GameGO! Magazine bites dust?!?

[LWK]

Originally posted by Nick Goracke:
<STRONG>This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but I kinda like the quote...

"Hardcore never even existed. It was only invented as an excuse to
whine about the reduced production of genres that collapsed under their own
weight years ago.

All a hardcore gamer is is a developmentally arrested casual gamer. The
difference is, they're hooked on casual gamer's fare from 10 or 15 years
ago. That's not hardcore. That's retarded."

It's a little harsh, but...

IMO, "hardcore" or "real" is pretty much a term elitist gamers use. There's no such definition, and the idea that ECM somehow embodies the idea scares me. I mean, what are the requirements? Shun everything mainstream? Shun everything 3D? You have to like shooters or 2D platformers?

Playing tons of games should be enough to be a "real" gamer - the moment "hardcore" is linked with likes or dislikes it becomes silly.

I liked Gamefan and the first issue of Gamego! for the games they covered - stuff that wasn't available in other mags. But one thing I've never liked about ECM and crew is the huge inconsistencies in their reviews and their general dislike for "mainstream" gaming.</STRONG>

Hardcore was the slogan they used HENCE THE OLD SCHOOL "DIE-HARD"
So you can over anaylze it all you want.

We love there biased general hate towards the mainstream. Hell, how many other mags even pay attention to Garou's existence?
I AM A HARDCORE GAMER, a elitest if you will, but I have been gaming for a shitload of years and if you have to, you definately know today's "PS gaming standard" is lacking quite a bit.

"Playing tons of games should be enough to be a "real" gamer - the moment "hardcore" is linked with likes or dislikes it becomes silly."

Maybe your creating your own context of the word HARDCORE, despite its obvious appearance it has a meaning to others that may not suit the general meaning. /overly obvious

"I liked Gamefan and the first issue of Gamego! for the games they covered - stuff that wasn't available in other mags. But one thing I've never liked about ECM and crew is the huge inconsistencies in their reviews and their general dislike for "mainstream" gaming"

I agree with you, ECM holds a "rebel appearance"
He rebels the publics view on games, but sometimes he himself rebel's too much, and downplay's games that are good.
However thats his choice as HE is the person reviewing the games. If you don't like his opinion then don't buy, simple as that. ALL reviewers are biased in a way because they have different standpoints which will appear to others on occasion as a biased approach. Its basically unavoidable.

"Hardcore never even existed. It was only invented as an excuse to
whine about the reduced production of genres that collapsed under their own
weight years ago."


Not true, hardcore is not based on genres, or to me at least.
I see it as a means of expressing your dedication to gaming in the fullest extent.
There are people who jump on the gaming badwagon thinking that they are heavy gamers, most of which are posers who will drop gaming at the site of the "next hot thing".

Hope this clears up my personal view, which was DIRECTED towards me do to the quote, and the expected response is in full.


"All a hardcore gamer is is a developmentally arrested casual gamer. The
difference is, they're hooked on casual gamer's fare from 10 or 15 years
ago. That's not hardcore. That's retarded."

Well I disagree with this, being in a scene for a eternity does not indicate you are hardcore, I believe its the dedication, but having years of gaming experience contributes as well.
No offence to anyone.
<IMG SRC="smilies/cool.gif" border="0">

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: Lord Wolfgang Krauser ]

 

[LWK]

Originally posted by Blaine:
<STRONG>Your right Nick,

Which is why I avoid the term "hardcore" like so much plague.

I defense of LWK I know he what he means. LWK is a game player. He likes games. I have no doubt that his 'hardcore' comment is the correct usage of the word.

'Hardcore' is like the word 'Hacker'. It's meaning is lost and now synonymous with someone who has to have the newest fastest bigest bestest game around. Screw anything that may be older yet fun.

Hardcore to me, means you can play a kick ass game of Skate or Die!

Hardcore to me, means you bought a new 50" cab, rip out it's guts, only to play nothing but Yie-Air-Kungfu on it.

Hardcore to me, means you've beaten Gates of Zendacon.

Hardcore means you love fleamarkets because where else can you find such an abundant supply of cheap NES games?!

Hardcore to me, means that you too go to www.the-underdogs.org on a bi-weekly basis.

Hardcore to me, means if you want to be in the industry like I do, your first choice of jobs ISN'T something that will pay good. You're first choice of jobs are Planet Moon, Nihlistic, Dreamforge and Looking Glass (god rest their souls)...because the games they made were so kick ass that it was impossible not to love it.

Does this mean Dreamcast sucks? Hell no.
It means you have respect for the games!
Respect the old school, you low-class fucks!

That is the spirit that GameGO! represents.

If you want the new-style of Hardcore, go to ShugaShack.

In the meantime I sit, content, as a game connoisseur.

**as much as I hate 'Hardcore' I sure said it a lot, didn't I?**

For full effect, read this will humming "Battle Hymn of The Republic".

Thank you.


Edited...and you're not the boss of me.

