Gaming whats the best gaming console for you

[QuincyArcher]

in my house i own an Xbox & GC and my roommate owns a PS2. first off that GC hasnt even been touched by either of us since we played the Naruto game back in the early summer and neither of us really played anything on that console before that, so it looses right off the bat. if you were to ask me a few months ago i probably would have said the PS2, but lately im all for the xbox thanks to games like Ninja Gaiden, Breakdown, Steel Battalion: Line of Contact (best $200 we ever spent) and future titles like the new Splinter Cell. the ps2 is being left in the dust.

[MarkM]

Hummm...Lets see, lets see...

I would have to say its a three way tie between PS2, X-box, and DreamCast(Yeah, I'm representing...)

PS2: I like RPG's So PS2 is an absolutly must have. So i've got my Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, ect. Also I love DDR! You cant hate on DDR. I also play my RPG's using the DDR pad, Its so hard.

X-Box: Well, Good racing games. There are three games that stand out for me and they are:
Harry Potter Quidditch World Cup (Play this game! Seriously...play this game...)
Jet Set Radio Future: The hip game for X-Box. It is a great game.
Top Spin: Most advanced tennis game ever.


Dreamcast: This S.E.G.A system was just a little ahead of itself. But non the less, it produced many great titles. Plus, you can get the games for like $ 9.00 now...I dig that..

-Mark

[James]

[color=#707875]Interesting thread. Before I respond, I should mention that I own just about every console under the sun, except for the Virtual Boy and the Xbox. However, unlike the Virtual Boy, I've had plenty of hands-on time with Xbox. I might as well split these consoles down and tell you what I think about them.

[b]GameCube[/b]

I haven't played my GameCube in several months. Why? A lack of releases that interest me. Games like Wario World or Mario Party 5 just haven't registered on my radar, even though I recognize that they are popular with various audiences.

Having said that, GameCube is the console that I would be least likely to dump. This is because for me personally, I'd rather have the opportunity to buy the odd Nintendo masterpiece, as opposed to buying the "pretty good" PS2 game now and then. That's not to say that there aren't masterpieces on PS2 -- we all know that there are. However, I think GameCube offers certain games that no gamer should be missing. Titles like The Wind Waker, Metroid Prime, Viewtiful Joe, Eternal Darkness, Resident Evil (both remake and Zero), Super Mario Sunshine, et al., are all very worthwhile titles.

There are other reasons why I like the GameCube too. And none of them relate to facts and figures or statistics or any of that -- that stuff is a seperate issue.

I like the GameCube because I adore the controller. It's an incredibly intelligent design, in my view. I can quite comfortably sit for hours on a GameCube game without ever feeling any kind of strain in my hands. The same just can't be said for Xbox and PS2. People complain about the GameCube's D-Pad, but have these said people ever played for hours with that awful broken-up PS2 D-Pad? Ugh. It's horrible. It's uncomfortable and unnecessary; a bad design.

So, while GameCube isn't offering me a constant stream of awesome titles, it's certainly offering more than I can personally afford to buy. And this is the key thing. Why worry about which console is producing more titles, when you probably can't afford to buy all of the ones you want? Obviously, most people have a finite bank balance. And because of that, one has to be somewhat careful about the games they purchase. With this in mind, there's usually more than enough on GameCube to satisfy my interests.

[b]PlayStation 2[/b]

I've only just complained about the PS2's controller -- something I stand by -- but having said that, the PS2 is still a fantastic console in its own right.

On a technical level, the PS2 probably has to fall way behind the GameCube and Xbox. Not only is the controller an ancient design, but Sony has made some bad choices in regard to component manufacturing. PS2, like its predecessor, is infamous for being a pretty dodgy piece of technology. Breakdowns are common, unfortunately.

Although those hardware issues play a role, I think the software is obviously the most important aspect here. I bought my PS2 long before the GameCube came out (obviously) and I bought it because I knew that it would cater to my tastes on a pretty broad level.

If I want a great RPG, I can usually turn to PS2. If I want a great racing game, I can usually turn to PS2. If I want a great platformer, I can usually turn to PS2. It really does cater for a huge variety of tastes.

My PS2 game library is probably of similar size to my GameCube library, as I haven't bought a PS2 game since Armored Core 3.

In any case, there are definitely certain games on PS2 that I'm really glad to own. I'm actually really interested in buying SSX 3 (I own the previous two titles in the series, both on PS2), but I'm not quite ready to put the money down at the moment. lol

[b]Xbox[/b]

As I mentioned above, I don't own an Xbox. And all things considered, the Xbox offers the least of interest to me. Aside from a small number of first and third party titles -- and particularly Xbox Live -- there's very little on Xbox that really warrants a purchase for me right now. However, I think Xbox Live is a major selling point for that console. And there are definitely certain Xbox-only games that I'd love to own. If the price comes down a little more, I think I'll pick it up eventually.

