Women and Elite

[Surly_Badger]

Hardcore gaming = not casual

Gotcha. So someone who plays Candy Crush or Farmville 18 hrs/week is "hardcore" no doubt. I knew a few Tetris players that were certainly not casual about it, one of whom lost their job because they were playing 10+hrs/day. "Not casual" would make more than 50% of "hardcore" gamers female.

I happen to agree. But I don't think the definition "casual" is useful and thereby I don't think "hardcore" as an opposite is useful either.

a casually hardcore gamer

In terms of Remiel's definition, you're an impossible contradiction.


In case you hadn't figured it out, I reject the notion that there is such a thing as "hardcore" gaming. There are just a wide variety of games that people slap labels of one sort or another on. What I disagree strongly with is gender-biased attempts to carve out a specific type of game and say "it's a guy thing" or "it's a chick thing" That does not appear to match the reality of gaming.

Edit: what does appear to match the reality of gaming is that gamers don't seem to like to buy games in which the group they self-identify as are represented using gross stereotypes, or racist stereotypes, or are not represented with playable characters. In other words, I probably wouldn't buy a game in which white, ageing, nerdy guys were stereotyped (with any of the nasty stereotypes that apply) or were only in-game as victims, targets, or villains. And that doesn't strike me as advanced rocket science.

 

[Remiel]

Gotcha. So someone who plays Candy Crush or Farmville 18 hrs/week is "hardcore" no doubt. I knew a few Tetris players that were certainly not casual about it, one of whom lost their job because they were playing 10+hrs/day. "Not casual" would make more than 50% of "hardcore" gamers female.

I happen to agree. But I don't think the definition "casual" is useful and thereby I don't think "hardcore" as an opposite is useful either.

It doesn't matter what you think about it, the definitions are sound, reasonable, and based on reality. Your definitions are buying into the negative connotations of the word 'hardcore' rather than the realistic slang it really is and always has been. And given that 18 hours a week is only ~11% of the total time of a week, or ~16% if you count healthy sleep cycles, then it doesn't really account for much of their time at all, and you're beginning to sound a little fanatical in your denial of reality. Reality is, if gaming is your primary hobby/past time/profession, regardless of the type of game played or time spent playing (because if 18 hours a week is all you have left after real life priorities like work and family and you're using it for gaming, it counts), then you can be considered 'hardcore' enough. For the record, someone who plays games at the expense of real life priorities, if any, is not a hardcore gamer. They are a problem gamer, not unlike a problem gambler or problem drinker.

Casual is someone who plays snake on their phone while they're on the train going to work because they forgot to grab a newspaper. Casual is someone who plays games but has a different primary hobby/past time/profession. But more important, above all else, the terms 'hardcore' and 'casual' are non-discriminatory, except when someone like you comes along and makes them sound that way.

 

[Nilt]

Sweeping generalizations in general are bad. Human beings are diverse in beliefs, fancies, personality,etc. trying to use stereotypes as a basis for argument is just silly.

Agreed. Unfortunately, many don't grasp this without specific examples of generalizations that are bad. Huh, that makes sense but feels as though it shouldn't.

In terms of Remiel's definition, you're an impossible contradiction.

That's me, all right. I've defied definition almost all my life. I pick my own way; screw the beaten path.

18 hours a week

Heh, 18 hours a week is light for me. Perks of the self employed, I suppose.

 

[Surly_Badger]

It doesn't matter what you think about it, the definitions are sound, reasonable, and based on reality.

That's funny. I think I demonstrated fairly effectively that the definition you offered is poor, and does not actually work. You're not actually defining what "hardcore" gaming is in a measurable sense, you're just using it as a label.

"Not casual" is not a definition, unless you define "casual" ... Do, please, go ahead.

Your definitions

I am not offering a definition. You are. I think the term "hardcore" applied to gaming is meaningless. You're welcome to offer a workable definition.