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: Blaine ]</STRONG>

Well said, like I had stated in my previous post the word has been decryed of its heritage a bit, like a Hacker. Funny thing is that term was not originally considered bad, in fact I had read a FAQ on Hackers and phreakers, (phreakers are phone hackers, not that kind <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0"> they would hack into pay phones etc.) It was originally meant as a quest for knowledge as the hackers became more accomplished they had a tool to use against SOCIETY, now its like me experimenting with the A-Bomb before its release, would you feel safe with me doing that? I think not.
So the hackers of old are trying to recapture there name, its sad that hackers are seen as bad people its the hackers who ILLEGALLY hack websites that are bad.
Which to the TRUE hacker community are not even seen as hackers! More like scum.
Check out www.hackers.com most of the info can be found there as well as explanations on phreaking and hacking.

 

[Nick Goracke]

Originally posted by Lord Wolfgang Krauser:
<STRONG>

I AM A HARDCORE GAMER, a elitest if you will, but I have been gaming for a shitload of years and if you have to, you definately know today's "PS gaming standard" is lacking quite a bit.

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: Lord Wolfgang Krauser ]</STRONG>

I guess this is one of the few things in your post that I have a problem with - what's lacking in the PS's lineup? Pretty much every genre is covered with quality titles, and there's plenty of innovative/quirky stuff as well...

Originally posted by Lord Wolfgang Krauser:
<STRONG>

ALL reviewers are biased in a way because they have different standpoints which will appear to others on occasion as a biased approach. Its basically unavoidable.

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: Lord Wolfgang Krauser ]</STRONG>

Absolutely. It's the inconsistencies in many of their reviews that bother me, not their personal biases.

Originally posted by Lord Wolfgang Krauser:
<STRONG>

Well I disagree with this, being in a scene for a eternity does not indicate you are hardcore, I believe its the dedication, but having years of gaming experience contributes as well.
[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: Lord Wolfgang Krauser ]</STRONG>

Same here - it's about dedication. The quote and my complaints were more directed to the group who thinks playing only 2D or obscure games or certain genres makes you "hardcore". Probably would've helped to clarify that earlier. <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

 

[Dan Elektro]

Originally posted by BioMotor_Unitron:
<STRONG>To me, a hardcore gamer is one that appreciates good, quality games regardless of whether they are on the Atari 2600 or the PS2.</STRONG>

WORD. Try any game on any system, and forget about the party lines or even the technology. If it's quality, then that should be all you need.

That said, I kind of wish the "hardcore" thing would go away too. I don't like the idea of gamers labeling other gamers.

 

[Loopz]

I'd like to elaborate on this whole issue of hardcore. I've used the term myself and don't plan on stopping anytime soon. 'Hardcore gamer' means one thing, and one thing only as far as I'm concerned: Gameplay is KING. That's it. Multi-million poly 3D graphics, fancy CG cinemas, all that overhyped shit is all a distant second. And that's primarily what the 'hardcore' thing is about. See, I'll be the first to admit, there have been some decent games for the new systems. I quite enjoyed recent efforts like SSX, Jet Grind Radio, Soul Calibur, Klonoa 2, and Twisted Metal Black. Those were very solid, excellent games that happened to feature beautiful graphics as a COMPLIMENT to the gameplay. But what came first with those titles? GAMEPLAY! Tight, well thought out control schemes, depth, level layout, and innovation were the cornerstones of those titles. But games like those are the rare exception nowadays. I work in a used game store, and you know what the first thing out of the average gamer's mouth is? "What are the graphics like? Does it look cool? Do you have a strategy guide?" The kind of gamer that put the PlayStation on top of today's market is, on average, a slack-jawed Barcalounger jockey who won't even try to battle his way through something like Resident Evil without a guide, I mean, FROM DAY ONE, he'll sit there, following the guide to the letter, not actually experiencing any of the chills, twists, or tough puzzles the game designers meant for him to experience. The average mainstream gamer wants his/her gaming experience to be graphically beautiful and/or cheap as possible. How else can you explain how well those El-Cheapo $10 PS games sell? Most of them are absolutely fucking atrocious, yet I can't keep 'em in stock, because to Joe Sixpack, Spec-Ops looks like some "mighty fine killin' ak-shun, all 3-D 'n shit." (actual quote.) I defy anyone to argue with the simple fact that the age of PlayStation brought with it millions of newbie 3-D luvin' 'gamerz' who could give a rat's ass about whether or not a game is challenging or fun, as long as it looks pretty (3D) and has some blood and titties. The simple fact is that videogames have become just like the motion picture industry. Most games (films) are unchallenging, pretty, and simply designed to appeal to the undemanding masses. Those of us who are steeped in this hobby and remember the glory days of 16-bit take what we can get (the occasional gem like the ones I mentioned, MGS, Tony Hawk, et. al) and just deal with it, sharing our grief/joy with each other on forums like this. <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

 

[Daisuke Jigen]

Originally posted by Dan Elektro:
<STRONG>WORD. Try any game on any system, and forget about the party lines or even the technology. If it's quality, then that should be all you need.

