In this week's Free Zone column, Richard Aihoshi wonders what hardcore actually is and what is it that makes hardcore better. He challenges readers to define hardcore and to give concrete reasons why it is a better gameplay experience than any other. Take Richard's challenge after reading his insightful column.

What's so good about hardcore?

The question above is one that I've asked multiple times over the years, both of myself, and more often, in the course of conversations with others, usually game developers. On pretty much all of the latter occasions, the initial responses haven't been fully satisfactory. The most frequent reason has been because they haven't provided sufficiently defined frames of reference.

Read all of Richard Aihoshi's Free Zone and then head to the forums to respond.

It seems that you're looking for a type of content when the term describes how someone may consume that content.

i'll keep this simple

games these days can be picked up by just about anyone and jumped into with little to no previous knowledge of how mmos work and do pretty well

spell clickers rather then key binders, casting threw damage , gear set based games that let better equipped less skilled players to defeat better skilled players with sub par equipment..etc..etc..

i'll let the forum patrol flame me and continue on, baby is crying o_O

I think its pretty easy to tell what people mean by hardcore, although its use is just a way of self appreciation. Hardcore games show the gamer no mercy when it comes to playing and figuring out a game. They will allow the gamer to be killed and lose all of their stuff from the very start, they will allow the gamer to travel the world by any means neccessary to complete a goal without exact location route tracing..

Hardcore games to me are basically games that do not forgive the player for being new and unfamiliar. Hardcore games tend to have a higher risk vs reward quality, because they force the player to risk so much more and be willing to deal with loss as much as be satisfied with gain.

It falls into the age old argument of why sports like rugby and MMA are considered hardcore compared to sports like golf and tennis.. The competitors are risking so much more in those sports..

Originally posted by Vinterkrig

i'll keep this simple

games these days can be picked up by just about anyone and jumped into with little to no previous knowledge of how mmos work and do pretty well

spell clickers rather then key binders, casting threw damage , gear set based games that let better equipped less skilled players to defeat better skilled players with sub par equipment..etc..etc..

i'll let the forum patrol flame me and continue on, baby is crying o_O

Too expound a little more on your points.  Things in MMOs now adays are spoon fed to everyone.  There is no mystery anymore you have a Journal that gives you clear directions on where you should go and how you should go about completing your task.  Quest givers now have little things floating above their heads and are now marked on a map.  It makes the whole experience cumbersome in that you are no longer immersed in the world but now are just following the bread crumbs from place to place.

Back in the old days of EQ there really was immersion into the game, you had to either find out for yourself or learn from a verteran on the do's and dont's of the game.  In some respects EVE is like this as well.  But basically there are very few games out there that immerse the player.  It's all finish NPC A quests then go find NPC B with the floaty above his head and complete his quests, wash rinse and repeat this cycle 100's of times over....

Then you take the models reskin them and repeat them into a whole host of variations of the same theme and wonder why us MMO players are such a bunch of sour pusses.

Simple really, an MMO that is difficult and has penalties.

For instance: An actual death penalty, where your items drop and can be looted, or you lose XP etc. Not the oh I got a couple minutes of down time because I died but my character is fine.

A game that takes learning and skill, so any game that is WoW or a WoW clone will never be hardcore. Anyone can be good at WoW because it is not skill, it is finding out a number press combination and then using it. A player should have to dodge, learn lots of strategies, situations should change and not always be the same.

A game where it takes a while to get to max level, not 2-3 weeks like the WoW/clones era of MMO gaming.

Hard core to me really means a game that is challenging. I don't find any MMOs made in the last ~5 years to be challenging at all. Some may be very grindy, but that is not challenging by itself.