And given that 18 hours a week is only ~11% of the total time of a week, or ~16% if you count healthy sleep cycles, then it doesn't really account for much of their time at all, and you're beginning to sound a little fanatical in your denial of reality. Reality is, if gaming is your primary hobby/past time/profession, regardless of the type of game played or time spent playing (because if 18 hours a week is all you have left after real life priorities like work and family and you're using it for gaming, it counts), then you can be considered 'hardcore' enough.

Well, I do have a friend who plays Candy Crush as hard as many of us appear to play Elite. Are they a "hardcore" gamer or not? You're the one using the term. And, yes, their hobbies at this time consist of walking with their dogs and playing Farmville, The Sims, and Candy Crush. Probably more than I play Elite, and I play Elite a lot.

For the record, someone who plays games at the expense of real life priorities, if any, is not a hardcore gamer. They are a problem gamer, not unlike a problem gambler or problem drinker.

Oh, you're just full of labels, aren't you? Nice. "at the expense of real life priorities" like sleep?
And they're not "hardcore" in that case? I think you'd find a lot of people who'd self-describe as "hardcore" (whatever that is) that match what you're describing here as a "problem gamer" And they might not agree with you.

Casual is someone who plays snake on their phone while they're on the train going to work because they forgot to grab a newspaper. Casual is someone who plays games but has a different primary hobby/past time/profession. But more important, above all else, the terms 'hardcore' and 'casual' are non-discriminatory, except when someone like you comes along and makes them sound that way.

I'm sure you don't just mean Snake.

I'm not making them sound discriminatory. I'm rejecting your definitions as nonsensical. You can't say "it's non discriminatory" until you actually have a workable definition; then it'll be discriminatory or non discriminatory if the definition embodies discrimination. See how that works?

So, fact: 50% of gamers are women. (Source) (source)

However the stereotype that female gamers are interested almost exclusively in casual smartphone titles is tested by the data. 47% of female gamers polled had played a disc-based game in the last six months, and 68% had played an online game. 56% of female gamers have played on a console.

Also consider:

The most time consuming types of game are online-focused titles like World of Warcraft and Call of Duty – these take up 47% of gaming time, compared to smartphone apps (23%) and disc-based games (22%).

So, if smartphone apps are 23% of the time consuming games, that means that an awful lot of game-time is spent playing smartphone apps. Not casual at all. Now, it becomes a problem to say what's a "casual smartphone gamer" from a "hardcore smartphone gamer" (hint: there is no such thing as a casual gamer; there is no such thing as a hardcore gamer; there is no such thing as a problem gamer)

In the second source above there are some interesting breakdowns (page 10) on categories of games by sales/time spent playing. I don't agree with how they bucket the types of games ("action" and "shooter" are separate categories? hmmm) (and they have a category called "CASUAL" which ... I have no idea what that is)

Yes, I also reject the idea of saying "more men than women are hardcore gamers" but that's not because I think it's a dumb thing to say; I think it's a dumb thing to say because the idea that there is a "hardcore gamer" is vague and undecidable, so you can't usefully say "more X are Y" when Y is vague.


Anyhow, chill out a bit; I'm sorry I have the temerity to disagree with your definition but please don't infer any particular agenda is behind my comments. I probably agree with you more than I disagree (I just think your attempts to define something vague are doomed to failure). The studies on the demographics of gaming that I linked (especially the 2nd) are really interesting; to me they explode a lot of stereotypes of gamers and gaming. My well-meaning attack on your definition is not a personal attack against you (so take a deep breath...) but rather an attempt to continue demolishing and deconstructing inaccurate stereotypes of what gamers are and what gamers do.

I got my big reality check about this stuff back when someone asked me whether "guitar hero" is a 'hardcore' game. I found I really couldn't answer. Part of me wanted to say "NO!" because I considered myself to be 'hardcore' (I mean: look at my entire desk devoted to Elite, and the Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS and pedals and special room lighting and iPad to drive my captains log, and my box I built running the 2 Nvidia cards and the SSD RAID array.... I'm 'hardcore'!!!) and then I looked at the microphones, stands, guitars, drums that Rock Band and Guitar Hero players ... uh oh... 'hardcore' Guitar Hero...

