Duoae

On the contrary.... the opposite of cataloging and defining is non-definition and all-encompassing - hence lumping everyone in together. It's not lazy for me to look at it that way. What would you call 'making everyone equal' if it's not lumping everyone together?

And lumping everyone in together is, IMO, more useless when it comes to addressing a specific audience or part of that audience. I feel that method is even lazier.

Care to come up with some new definitions? I've seen many people try but so far none of them are able to do it. I'd also argue that the it's not the journalists or the media that have abuse the terms but the fans.... i don't remember the last time i read a polarised article (from a professional outlet) that reinforced the casual market and hardcore stereotypes. It's usually in comment threads like this one where the fanboys call out the casual audience of the Wii etc. (which is hard to argue against since i'd say a larger portion of the Wii's userbase is of a more casual nature than either the 360 or PS3)

I also don't like calling someone who plays boggle 24/7 a hardcore gamer. You don't call someone who reads the same book (say LoTR) over and over again a well-read person, do you? To me, hardcore tends to mean someone who is well-versed in all aspects of gaming AND spends a large portion of their free time thinking, talking, reading and writing about games as well as playing them. Someone who's casual about playing games will play them in their free time but won't consume the culture or ideas surrounding the medium and it isn't necessarily the person's main hobby either.

I think you can apply that to any hobby and medium, from films to flying kites.

I love how N'Gai's calling for a moratorium on Hardcore and Casual terms. I've seen so many people call for an end to their use but we need a way to differentiate between people who are dedicated games consumers and people who browse.... just as there's a difference between people who buy Jimmy Choos(?) and Chanelle perfume and those who use Walmart pumps and roll-on Addidas.

They may be generalisations but they are based on facts and consuming habits (both financial and time-wise) of the users of the products. They are useful and until someone comes up with a better system i wish people would recognise that there's no getting around it.

After working for the general press (in a non-journalistic role) i find Leigh's comments exceptionally naive. Even when the truth is given, it's either misused or unused. In the world of today there's an ever-increasing tendency to exaggerate to be able to get any notice our time-limited attention spans. In fact, many outlets prey on 'getting people wrong' to get them their pageviews.

@AkaMagi:

Yeah but that's not happening. The PC is not the driving force for graphics it was during the last generation of consoles - it's the law of diminishing returns. Making ever more graphically intense gaming experiences is killing the game industry because it costs an exponential amount of extra cash to make all those art assests at 2500x4600 resolution or whatever (btw, there's nothing really after HD... i suppose people are ready to upgrade their HDTVs in under 6 years for the new UHDTVs? Not likely...). So the current standard for graphics is the equivalent of what's possible on the 360 and PS3 - which is why the majority of games look about the same graphics-wise.... only Crysis has really pushed the graphical boundaries IMO and they were punished for it because everyone and their grandma runs a 7900 or lower with the more recent cards being slowly taken up (graphics cards sales numbers are dropping because there aren't the new games to require them) and thus it's a cycle of:

Consumer: Don't need to upgrade so can't play more graphically intense games
Developer: Can't make graphically intense games because of the ultra cost and no one can run them and so won't buy them.

The developers and publishers are just getting to the point where they have the systems down (well, okay, the 360 at any rate) and those resources mean that it's starting to cost less and is quicker to develop new games. It would be a shame to cut that off early. Like Pachter says, i can't see developers or publishers supporting another early push to a new gen of console. It'll cost too much and there currently is no 'next thing' to move to unless it's as standard 1080p for all games at 60fps... which i don't think will be a very noticeable change from the current gen on most set-ups.

@baby sea tuna

Haha, i don't hate them and i know there was a sea of crap on the PS2 i just had more titles on the PS2 by this point through the generation.... there's a lot of crap out there but even the 'better' stuff is mostly buggy and 'difficult to control' releases.... looking at Dark Sector, Alone in the Dark, Mirror's Edge (though i like that one) etc. There just aren't as many 'must buys' for me this gen.... and i *live* games so it's not for lack of wanting!

