|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:23 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:17 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:55 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:43 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:19 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:58 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:04 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:31 pm
|
|
|
|
Rini: That is incredible. I've never seen any retailer, other than second-hand places, that still carry PS1 games. eek
Iakun: I understand about time issues, believe me. It often takes me months to finish a game that dude breezes thru in a few days. I don't think dude was talking about people who simply lack time; I think he only meant people who purposely don't finish games. The part that I was talking about that makes me sad is the huge number of people who never finish any games at all or only a few. It sounds like you're saying you've only quit a few, so I don't think you're in that category. (And I certainly meant no offense.) If you don't like a game for some reason, then it makes sense to quit; but if a person doesn't like any games, maybe gaming isn't for them.
Whatever your definition of gamer, I think it's strange to spend money on so many games that you're not going to finish. If it were just a few, or even half, it wouldn't seem so weird. My view is: If you enjoy games but don't finish them, you're a player (kind of like the definition of casual gamer); but if you finish almost every game you start, you're a gamer.
I look at it like books. If someone told me they loved reading and had read tons of books but never finished any of them, I would say they were not a reader, and I doubt anyone would argue with me. I realize books aren't quite the same as games, but they both have endings and goals to reach.
Now, having said all that, it occurs to me that there might be a striking similarity to this lack of ambition in dude's gaming style. He does have a nasty habit of restarting games over and over until he feels like he can play it perfectly, and he does have a game in his collection that he likes to break out every now and then, just to replay a certain level. I've always felt that was strange and pointless.
Maybe it all depends on your focus in a game. Me, I'm a story person. Like with books, I need a solid story and compelling characters to keep me interested in a game. That's not to say I don't occasionally enjoy the crazy action-y games sometimes, but mostly I need something to keep my brain busy as well as my fingers. Some people seem only interested in frenetic action and memorizing moves and blowing s**t up.
No one's ever been able to give me a satisfactory definition of "hardcore gamer." And maybe dude's diatribe was a little elitist for someone who doesn't have the time constraints that some of us work with. But for me, the point I was trying to make was simply that I think it's sad that so many people don't enjoy finishing any games they start, as if they only cared about sampling the different kinds and moving on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 10:18 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:37 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:45 pm
|
|
|
|
Ty: I don't think you have to have played the older stuff to be considered a gamer, but if you've never finished any of your games, that might put you out of the running. xd Lol @ semi-gamer.
Rini: I've played some games that I thought would've made much better movies or something. But it sounds like Mike is a real dedicated gamer. I've only played the first KH, but I loved it, and I will get to the others eventually. *determined face*
Moon: Congrats on finishing another game! I know how hard that can be when you don't have the time. And how annoying it is to put hours of work into something you end up not needing for the final fight. I agree that "hardcore gamer" may have lost its meaning, but maybe that depends on how you look at it.
I like VGCats. xd But I think there's too much hate on casual gamers these days. I play games that are widely considered "casual games", and some of them are quite difficult, not to mention fun.
Historically speaking, the only reason original gamers played games that were so hard and worked so much to beat them was because there was nothing else. Those tough games were all that existed; there were no other choices. That doesn't make them good, although many of them were; it just makes them the only choice. For most of them, if they were made today, they wouldn't get far. The reason the "golden age of gaming" is considered golden is because of the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia. Just like cartoons from when you were a kid - most of them were crappy, but because you grew up with them, they're awesome. xd There are still plenty of "hardcore" games being made. Are they as tough as the first video games? Probably not, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Part of what made early games so tough was lazy programming, technology limitations, and the fact that creators knew they had a limited audience who would put up with anything if they wanted to play. "Great" games were just as hard to come by back in the day as they are now. And I could tell you about some truly bizarre old games that we would've called "casual games" today. xd But between nostalgia and the fact that there are so many more games altogether now, it makes the modern scene look worse than it actually is. There's nothing wrong with making easier games for people who like easier games. But excluding those people from the gaming community because they don't play the same games in the same way that the original gamers did would be unfair. Call them "casual gamers" or semi-gamers or whatever, but they're not ruining the market.
*gets off soapbox*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:30 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|