardcore" as is Civ (4X), Final Fantasy (CRPG), C&C3 (RTS) and Silent Hunter 4 (Sim).
Why? Because a term like "non-casual" is a definition like "shapes". 4X, CRPGs, RTS, Sims, Wargames and FPS are all "non-casual" gaming genres which you yourself use a genre to define (non-flash games) by stating which genres it is not.
What discussion angle or topic is it useful for?
Gee, the discussion of what is considered casual and likely within Apple's plans and what is not. Within the "non-casual" gaming genres you can further refine them as being "graphically demanding" and not. These typically break out along genre lines. There are damn few wargames that are graphically demanding. There are damn few FPS that are not graphically demanding. Most RTS are demanding. Most 4X are not.
So you can say that Apple can largely support the wargaming and 4X genres as is. Same with MMOs which are typically only moderately demanding. Even most (combat) sims are only moderately demanding compared to FPS and RTS.
So apple only really suck for the FPS and RTS genres that typically have higher hardware requirements.
But hey, none of that discussion is useful
say it isn't and talking hardware only "fucks up" the discussion.
First paragraph says "non-casual". Second says "hardcore". I read them as separate paragraphs. Have you perchance been using non-casual and hardcore as interchangeable terms, without bothering to say so? I'm using non-casual as the complement of casual - everything but the flash games, Sims-type gameplay.
1) Non-casual is not a very common term. Most discussions split between the terms "hardcore" and "casual" with the understanding that it is a range and some games and genres fall in between. Some folks might use "traditional" where you use "non-casual" given casual is largely defined as "flash/web based + solitarie like games"
2) Someone of your mighty intellect should have noticed that all hardcore gamers are also "non-casual" gamers. Just like all squares are also all rectangles. To a certain extent the terms are interchangable without being identical.
Yes, the paragraphs in question are imprecise in word usage. However the point is still clear. Genres or hardware requirements is a better criteria for defining hardcore (or "non-casual") vs casual given the industry observation that casual gamers invest as much time and skill development into casual gaming as gamers do in traditional gaming genres.
Therefore there are hardcore players of both casual (flash based) and traditional computer games by your definition which is then at odds with the most common definitions where the two groups (casual and hardcore) are distinct and different.
Again, your definition of hardcore means that the Mac Mini is an awesome "hardcore gaming machine" using your ludicrous NetHack example.
And as a point of fact, I was a Rogue player back in the day which also featured permadeath and amusing (and annoying) ways to die and played NetHack quite a bit. Tourist can be quite fun. Especially if you find a wand of wishing early like that guy did. And ascending once you complete your quest is actually somewhat easier than other character classes because hey...the Platinum Card is a pretty uber item.
And you know what...there are ways in NetHack to play on easy-mode. Pudding farming is one way. Save-scumming is another where you copy your save files to another directory.