[b]PC[/b]

I've added PC here for one reason -- buying PC games has stopped me playing console games over the last few months. With my recent purchase of Unreal Tournament 2004, I think the consoles will be gathering even more dust in the coming weeks.

Wow, I haven't even included GBA or Dreamcast. Maybe later.[/color]

[Shinmaru]

[quote name='James][color=#707875'] So, while GameCube isn't offering me a constant stream of awesome titles, it's certainly offering more than I can personally afford to buy. And this is the key thing. Why worry about which console is producing more titles, when you probably can't afford to buy all of the ones you want? Obviously, most people have a finite bank balance. And because of that, one has to be somewhat careful about the games they purchase. With this in mind, there's usually more than enough on GameCube to satisfy my interests.[/color][/quote]

This is a really important point, I think. I'm notorious for being...well...really cheap lol. Since I don't have as much money available to buy games as I'd like, I have to be more careful with what games I decide to buy (for those who care, I buy a new game maybe once every three or so months now). Nintendo releases a lot of games that I really, really enjoy and they're usually what I end up spending my money on. That's why the lack of third-party support on the GameCube doesn't bother me as much as it does other people, since I don't buy a lot of third-party games.

For me, Nintendo has enough great games released on the GameCube to justify it being my favorite of the current crop of consoles. I just think the Nintendo titles that I end up buying are superior to most other games on the market (though, as I mentioned before, there are games that I would think about buying on the other two major consoles).

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

That is a great point, and is solid as long as you have "good" taste (good in my opinion, anyway). However, many people don't like SSBM or Zelda (and I personally didn't enjoy Metroid Prime or Pikmin or Luigi's Mansion or Mario Sunshine or F-Zero GX, though I did purchase and play through them). The thing is, when someone says PS2 has more good games than GCN (although I'd say they're wrong), it obviously means that they like more games on PS2. It doesn't mean they can afford to buy any more games than the average casual gamer. So even though GCN really does have more good games than a well-rounded but non-hardcore gamer can afford, most gamers are neither hardcore nor well-rounded. So that fact is lost on them.

[James]

[color=#707875]Well, again, we're talking about something completely subjective. Honestly, many gamers don't know anything about games -- many of them see a cool ad for GTA and they buy it and that's it. These days, it's fair to say that the majority of gamers don't read the magazines or anything. Most gamers [i]are [/i]"casual gamers".

I mean, you didn't enjoy the games you mentioned above, which is fine. Yet Metroid Prime and F-Zero GX in particular are critically acclaimed as being among the best games of the generation. So, the "experts" would disagree. But again, that's not the point.

The point is to decide what you like to play. Through my own experience, I've discovered that no matter where your tastes are, you'll probably find that each console will still offer something to you.

So in one sense, I think that most of this discussion is all about one's own tastes. There are some objective elements though, definitely. And if I find people making misstatements about the industry, I will usually jump in and do my level best to correct that.

But there's really nothing to correct here, as such. I mean, if someone prefers playing with a yo-yo compared to playing a video game, who is to say that they are right or wrong? Most of it is definitely just opinion.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Of course. That's the point I was trying to make, but with a different approach. And I thought it was a given that most gamers were casual gamers and not hardcore gamers.

That's why the amount of "good" titles on a console doesn't matter because that "good" is subjective (and expert opinion doesn't sell games -- take "Enter the Matrix" for example, which dominated the charts during the month of its release, even though it received rather negative reviews all over). In addition, one good title might be enough. I mean, for the longest time, Halo (and if you ask some people such as myself, DOA3) was the only "good" title on Xbox. But it was enough to outsell Gamecube for a time.

But I'm taking this into a direction it wasn't initially heading. I think the explanation that one particular console is all you need because you can barely keep up with the few (or many) good offerings it has is a perfectly good one, and more "reasonable" than a lot of other replies this thread has seen.

