Re: [GD-Design] GTA II Review

[Javier A. <ja...@py...>]

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.