I like video games. I like the gameplay in them, the stories (some of them, at least) in video games and the art especially. You'll see art direction and stories done in video games that have yet to be done in american animation, which is kind of sad. Video games and gamers is something I will probably touch on more than once. But one question I want to get out of the way is: What is a hardcore game/gamer?

Seriously what is? Is it how much time is invested in playing the game, is it the complexity, the use of stories, the cost/time to make it, the difficulty, the maturity, graphics, their skill at gaming,how many games they've played, or are they only characterized by how they hate the wii and labelling themselves as hardcore? The definition is so vague that I look at the people who label themselves this and ask "Do you even know what you're calling yourself?". They apparently don't because there's no one agreed definition.

So,if a hardcore game is differentiated by time invested in playing it then some of the games regarded as casual like wii fit and bejeweled would be hardcore because some people can be on those games for 1 or 2 hours and games like street fighter would be casual because I can pick that up and play it for only 20 minutes. That's not it. If a hardcore game is differentiated by complexity then games like No more heroes, mario galaxy, Megaman or Conker's bad fur day are not hardcore because the controls are simple. However these games are praised by some who consider themselves hardcore. That can't be it. Well, if it's the use of stories then the majority of the old 8 and 16 bit games we knew and love aren't hardcore because they never had story unless you looked in the manual. That means old games like mario and sonic aren't hardcore but there are hardcore gamers that adore those games and sometimes even say that old-school games are better than the new ones. That can't be it then.

How about the cost/time to make it? That might be the closest thing that separates casual from hardcore because a lot of what these self-labelled hardcore gamers call casual and/or hardcore games do have the difference of cost and time in development. But if money and time to develop a game is what can keep these people from playing games then they are freaking idiots. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of if that's the case. Let's not watch a movie if it didn't have a $300million budget. What about difficulty? If that's the case then games like rockband and audiosurf would be hardcore because they can get really difficult. But there are hardcore gamers that hate games like those. Heck, some of them complain about their own games not being difficult enough.

Okay, so maybe it's maturity. Once again, that would mean games like megaman and ratchet and clank are casual because they're not the most mature games out there. It would also make the hardcore gamers look even dumber if they discriminate against the wii and casual games because it doesn't satisfy their lust for sex and violence in video games. And it can't be graphics because that would make old-school games and games that don't have photo-realistic graphics (in other words, anything not on a ps3 or 360) casual games. But that would make them graphic whores and graphics don't make gameplay.

So what does make a hardcore game/gamer? Apparently nothing; it's completely arbitrary except cost and time to develop a game. The only way I see it is that there are smart gamers and there are dumb ones.