[Magnum Apex]

[quote name='James][color=#707875]These days, it's fair to say that the majority of gamers don't read the magazines or anything. Most gamers [i]are [/i']"casual gamers". [/color][/quote]

[color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]That's probably the biggest problem with video games becoming "mainstream." In all honesty, I prefer how the industry is today than it was 10 years ago, but I admit it's far from flawless. Critically acclaimed games like Prince of Persia and Beyond Good & Evil have sold poorly in America, yet games like True Crime: Streets of LA and Enter the Matrix (Guilty as charged, but I [i]had[/i] to play it) had continually shown up in several top ten charts. These games received from lukewarm reviews to plain bashing, yet companies managed to sell the games. It puzzles me, though, that a known franchise like Prince of Persia didn't catch the attention of most Americans. The game is not only a "revival" of an enjoyable series, but it was also advertised repeatedly during the holiday season. A total shame.[/color][/font]

[quote name='James][color=#707875']But there's really nothing to correct here, as such. I mean, if someone prefers playing with a yo-yo compared to playing a video game, who is to say that they are right or wrong? Most of it is definitely just opinion.[/color][/quote]

[color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]Indeed.[/color][/font]

[Desbreko]

[color=indigo]Heh, I'm in the same situation as Shinmaru here; I can't even afford all the games that I want for the two systems I do own (GameCube and Game Boy Advance/SP), so while I'd love to have a PS2, I just can't afford it. ... At least not yet. Come Christmas, I plan on getting one, but we shall see just how many GCN/GBA titles are above a PS2 on my "most wanted list."

Really, I can't say from actual experience which console I like the most since I haven't had all that much experience with the PS2 and almost none at all for X-Box. However, what I can go off of is how much the games for those consoles interest me when I read about them and what they're like, so that's what I do. And since I've always liked most of Nintendo's games, I chose the GameCube when it came time to pick which new console I would get, and I haven't regretted that choice one bit.

Really, though, I actually like the GBA more than the GCN, and I'd say it's my favorite system. (And not just out of the current four, either; out of all of them that I've played). The main reason for this is just the sheer ammount of fun that I get out of the GBA games that I've bought. Almost every one I've either played through multiple times or played for a long, long time. Heck, I'm up to 182 hours on Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, and I still enjoy playing it. That's the most time I've ever put into a single game. Ever.

Other examples are The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past/Four Swords. I've beaten LTP five times, and I've played Four Swords a [i]lot[/i] with my friends. Also, Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World; I've beaten that game six times, even though I'd already beaten the original SNES version six times. (That's a dozen times playing through it -- my record for any one game). Metroid Fusion, I've played through twice, and Metroid Zero Mission three times. F-Zero: Maximum Velocity and Mario Kart: Super Circuit I've both played for hours and hours, certainly for at least as long as their GCN sequels. Really, the only game I own for the GBA that I haven't played to death is the first Super Mario Advance. The only game I at all regret buying for the GBA.

So, not having a lot of money, being able to get a lot of play time out of my games is very important to me. It also means that when I buy a game, I want to be absolutely sure I'm going to enjoy it. Otherwise, I've just wasted $30 or $50, and it's going to take me another month or a month and a half to save up that much again. I want to make sure that I get the maximum ammount of enjoyment out of my games.

And that leads into the main reason why I chose the GameCube over the PS2 or X-Box. I grew up playing Nintendo games on the NES, Super NES, Nintendo 64, and Game Boy/Color, so I knew there would be games such as Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Mario Kart, F-Zero, Super Smash Bros. Melee, and others that I would enjoy. For PS2, I knew that there would be Final Fantasy and other RPGs that I would enjoy, but beyond that, not a whole lot interested me. Sure, a few platformers and maybe a racing game, but beyond that I didn't know at all what to expect. The X-Box looked even worse to me; I wasn't interested in a single game for the system at launch or for a good while after its release. Now there are certainly some games for it that interest me, but it seems like most of them I could just get on the PC instead. Heck, I'll be getting Knights of the Old Republic from my brother pretty soon, so right there, one of the biggest incentives for me to get an X-Box -- at least right now -- is gone. In the end, it really wasn't even a hard decision. I knew I'd like a good number of games for the GCN, while I didn't know for PS2 or X-Box, so I chose GameCube.

So while I do want a PS2, I still don't even have a whole lot of incentive to get one. I mean, really, I want RPGs? I have still yet to get Skies of Arcadia Legends on the GCN or either of the Golden Sun games on the GBA, all three being highly acclaimed RPGs, as well as others. The bottom line (quite literally, heh) is that I simply can't afford all the games I want for the GBA and GCN, so I don't see a whole lot of reason to spend $180 on a PS2 when that could get me two GCN games and a GBA game or [i]six[/i] GBA games.

Now, moving onto an entirely different aspect of my preference for one console over others...the much argued subject of controllers. I've read a lot of different arguments for both the GCN and PS2 controllers, and I think they both have a lot of good points. (I'm not going to say anything about the X-Box controller, as I've barely used it at all, except that the normal one is way too big for my hands). And personally, now that I really think about it, I only like the GCN controller by a small margin. I have my likes and dislikes for both, and I really can't find too much fault in either.