That said, I kind of wish the "hardcore" thing would go away too. I don't like the idea of gamers labeling other gamers.</STRONG>

I prefer to think of myself as dedicated. Not to one type, platform, or genre, but the good stuff.

Spec ops is kinda fun, if you give it a chance. <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

 

[LWK]

Originally posted by Nick Goracke:
<STRONG>Same here - it's about dedication. The quote and my complaints were more directed to the group who thinks playing only 2D or obscure games or certain genres makes you "hardcore". Probably would've helped to clarify that earlier. <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0"></STRONG>

Yeah, well after years of mental game conditioning its hard to keep track of normal things. <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">
Just imagine what this world would be like fully in the second dimention.
Anyway, nice debating the issue of hardcore.

I enjoy talking over issues to the fullest extent, heck theres bound to be tremors, I was quite impressed with your view of a certain subject, if I came on to strong my apoligies.

[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: Lord Wolfgang Krauser ]

 

[LWK]

Originally posted by Loopz:
<STRONG>I'd like to elaborate on this whole issue of hardcore. I've used the term myself and don't plan on stopping anytime soon. 'Hardcore gamer' means one thing, and one thing only as far as I'm concerned: Gameplay is KING. That's it. Multi-million poly 3D graphics, fancy CG cinemas, all that overhyped shit is all a distant second. And that's primarily what the 'hardcore' thing is about. See, I'll be the first to admit, there have been some decent games for the new systems. I quite enjoyed recent efforts like SSX, Jet Grind Radio, Soul Calibur, Klonoa 2, and Twisted Metal Black. Those were very solid, excellent games that happened to feature beautiful graphics as a COMPLIMENT to the gameplay. But what came first with those titles? GAMEPLAY! Tight, well thought out control schemes, depth, level layout, and innovation were the cornerstones of those titles. But games like those are the rare exception nowadays. I work in a used game store, and you know what the first thing out of the average gamer's mouth is? "What are the graphics like? Does it look cool? Do you have a strategy guide?" The kind of gamer that put the PlayStation on top of today's market is, on average, a slack-jawed Barcalounger jockey who won't even try to battle his way through something like Resident Evil without a guide, I mean, FROM DAY ONE, he'll sit there, following the guide to the letter, not actually experiencing any of the chills, twists, or tough puzzles the game designers meant for him to experience. The average mainstream gamer wants his/her gaming experience to be graphically beautiful and/or cheap as possible. How else can you explain how well those El-Cheapo $10 PS games sell? Most of them are absolutely fucking atrocious, yet I can't keep 'em in stock, because to Joe Sixpack, Spec-Ops looks like some "mighty fine killin' ak-shun, all 3-D 'n shit." (actual quote.) I defy anyone to argue with the simple fact that the age of PlayStation brought with it millions of newbie 3-D luvin' 'gamerz' who could give a rat's ass about whether or not a game is challenging or fun, as long as it looks pretty (3D) and has some blood and titties. The simple fact is that videogames have become just like the motion picture industry. Most games (films) are unchallenging, pretty, and simply designed to appeal to the undemanding masses. Those of us who are steeped in this hobby and remember the glory days of 16-bit take what we can get (the occasional gem like the ones I mentioned, MGS, Tony Hawk, et. al) and just deal with it, sharing our grief/joy with each other on forums like this. <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"></STRONG>

That gameplay is king comment is a great example.
When I review a game I usually state that GAMEPLAY IS EVERYTHING, regardless of the architecture. A good game can appear under any name whether it be PS2 or nes.
Graphics are just a goody, there tasty but without substance (IE gameplay) they are completely worthless.

Its kind of like love, its blind.

 

[Nick Goracke]

Originally posted by Loopz:
<STRONG> I defy anyone to argue with the simple fact that the age of PlayStation brought with it millions of newbie 3-D luvin' 'gamerz' who could give a rat's ass about whether or not a game is challenging or fun, as long as it looks pretty (3D) and has some blood and titties. Those of us who are steeped in this hobby and remember the glory days of 16-bit take what we can get
</STRONG>

Well, the 8-bit generation brought a lot of kiddies into the hobby, the 16-bit generation drew in a lot more teenagers (it was "cool"), and the 32-bit generation brought in a lot more 20-something working folks. Considering the direction games are taking at the moment, it seems reasonable to assume more and more adults will get into the hobby with the current generation. So I'd defy anybody to argue that there's been a generation of systems that hasn't brought in a whole lot of casual gamers.

As far as the "glory days" of 16-bit go, I guess I've never really subscribed to the belief that games were somehow better then. There were tons of money run sequals, over-hyped games, and poor playing titles that relied on graphics and big licenses. Different genres took the center stage (especially 2D platformers and shooters), but that's about the only difference I see...