I loved UO, AC, DAoC. I hated EQ, WoW, and almost all modern MMOs (definetly WAR, what was that pile of garbage). Thanks to WoW, MMO companies found out that if they made the game easy then a lot more people could stick with it. That meant a lot more money for them, so that became the model to use. We can't have challenging games because too many people would cry that it was hard and quit. It's the same with movies and TV shows in modern times. They don't challenge the mind or make you think, instead they are extremely blunt and direct so that everyone can watch it. If a show challenged the mind then all the unintelligent people in the world would go "I don't get it" and turn it off, so less money for the creators. The problem with that is, the less people are required to think and figure things out, the worse they become at it. This means games, TV, movies, books have to become increasingly dumbed down to keep playing to the lowest common denomiator. This in turn continues to make people even less intellgent and the cycle continues.

There's a reason why the US is the world's only remaining super power, but when compared to most other countries academically, our results are terrible. We don't force people to think, since capitalism shows that adapting to the person is more profitable then forcing the person to adapt to you.

"Hardcore" to me has become a description of a playstyle as opposed to a description of a game.  A game may support the "hardcore" playstyle, but I'm not sure "hardcore" can describe a game itself as if you adopt my view then any game can be "hardcore".  "Hardcore" in my opinion has several aspects.  The simple answer is I have a tough time describing it, but I know it when I see it.  With that said I'll try to put some boundaries in there for a definiition.

First I recognize "hardcore" as doing that one aspect of a game to the exclusion of all else that does not advance you in that chosen aspect.  For example if you are a "hardcore" PvP player then you will ignore all aspects of the game that do not advance your goal of being ranked among the top PvP players in the game.  A hardcore PvP player will view PvE as at worst a waste of time or at best a way to obtain trinkets and gear that advance them in their PvP pursuits.

Second I recognize "harcore" as a belief that the game must "punish" those who fail to achieve the goals of the chosen aspect of the game.  It's much more sanguinary than "Oh, I got kicked to the bindstone."  "Harcore" means that victory can gain you something tangible and that loss costs something tangible.  I think everyone would agree that corpse looting is a "harcore" mechanic while a simple ghosted corpse run is on the other side of the scale.  Getting locked out of a PvE instance for a month if you die to the final boss would be considered "hardcore" whereas a simple "Go back to the start of the crawl" might be considered less so.

Third I recognize "hardcore" as a commitment to spend a disproportionately large portion of one's game time on that particular game mechanic.  A "hardcore" raider in WoW spends his or her game time on running the instances or preparing to run the instances.  "Nights off" are rare and it requires a personal commitment to endure the farming and preparation and be present for the raids.  The player's enjoyment of the game is derived from fulfilling the personal commitment.

Fourth there is an "exclusivity" or "elitism" element to "hardcore" that blends in with the commitment requirement of "hardcore".  No eveyrone can be in the club because if they are then the idea of "hardcore" breaks down.  It's not "hardcore" if everyone who logs on for 30 minutes a week can do it.  To be in the "Hardcore" playstyle club the player must show the commitment to that aspect of the game and may be derided for not putting in the commitment those that espouse the "hardcore" doctrine do.  Use of catch phrases like "L2P" and "noob" and "bads" and "zergers" and even the term "casuals" can be indicators of a "hardcore" playstyle.  "Hardcore" playstylists tend to wined up grouped together so long as it furthers their goal in the chosen mechanic.  Like any other game mechanic guilds or friends that do not further the goal of the individual player are quickly discarded in favor of others who's commitment matches those of the "hardcore" playstyle player.

Fifth there is a "study" aspect to "hardcore".  A "hardcore" playstyle requires not only the commitment in game, but a commitment outside of the game as well that is measured in study of game mechanics or whatever aspects of the gmae that someone intends to be "hardcore" in.  "Hardcore" inevitablely requires "Min/Maxiing" as any game mechanic that does not further the players goal in the chosen area must be either adjusted or discarded.  The player must have "the" spec and "the" gear etc necessary to be tops at that chosen aspect.

