phi...@pl... wrote:
> Have to admit, I was rather relieved that the piece turned out to be
> very positive, given the games subject matter. Although I don't know
> if I'd call GTA3 'hardcore'. I tend to use that label for games with
> vertical learning curves, or excessive difficulty levels, i.e. only
> the hardcore will actually play them. E.g. Gunvalkyrie is hardcore,
> because only a compete nutter would persist past it's willfully
> difficult control system. Most scrolly shooters are hardcore, because
> if you're not 'in the zone' you get completely obliterated in seconds.
My personal definition of "hardcore" includes "counterintuitive gaming
principles that only a dedicated gamer with years on his back is aware of
(or interested in)". Stuff like:
- shooting at the powerup pills to change the powerup they provide
(shooters)
- AD&D rules in order to make sense out of skills & stats (many RPGs)
- excruciatingly complex subgoals in order to reveal easter eggs / extra
stuff (Final Fantasies)
- based on a hardcore gaming license (Maximo?)
- using many iconic or "plain weird" elements in its gaming universe (I
guess Mario or Sacrifice)...
Anti-hardcore would be stuff like:
- use well-known characters, licenses and game universes (GTA3, Commandos)
- use established game interfaces without assuming the player knows them
(the boring 1st tutorial we all skip)
- contain game interface helper elements (even Windows elements like
tooltips)
- avoid killing the player (Was Larry the first one to do this?)
- player always knows what to do, doesn't have to search for it himself.
A game would be hardcore if it contains too many hardcore elements for the
average joe.
|