The biggest thing, for me, that the GCN controller has over the PS2's is the analog sticks. That is, I really do not like them on the PS2 controller, and I always prefer using the control pad whenever I don't need analog control. The sticks seem to be placed really badly, and my hands hurt after a while of using them, plus they just don't feel as intuitive as the GCN sticks. I find it's easy to accidentally slide my thumb off a stick when I'm pressing it over to the left or right all the way, a problem I don't really have with the GCN's sticks because either there's ridges on the left one, or the top of the C stick is small enough that my thumb fits over the entire surface. Another thing, though less noticable, are the grooves around the edges of the GCN's analog sticks as someone mentioned earlier. I actually use those all the time when I need precise movement, such as in platformers or even in Metroid Prime while in the Morph Ball on narrow ledges.

As for the cons of the GCN pad, I do have a few. One is the lack of a fourth shoulder button (like a Z button on the left side), which I've thought would be helpful in some games. The biggest situation where I thought this would be helpful was when I was playing Mario Kart: Double Dash and having to press the R/L buttons in all the way until they clicked in order to do a power slide. If there had been two digital shoulder buttons, they could have used the left one to swap your characters and the right one as a substitute for using R or L which I would have really prefered in some situations where I needed to perform a series of quick power slides one after another. (Read: while doing tons of mini-turbos in time trial mode).

Another thing is the D-pad on the GCN controller. While it is small, though, I don't think it's as big a deal as most people make it out to be -- at least not for me. I barely ever had any problems with it while playing through The Legend of Zelda and Zelda II: The Adventure of Link on the Collector's Edition disc, and I used the control cross the entire time for both games. Also for the original Metroid on Metroid Prime. It's not really much worse than the original GBA's control cross, and I never heard people complaining about that. It is a bit uncomfortable after a couple hours of playing, but not overly uncomfortable.

Now, if anyone tries to psychologically analyze my post, I'm going to recommend that they be banned. ;)[/color]

[MaxSonic]

I am Doctor Eggman, the greatest scientific mind the world has ever known. I would have taken over the world if not for those meddling kids. Anywho, I, Doctor Eggman, am here to say that my favorite gaming system is the Game Boy Advance. It is portable, powerful, and most of all, it has hundreds of games! I'm even in a few of them! When I take over the world, I will praise Nintendo for this wonderous creation! BWAHAHAHA!!!

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='James][color=#707875']These days, it's fair to say that the majority of gamers don't read the magazines or anything.[/color][/quote][font=Georgia][color=blue] This comment is bothering me. What does it prove/mean to read about video games? I lost interest in reading about games a year or two ago. I found myself looking way too far ahead and not appreciating the "now" of video gaming. To say the least, anticipating a game that's months away does nothing to further credit the games you have right now.[/color][/font]

[font=Georgia][color=blue]Reading about games means nothing. If anything, it detracts from the gaming scene, since people waste time [i]reading[/i] about games rather than [i]playing[/i] them.[/color][/font]

[James]

[quote name='AzureWolf][font=Georgia][color=blue'] This comment is bothering me. What does it prove/mean to read about video games? I lost interest in reading about games a year or two ago. I found myself looking way too far ahead and not appreciating the "now" of video gaming. To say the least, anticipating a game that's months away does nothing to further credit the games you have right now.[/quote][/color][/font]
[font=Georgia][color=#0000ff][/color][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=dimgray]I'm not talking about anticipating what is happening months from now, necessarily. [/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]I'm talking about using magazines and other media sources to assist you in making decisions about your purchases. Most gamers who read magazines or online media sites often use these resources to assist them in making purchasing choices. So for many people, it's a very practical matter.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]To give you a broader example, people who don't read any gaming magazines or web sites may have had little to no knowledge that games like Viewtiful Joe were out there. As a result, they probably won't purchase the game due to their lack of exposure to it. Whether they'd have actually liked it or not is really another question altogether. [/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]You'll probably find that many people who purchased Viewtiful Joe did so as a result of reading glowing magazine/web reviews. So, the gaming media is definitely not just some completely theoretical exercise that bears no relation to the actual process of selling games -- quite the contrary.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Georgia][color=blue][quote name='AzureWolf]Reading about games means nothing. If anything, it detracts from the gaming scene, since people waste time [i]reading[/i] about games rather than [i]playing[/i] them.[/color'][/font][/quote]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=dimgray]Actually, the opposite is true.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]I can tell you from experience -- having worked in the gaming media sector for the last three years or so -- that reading about games plays a pivotal role in the purchasing choices that many people make.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]The point that I was making earlier was that games are becoming increasingly mainstream. And generally, these "mainstream gamers" (or casual gamers, or whatever you want to call them), are often not going out there and reading about games in the same way that a game enthusiast would.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]The end result is that these said people are making purchasing decisions with much less information -- they're making purchasing choices based on their familiarity with a franchise (ie: Enter the Matrix), or because they've seen a cool ad on TV, or because they've browsed the back covers of games on store shelves.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]To me, this indicates that potentially lower quality games (again, like Enter the Matrix) are naturally achieving greater sales success based on a variety of marketing, as opposed to substantive, positive game reviews.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]So, for the vast majority of gamers, the gaming media probably plays a much smaller role in purchasing decisions, because most people these days are not consulting magazines/web sites before buying.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][i]However[/i], marketing research shows that people who [i]do [/i]read magazines and web sites are much more likely to consult these sources before putting their money down on any video game product.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]So, the results indicate that consumers of video game media [i]are [/i]more "in touch" with what's out there and their purchasing patterns reflect that fact. These publications don't take people away from the process of playing games at all -- rather, they compliment that process.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font]