Finally there is a "Phyched Up/Burnt Out" cylce aspect.  Since hardcore requires high commitment, energy, time and sacrifice it inevitably leads to two things.  The newest members of the "hardcore" playstle club have the most energy, drive and highest commitment while those who have been at if for a while are subject to a "burnout" where they no longer wish to be "hardcore" anymore.  At this point there may be attempts to reconnect with old "non harcore" friends or reroles to new servers for a "fresh start".  After a time a player might return ot the "hardcore" playstyle, select another area to be "hardcore" in or simply reject the "hardcore" playstyle all together.

Within those parameters any game can be considered "hardcore" so long as it supports that kind of playstyle.

It is simple, like many other said here already. Hardcore player is the one, who spends a lot of time in the game - productively spend! (this is important). It means he takes more from the game then any casual player. And it also means he knows the game better. Hence, his characters are better geared and more efficient in any area. Now, who would you prefer to have in your group - a casual, who barely remembers how to play and under-geared, or a hardcore player?

I hate how everything has to be defined as extreme's like "Hardcore or carebear" It's all epeen BS for the most part...

I tend to fit into the gray area, leaning to more of the grittier side...

I dislike when games use controled environments to define gameplay, these are the PVP battlegrounds, the safe/danger zones, and having it where just because a player is in your faction means that you can't attack him, even if they use exploitive means of griefing (training mobs etc)

The best description of this type of gameplay is DAoC FFA server (Mordred and Andred for those who remember) This was pretty controvertial step in MMO's because you can pretty much kill or be killed by anyone at any time from the very start (or maybe it was lvl 10)... but not have to run the risk of losing all your stuff and it tought diplomacy as well as survival in gaming... Similar to how UO did it in the earlier days.

Now everything is Battlegrounds, hermetically sealed controlled environments where everything is fluffy and fair play, battle grounds will "reset" if there is not a balanced amount of players... The other issue is individuals are sometimes matched with set groups, another flaw... World PvP is almost frowned upon.

In DAoC (which still had battlegrounds) had a much greater focus on Realm and world PvP and merely used the BG's as a training grounds.

For me it's not about Hardcore, it's about the gray area thats not one extreme or another... I would love a game like Darkfall, and I played it and wanted to like it, but found that it was a bit to harsh as you not only had to watch your back from enemy players but also friendly fire from fellow guild/groupmates... on top of that you got sent home nekid in the event of a death which means constant pack muling only for it to potentially happen again...

It depends on who you ask.

Hardcore might be seen as excluding players who cannot or do not want play at a certain level. Is a soccer team hardcore because they practice every day? It is if you think gettingout of bed once a week is hardcore.

Is a game hardcore when it disallows saves requiring you to play it in one sitting with no pause? To some it is, to others that is just silly.

Game developers are constantly asking: why aren't more people buying my game. They see this huge casual market and hope to tap into it. Problem is that this like having your soccer team only practice once week, still to much for the terminally lazy but you will also be loosing the "hardcore" players who want more practice.

Hardcore has become the opposite of care-bear games. Care-bear has worked in the past. Lucasarts removed random deaths from Adventures and killed Sierra who used to kill their players at the drop of a hat.

But adventures you play for the story, not the reload screen. MMO's you partially play for the challenge. To then remove every challenge so everyone can play is removing the point of a challenge. If everyone gets a A, why bother on the test?

Hardcore ain't better, but game companies got to decide what kind of game they want to provide. Care-bear wimps or hardcore no-lifers.

EVE is considered a hardcore game by many (not everyone though) for a variety of reasons.  I prefer to rate games based on their complexity and I think EVE qualifies regardless of whether we're talking about PVP or PVE.

I find that it incorporates various game play mechanics that make it challenging and encourages me to think carefully about the potential consequences of almost every decision I make.  Also very important, it gives me the freedom to travel many paths to success, but frequently at a cost not always seen at the time of my decision.

For example, I've flown with certain corporations in the past that now people will disqualify me from joining up with their side as I'm viewed as a potential spy.