Bottom line is I think a lot of very inaccurate stereotypes are being pushed about gamers, particularly related to 'hardcore' games and the people pushing the idea of 'hardcore' are (whether they realize it or not) being drafted into the service of some very bad ideas surrounding representation and inclusiveness in games; I don't agree with that, and neither to the numbers I referenced above.

Edit: in terms of demographics and time spent, if there is a 'hardcore' gaming contingent, it's the people who used to play Farmville. More hours were burned on Farmville than on World Of Warcraft. And let's not get started on "Words With Friends" Imagine if the "Words With Friends" crowd rightly sneered at us 'casual' Elite players? Because, the numbers say we're the 'casual' gamers, not them.

 

[Remiel]

Edit: what does appear to match the reality of gaming is that gamers don't seem to like to buy games in which the group they self-identify as are represented using gross stereotypes, or racist stereotypes, or are not represented with playable characters. In other words, I probably wouldn't buy a game in which white, ageing, nerdy guys were stereotyped (with any of the nasty stereotypes that apply) or were only in-game as victims, targets, or villains. And that doesn't strike me as advanced rocket science.

I just read this and I don't know if you realise, but Elite is a spaceship game. The only people not buying it because they might feel poorly represented are spaceships, and given that spaceships aren't people, we can safely say Elite doesn't have a misrepresentation problem. Am I right? Or are you missing a few things out maybe?

- - - Updated - - -

Essay

Just about everything you expatiated was based on you not reading, or wilfully ignoring, what I've said. Seriously? You want me to define casual after I just did? The hallmark of any good tantrum is, of course, a really long post that completely misses and/or ignores other posts and asks questions that have already been answered, so go ahead and dismiss whatever you like, you're only excluding yourself from reality and that is entirely your problem.

 

[Remiel]

"at the expense of real life priorities" like sleep?

I didn't say that, but it's this putting words in my mouth thing that tells me you aren't interested in listening, just standing on a podium with a megaphone and shouting down everyone else, filling the mouthpiece with angry spittle while you scream about how the sky is falling. This makes you irrelevant to the conversation, since you aren't having one anyway.

If you want to deconstruct stereotypes, then you can begin with not denying people their rights to self-identification. I know this sounds very tumblr-ish, and to an extent it is, but stereotypes only exist because of a failure of understanding, not because of anything wrong with the terminology or definitions. If I say I'm autistic, for example, it probably doesn't mean what you think it does, because autism covers a very wide-ranging spectrum of disability that runs the gamut of completely incogent to artistic savant that you wish you could be more like. The only time anyone should have a problem with terminology is when it's misused, or hijacked, such as when 'autism' is used pejoratively against people that are incessantly annoying just because they come across as autistic, when I'll bet the person using the pejorative has literally zero idea of what autism entails.

It's no good saying we can't apply words to things we like because they have negative connotations. That will never solve the problem, someone will just go and find a new word to replace it with that isn't taboo yet and eventually, we'll have banned the entire english language because 'you can't say that evah because it's bad, even this sentence is full of no-nos' and we'll never communicate again. But here's the thing about stereotypes - they only exist in the minds of a few people that are affected by them. If someone calls me a 'hardcore gamer' as an insult, I don't really feel insulted. My brother, who is gay, used to get called all kinds of 'bad' things that apply to gay people, and he would just nod and say, 'yes, thank you captain obvious, congratulations for noticing.'

 

[Jenner]

Closed as per forum rule #19 (Circular Threads)

I think this conversation has run its course. It's basically down to a couple of posters going over and over the same stuff, but has collected far too many reported posts recently. The subject matter is important of course, but it's really deviated from where this thread started waaay back when.