[AzureWolf]

[font=Georgia][size=2][color=blue]"Statistics?" "Consumer?" "Money?" [i]"Marketing?!"[/i] It sounds as if you are talking about a smart shopper rather than a hardcore gamer. Of course, our meaning of "hardcore gamer" could be different.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Georgia][size=2][color=#0000ff]To make a parallel comparison, when you don't know anything about a field - say, cars - you tend to listen and accept what people in the field say. A mechanic has a background on cars and knows quality from grabage. Most likely, when the mechanic needs something to be fixed, he/she (henceforth just "he" and "his") utilizes his experience and background. [/color][/size][/font][font=Georgia][size=2][color=#0000ff]The mechanic first needs to develop and grow in order to gain that experience, until he gets to the point where he can make decisions and conclusions on his own.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Georgia][size=2][color=#0000ff]Now, if a gamer has reached hardcore status, he already knows what a good game is. While helpful, he does not require the opinion of others. He has a background on games and can easily discern "original" from "uninventive" no matter how hard that line is blurred. A hardcore gamer is experienced and learned in games, and can easily adapt to a situation within a game. He'll find out if the game is flawed, or if his own skills need to be tweaked. He can play games just long enough to find out if it's a game for him. Simply put, it's a hardcore gamer's "thing" to know the difference between good and bad games, just as a full-fledged mechanic knows the difference between good and bad parts.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Georgia][size=2][color=#0000ff]Anyway, the point is, the games a hardcore gamer plays does not determine whether he is hardcore. Buying smart means you are a smart shopper - not a hardcore gamer. Pertaining to this discussion, your ability to play games and tell good from bad is what makes you hardcore - no magazines or gaming info required.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Georgia][size=2][color=#0000ff]The casual gamers could also be the ones reading and listening to magazine and other "professional" sources, buying all the games magazines recommend, regardless of whether or not the game is suited to them. I remember [i]Gran Turismo[/i] being stated as a game for both driving fans and casual gamers alike. I played GT - was it for me? Simply put, I'm not partial to driving games, and GT was not spectacular enough to make me feel any different.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Georgia][size=2][color=#0000ff]I've also been at game stores when a little kid runs in and points to a game. He yells to his mom, "I want this one!" Mom examines the box and responds, "Are you sure you want this? It looks kind of violent." "It was [i]GAME OF THE YEAR![/i], mom." Now, I can't judge if this kid is hardcore or not, but if that's his reasoning for buying a game, then I would wonder if the statistics separate gullible from hardcore.[/color][/size][/font]

[Semjaza]

Comparisons to a mechanic don't really work. You'd be crazy to think that most of them don't keep up on new and upcoming cars, parts and accessories. They don't just magically know what is best just because they work on a lot of cars. They know about upcoming things because they keep up on the news and keep themselves informed as to studies into how well the parts actually work and what their specs are.

With games, I don't think the so-called "hardcore" gamer can just walk up to the store, see a game and know what looks good and be 100% right. Same with how a mechanic can't just blindly order parts just because of some random intuition. They have information behind what they say, and every last bit of it is not just from them and their own experience. They keep up on the industry in some fashion.

I remember you making a comment that you thought RPGs dried up by FF3 on the SNES. If you actually kept up on RPG news you would know that there were countless other ones that had original things to offer between that game and the release of Suikoden II years later. I think any gamer who keeps up on upcoming games, reviews and impressions would know this. Of course, if you did all of this and still nothing appealed to you, that's another matter... but I don't feel you can just randomly show up at a shop and decide what is good and what is not.

It seems the idea has become that casual gamers are people who go out and buy a game with "Dragon Ball" or "The Matrix" in the title with no thought behid it other than the license. People who buy a violent game just because it is violent. Whereas, hardcore gamers often play enough games that they wind up keeping up on future releases and previews to realize what is best for them.