I could have chosen the road of a pirate, or joined the Goonswarm and become universally reviled outside my own circles.

I can manufacture things, but if I'm not careful I can lose everything with a small misstep or misunderstanding on my part.

EVE gives me the freedom to risk everything, and win or lose big, or... follow a slower, steadier path.

But through it all, games that give me a choice, and let me succeed or suffer the consequences due to my direct actions are what I consider to be truely hardcore.

The thing that is so good about hardcore games is the fact that some devs make a game for a specific group of players.

That is a lot more fun than a generic game but that goes for casual games too, and games in between.

It is great that there are some games catering for a specific group. I don't really have the time to be that hardcore myself, I have a job but that doesn't mean I don't think it is good that there are games for people who have the time.

I don't really see hardcore itself embodying any particular game, it's more about the players. There are players who want to make the effort in the game in order to feel like their input is fundamentally influencing their experience. For lack of a better term, lets call them hardcore players. There are other players who do not want to make an effort, and play games more to relax and just have fun. Also for lack of a better term, lets call them casuals. Finally, there are players who find themselves somewhere between the two groups - they want their efforts to be rewarded, but they don't want to have to put in too much effort.

I think there are basically 2 types of games. Games that cater to one of the above audiences, and games that try to include everybody. Games that cater to the hardcore audience obviously tend to get termed hardcore games. More inclusive games try to please everyone, but the reality is, you can't.

In some ways "hardcore" games are better than others, because they know their audience, and are more able to cater to their players. I think you have more dedicated fans when you focus on one audience. If you don't focus, then you will have a high turnover rate, as something or other about the game is bound to throw most people off.

But in other ways, being more inclusive is better. With many options in a game, perhaps each option may not be as well designed as it would be in a more focused game, but players can mix and match, rather than being forced to play a certain way.

In Eve, you cannot choose to be exempt from another player choosing to destroy you. You can choose where you fly, but it is still possible to be killed anywhere in the game. This makes the experience better in some ways - you have to pay attention, not let your guard down, and that can be very exciting. If there was any more saftey than there already is, such as a true safe zone, it would lessen the experience. If you were under attack, you can just fly back to the safe zone. However, if you JUST want to fly around and do missions without the possibility of being attacked, you can't. It makes the experience better for someone looking for it (focus) while making another type of play impossible.

There are other games that have great focus that aren't hardcore. Farmville is very successful at what it does, as is A Tale in the Desert. These games also are "better" in that for the roles that they support, the experience is better; but they are also "worse" in that there are roles that are missing.

I think it's very hard to do an unfocused design. I am surprised that it works sometimes, such as with WoW. There are very casual elements to the game (fast leveling, easy ways to group, simple combat system, no death penalty), while there are also some pretty hardcore elements (hardcore raiding/pvp etc). But I think one of the explanations that so many mmos that try to copy wow do not succeed, is that it's somewhat lightning in a bottle, a fluke where catering to everyone actually worked.

hardcore doesnt nesesarely mean anything other then a player being ingame everyday, playing to his full extend of time. while other people who are rather called "casuals" who just pop up ingame time to time but dont actualy dedicate their entire time to a game.

simple as that lol

Hardcore is a play style, even though it is not the majority of players, there are still enough around that games should offer something for the hardcore player, seems like allot of folks today like the I win buttons and easy street play, the larger portions of player bases are expolers and adventures, nothing wrong with any play style you like what you like, I like a mix, some days I don;t feel like being very hardcore other days, can't seem to get enough.. so for me there is nothing wrong with hardcore as long as ther are options for the casual, and core players as well..:)

Richard that post was flame bait and you know it.  :-)

For me hardcore is a fundamental design decision. For me to label a game hardcore (rather than the gamer), it needs to have several of the following:

A loose class system that allows you to develop your own personal playstyle

An economy based on a player driven market, not one that simply has currency inflow and sinks