:)

I'd prefer for the next generation of consoles (MS and Sony) to come out later than 2012.... the 360 just feels too young and the PS3 is definitely too young. Nintendo can bring out a new version of the Wii.... that's no problem, but for games there just doesn't feel like there's enough quality games for any system that's out right now.

I don't know about other people but I've only bought 15 games for the 360* and by this point in the PS2's life cycle i had many more than that.

*I rent as well but the majority of games aren't worth buying at full or even half price, IMO.

Kind of.... The government (via the Byron report) want to make a standardised certification system for gaming as there is for movies. We already have a standardised system for titles that developers and publishers believe will fall into the 15+ age groups (that's M for mature for the US peeps). The BBFC currently has one of the most rigorous and fair systems for rating games and has 'banned' fewer games in the last twenty years than the ratings bodies in the US, Germany and Australia. (I say 'ban' because we actually have an 18+ rating whereas the ESRBs AO rating means that the game will not be carried despite being the same thing).

PEGI are basically a ratings body that is spread across a large proportion of the EU countries. Their ratings system is less rigorous than the BBFC's and can in the extreme cases allow a game to be published with just the publisher/developer filling in a form though they also view videos of games they think might be on the boundary of an age rating. They also contract out each country's ratings to a body within said country rather than having a centralised unit which does all the ratings for every country it covers.

ELSPA are a group that comprises publishers and developers that have interests in the UK. They want the system which will give them the least hassle and cost the least. PEGI is the system which fulfills their desires however, legally PEGI is more open to challenges on the rating of a game (if some parent or councillor or MP etc. takes issue with the content of a game) due to them not playing every game that is sent to them for rating. Their main (official) arguments for adopting PEGI is that it is more understandable than the BBFC's rating system... which is the same as the movie industry's rating system.
PEGI's rating indicators are quite obscure because (apart from age ratings - which BBFC has) they also apply content descriptor icons which range from a spider, a fist and a pair of dice and which are not explained on the game box (at least none that i own). My main issue with these is that across multiple cultures and societies these representations do not carry the same weight or meaning and so therefore are more confusing for the general public.

(Presumably) PEGI wants to make their system more open to the public and have recently announced a traffic light system which basically looked the same as the movie ratings (red for 18, orange for 12/15 and green for PG)... for which they were rapped on the hand and told to not to infringe copyright/trademark by the BBFC. Now they have altered the traffic light system so it's distinguishable from the BBFC's but i haven't seen the new symbols so i don't know how different they are.

So, PEGI is easier and cheaper and thus more open to legal challenges (which IMO is bad for the industry) and to make themselves less complicated copied the BBFC's rating icons which were previously 'not clear enough'.

You guys all realise that with just StarCraft 2 and Diablo alone they're set for 'delivering one frontline release per year' for the next four years, right?

Diablo 3
SC2:Terrans
SC2:Protoss
SC2:Tyra-er i mean Zerg

That gives them at least 2-4 years to deliver the next WoW expansion.... which isn't that odd.

I agree. I think there are lots of unfair terms that publishers and developers stick in there under the assumption (and fact) that we can't look at the EULA before opening the game and thus being unable to return it. I've been saying for years that consumers need protection from the increasingly draconian games industry.... I mean, think about this - Moto GP '07 has a requirement that only the purchaser of the game is allowed to play it. You can't lend it or allow another person to play the game under your 360 account or whatever.

Now, i know EULAs are questionably legal but they have been ruled as both unlawful/unenforceable and as legally binding. If it came down to being taken to court i wouldn't want to be bound by a contract that i have to agree to that's implicitly one-sided. Where's the option for me to refuse the contract and send the game back for a full refund? Where's my consumer rights? Even the movie and music industries allow you to 'share' your paid content - just not at large public events. Imagine if you couldn't watch the DVD your parents bought you because it was legally theirs and no one elses but they had none of the legal rights granted to 'ownership'....

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! Sacrilege!