I think the average gamer (who isn't necessarily hardcore or casual, in terms of how people use the words in the gaming world) might keep up with things just enough that they can still make informed purchases. However, would these people be likely to by a niche game that's getting good reviews over a big name game getting sub-par reviews? I don't know. As for your Game of the Year comment, I see no reason why the average gamer wouldn't know such things anyway. You don't have to be hardcore to know that considering that most GOTYs are all over the place, get advertising and even have GOTY printed on new copies.

I've been playing games since I was 5 and buy them constantly. Even I don't automatically just know a game will be amazing. I don't do blind purchases. You can get burned by them, regardless of the company involved. Even major publishers like Nintendo or Square don't get everything right... but that's not always obvious if you just go by box arts and impulse buying.

When I think of hardcore, I don't think of someone who just buys games and is good at them (I'd just consider that a normal gamer... when people use the term "casual" in terms of gaming, it often means even less than that, as I've stated more or less). I think of someone who actively keeps up with the industry, games around the world, news as well as playing a decent amount of games across many different genres.

Thanks to these things, I've been able to know what's coming, why companies do what they do with these games and I've also been able to keep my eye on smaller budget niche games that many other people might otherwise ignore. I wouldn't automatically just know that Gitaroo Man was a good game, for example. How many people would even know about that if it wasn't for good reviews and word of mouth among the online gaming community? Not many.

Anyway, I'm stopping here because I'm not getting everything worded the way I wanted to... but basically I don't think you two are approaching the terms hardcore and casual from the same angles lol.

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']Anyway, I'm stopping here because I'm not getting everything worded the way I wanted to... but basically I don't think you two are approaching the terms hardcore and casual from the same angles lol.[/quote][font=Georgia][color=blue] Hmm...? What do you mean stopping here? You thoroughly finished making you statement, what more needed to be said? O_o[/color][/font]

[font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]Anyway, I see your point. I forgot about the meaty middle of normal gamers, haha, so completely disregard my previous post. As true as it probably is, I just don't like the idea of a hardcore gamer being one who needs to immerse himself into the industry and business aspects of gaming.[/color][/font]

[Semjaza]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][font=Georgia][color=blue] Hmm...? What do you mean stopping here? You thoroughly finished making you statement, what more needed to be said? O_o[/color][/font]
[/QUOTE]

I had a comparison to the more hardcore-ish anime fans I wanted to throw in there, but I didn't get around to it. That was about it. I was mostly concerned something I said would be read differently than I meant it, since that happens a lot lately. And truth be told, I write too much as it is heh :D.

In any case, for me, if I think of a hardcore gamer and ignore all of the things people say about the subject on the internet and magazines... I'd say my definition of it would fall somewhere between yours and James's. I agree with parts of both of your opinions on it.

[Desbreko]

[color=indigo]When I think of a "hardcore gamer," the idea that comes to mind is that of someone who plays a lot of games, doesn't just look for the big name licensed games or big franchise names when buying, and one who does actually know a decent amount about the industry and keeps up with the news. He or she may not be totally immersed in every little detail of what's going on in the industry, but if the person is really that interested in games, they're most likely going to be interested in what's behind them; interested in the companies that make them, and so on. Someone who doesn't just look at the games themselves, but also beyond them.

So you have a point, Azure, about there being a difference between a hardcore gamer and just a smart shopper. But a gamer that's [i]really[/i] into games will also be more likely to read about them and find out about them before they buy, so as to get some info on which to judge whether or not they'll like the game. So those two also kind of go hand in hand. Anyone who just walks into a shop without any foreknowledge and picks out a game not knowing much about it is, in my opinion, doing something quite stupid. Like Tony said, impulse buying can really get you burned.

And besides, even from actually playing the game, how can you tell what's really good and what's bad? You can tell if you yourself like the game, and you can find good points and bad points, but that's what [i]you[/i] think of the game. Another person could step up next and think the exact opposite of you, and who's to say who's right? Sure, there are some games that almost everyone will agree about being good or bad, but that kind of makes it a moot point since everyone can tell it's good or bad, not just the hardcore gamers. So I don't really see how this could be a measure of how hardcore someone really is.

In my mind, the distinguishing split between the "average" and "hardcore" gamer is mainly one of interest. Someone may play a lot of games and be really into gaming, but do they look past those games and find out what's behind them? Where they came from? What the company that made the game is like? In other words, do they really care about the gaming industry, or just about playing games?