Tools that allow you to excel in a role that is not neccessarily conflict based (and I don't mean crafter alts)

The ability to truly rise to an exalted status that isn't simply a collection of grinded stats, but a real reflection of your intelligence and skill in your chosen path. For many hardcore is the exact opposite of this i.e. players who play 24/7 are hardcore. A hardcore player for me is more of a flawed genius than the kid who works, works, works but, ultimately, is where anyone could be if they decided it was worth their while. I like emergent gameplay that really shows the character of the person behind the toon and any game that pushes in the direction gets the hardcore vote from me (see it as a seperating of the men from the boys).

And finally, consequence. The above is absolutely useless if you don't risk it all to become exalted - I think that's why many older mmorpg'ers call new games watered down in that risk is almost a dirty word. I also think that's why the perception of hardcore is a bit stuck in the past as it is exactly these gamers that spread the word around. DAoC, Everquest et al were not hardcore - now they're boring grind fests, back then they were simply the best we had. Hardcore is not a lack of polish, fluff or question marks above quest-givers heads - that's unfriendly UI design.

In short, hardcore is all about risk and reward, carrot and stick. The ability to truly make a mark on a world and the ability to lose it all.

Lots of personal view in this write up, for example, "He challenges readers to define hardcore and to give concrete reasons why it is a better gameplay experience than any other". Who says any game or gameplay is the better experience? Certainly, a concept of "hardcore" is itself...undefined. Perhaps a little more focus on definitions and less on personal concepts  MAY help readers to grasp waht is being said.

Hardcore is just an aged reference to a higher difficulty setting.  It's impossible to define it with a specific set of criteria because it's partly relative to an individual, but it's also relative to the current crop of games.  A game more difficult than the others on the market can be called hardcore, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily as difficult, or more difficult, than the crop of games on the market 5 years ago.

As for what's "good" about it?  Nothing - other than it takes more time to learn, and consequently, play.  People that have more time to devote (usually called the Hardcore players) find this attractive and those that don't will steer away.

Everything else is a load of bull.  It doesn't increase immersion.  It doesn't necessarily make a game more interesting.  It certainly requires more skill but it's an entirely irrelevant fact in and of itself.  How much skill a game requires doesn't define how good it is and even though it will appeal to hardcore players more it will appeal to others less.  It doesn't necessarily mean the gameplay will be sound, or more involved, or any of the other magical properties often attributed to it.  Nor does it mean that those who learn how to exploit the system for what it is won't constantly dominate those that can't.

Summarily there is nothing inherently valuable about hardcore.  Other than being mildly noteworthy as a genre type it has no intrinsic value for creating a better gaming system.  Yes, I'm aware it has its fanatical fans that will argue otherwise, but the facts and history of gaming simply proves these opinions wrong.

I'm not saying creating hardcore games should be avoided - clearly there are people that have more time to dedicate to their gaming experience and would enjoy harder games, but it isn't worthwhile as a subject for debate.  Gaming difficulty didn't ruin the industry and doesn't dictate what makes a game good, or what players will play.  Those that don't have the time to learn something that's too difficult simply won't play it and a bad game won't attract many hardcore players, regardless of how difficult it is.

First, let me apologize for not reading the article.  I am terribly sorry that I did not read the article.

Second, let me address the issue of two of the images in the article.  Yes, the two images are what caught my attention and the reason that I did not read the article.

The first image of which I am speaking would be that of Jora, I believe it was.  You have the typical female in armor that offers almost no protection...but looks really good to your average male.  The second image looked like something off of Nickelodeon or Disney.

While obviously one would jump at the opportunity to judge a book by its cover in this situation, the first image being "hardcore" and the second image being "kidcore"... it would simply lead to all sorts of possible issues one would experience by judging a book by its cover.

With the two games represented by those images - imagine changing the artwork from one to the other, but keeping the gameplay the same....