And if they are interested in the industry, where are they going to find out about it? Usually, online or from magazines. But there can be two different reasons for reading about games. One, as you said, is to find previews and reviews and whatnot, to aid in the decision of what games to buy; the other is for the purpose of actually gaining knowledge about gaming as a whole, not just the individual games. And, like I said, it's usually only the hardcore gamers that will be interested enough in the industry to actually go out and read up on that stuff -- to find out what's going on in the gaming world besides just what new games will be coming out when. It's those people that I consider to be real hardcore gamers.[/color]

[Shinmaru]

My idea of a "hardcore" gamer is more in line with Desbreko's. I see them as people who take an interest in more than just the games...they're interested in the industry as a whole. There are a lot of interesting stories and stuff involved with the gaming industry if you take the time to look. It's nifty stuff.

Desbreko made another good point, too...you can always read and hear opinions about the games, but the best way to judge all of them is to actually [i]play[/i] them (not that anyone suggested that you didn't have to play games to know that they're good). Reading and getting opinions on games does work a lot of the time, though, especially if it's a genre of gaming that you enjoy and are familiar with.

With stuff like the example Azure used, with Gran Turismo, I usually leave it to my own judgement, because racing games aren't a genre that I'm really familiar with because I don't play them as much. Gran Turismo was critically acclaimed, but I didn't think it was good enough to make me enjoy racing games all too much...that's beside the point, though lol.

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']And truth be told, I write too much as it is heh.[/quote]

*recommends that for 'Understatement of the Year' award* :p

[James]

[quote name='AzureWolf][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff']Now, if a gamer has reached hardcore status, he already knows what a good game is.[/quote][/color][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=dimgray]It's important to understand that I'm not talking about people who have better or worse taste. Everyone has a different taste in games, and taste in games varies between regions/territories as well.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]Let's get back to the original point.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]You said that reading about games means nothing and that it detracts from the gaming scene. But industry analysis and research says the opposite.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]When people within the industry talk about "hardcore" versus "casual", they are [i]usually [/i]talking about "enthusiasts" versus "casual fans".[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]It's no different to people who go and see the odd movie at the cinema, versus people who go out there and buy all the related merchandise and so on. There's an obvious difference between an [i]enthusiast [/i]and a [i]casual fan[/i].[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]I'm not trying to draw any distinctions in terms of whether or not each "group" has better taste. I'm simply pointing out that "hardcore gamers" tend to go about their game purchasing differently to "casual gamers".[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]Of course, there is no absolute rule here. But there [i]are [/i]plenty of studies relating to purchasing patterns of different groups.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][quote][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]Anyway, the point is, the games a hardcore gamer plays does not determine whether he is hardcore. Buying smart means you are a smart shopper - not a hardcore gamer. Pertaining to this discussion, your ability to play games and tell good from bad is what makes you hardcore - no magazines or gaming info required.[/color][/font]
[/quote][/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]Well, we're talking about video games specifically here. What makes a "smart shopper?" Smart shopper and hardcore gamer could probably be completely interchangeable terms, if you're talking about the video game industry.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]We are defining the term differently, I think. You're saying that a hardcore gamer is judged by their ability to play games and to make decisions about good and bad.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]I would tend to agree with you, for two reasons.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]One, because "hardcore gamers" are [i]usually [/i]people who [i]do [/i]read magazines and consume video game media material. Again, there's plenty of industry support for that point of view. Hardcore gamers are game enthusiasts; many of them (note the use of the term "many" rather than "all"), are the primary buyers of gaming-related media material. And this material does make an impact on buying decisions.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]It's not a question of someone blindly following a magazine review. That's missing the point. It's a question of enthusiasts being knowledgeable about the wider game industry -- so to speak -- and consulting various "professional" sources before making a purchase. What they read may influence their decision; I'm not saying that magazines make the decision [i]for [/i]them.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]So, let's be realistic here.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]Hardcore gamers -- to use your own definition of them -- don't necessarily become "hardcore" in a vacuum. If you look at people like me, or Tony, or Desbreko, or Shinmaru, you'll find that all of us go the extra mile in one way or another. Either we read a review, or we go out there and download trailers, or we simply follow industry news.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]And the research about consumer trends [i]does [/i]suggest that [i]most gamers [/i]are actually not doing that. The vast majority of people who make the purchasing decisions about games are in no way following gaming beyond the occasional purchase.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]And so, my original point was that the majority of game consumers are not going out there and exploring the information on offer. Therefore -- compared to their "hardcore" counterparts -- we can assume that they are getting somewhat less information about games. That doesn't mean that their taste is necessarily better or worse, it just means that certain games fall under the radar more easily -- even if they are critically acclaimed.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]And the evidence [i]does [/i]suggest that the majority of people who purchase and consume media material related to video games are "hardcore gamers", or, "video game enthusiasts" -- people who tend to do a little bit more research before making a purchasing decision.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]This aspect of the industry is very important, because it dictates the trends to a large degree. It also ensures, to a pretty vast extent, that certain games [i]aren't [/i]going to enjoy highly popular status, regardless of their quality.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][quote][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]Simply put, it's a hardcore gamer's "thing" to know the difference between good and bad games, just as a full-fledged mechanic knows the difference between good and bad parts.[/color][/font]
[/quote][/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][i]Exactly[/i]. And this is a large part of my point. And how do they know the difference? Often, it's a result of both their own time and financial commitment, as well as their consumption of gaming media content. This may not be the case for you specifically, but without "hardcore gamers" and their devotion to gaming media, the gaming media would pretty much cease to exist.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][quote][color=#0000ff][font=Georgia]I've also been at game stores when a little kid runs in and points to a game. He yells to his mom, "I want this one!" Mom examines the box and responds, "Are you sure you want this? It looks kind of violent." "It was [i]GAME OF THE YEAR![/i], mom." Now, I can't judge if this kid is hardcore or not, but if that's his reasoning for buying a game, then I would wonder if the statistics separate gullible from hardcore.[/quote][/font][/color][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Georgia][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][color=#0000ff][font=Georgia][/font][/color][/color][/size][/font]
[size=2][font=Verdana][color=dimgray]The statistics describe exactly what you've mentioned here. What did this kid do? He walked into the store and picked up the package, which prompted him to ask his mother to purchase the game. [/color][/font][/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2][font=Verdana][color=dimgray]It's important to note that I'm not referring to this kind of behavior when I talk about media consumption. There's a vast difference between someone picking up a game package and reading "Voted Best Game of the Year by EGM", and someone actually going out and [i]reading [/i]several reviews. [/color][/font][/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2][font=Verdana][color=dimgray]What you described here is probably one of the most common methods for game purchasing, whether it's children or adults. I can tell you right now, I know a lot of people in my class at school who will decide to go out and buy a game and then they'll walk along the aisle and pick something that looks like it has great screenshots and an interesting premise.[/color][/font][/size]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2][font=Verdana][color=dimgray]These are not the kind of people that the gaming media relies on. Again, the gaming media would not exist without the "hardcore gamer". [/color][/font][/size]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]I think that Tony's first post is really echoing my thoughts on the "hardcore"/"casual" definition perfectly. My original post was more coming from the view of the industry -- whereas Tony's was more from the view of the individual gamer.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]He really hit the nail on the head in his post, I believe. Especially in terms of the role that the gaming media plays. [/color][/size][/font]

[Ashura]

Wow, this topic is getting deep. I applaud you all, as normally these sorts of topics (in any form, whether it be verbal or posted somewhere) tend to end up in a bad way, with people having a go at each other and trying to force their view down everyone else's throats.

I also agree with Desbreko's viewpoint for the most point. I believe myself to be a 'hardcore' gamer, not just for the ridiculous amount of time that I spend playing video games, but also for the research I do into a game before I go out and buy it. I am a subscriber to Hyper Magazine (an Aussie gaming mag) because of their comprehensive reviews and previews, as well as their very detailed looks into the various faucets of the gaming industry as a whole. I normally always make an informed choice when it comes to video games, and this is because I do my research. Yes, I did say 'normally'. I'll recently bought a game that was pretty bad (and I actually knew this when I bought it) - I'm a huge Sonic fan, so I went out and bought Sonic Heroes recently, mainly just to make my collection complete. Because of my previous knowledge found through my research and also common knowledge, I knew that it was going to be bad. But, regardless, I went and bought it, and as I predicted it was bad. But I was (partially) happy with my purchase as I mainly just wanted it for my collection.

Now, this raises two issues. Some people would claim that my choice was not warranted, therefore removing the 'hardcore' title that I have. But if I was happy with my choice, considering the fact that I did my research and found it worthy of a purchase, if only to include in my Sonic game collection, should I still be considered 'hardcore'?

The second issue is this: I spend my hard earned money on a game that I knew was bad, basically just for the reason of having it in my collection. As I bought the game not for the gameplay, but just for the reason of having it, should I be considered a normal gamer because I bought the game for a different reason for what most hardcore gamers would consider a decent reason? Your thoughts please...

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Basically once you're a hardcore gamer you remain a hardcore gamer until you stop your gaming. The fact that you knew exactly what you were getting into when you bought that game means that you're not a "casual" gamer, at least in my eyes. I mean, is it truly more "hardcore" to do a lot of research on, and then purchase and totally love something like Hunter: The Reckoning? (I think it's a piss-poor game, which is the point.) A hardcore gamer is someone who knows the what, when, and where of video games in general. You can be a friggin' member of the Super Mario Club (instant hardcore gamer label) and nobody can call you "casual" just because you decide to complete your collection of Mario games by buying Mario is Missing.