"Hardcore vs Casual games." is a meaningless phrase.

The Escapist recently had an article that commented on the definition of hardcore commonly accepted in the gaming scene. I recommend reading it, and agree with the closing message. To call this game casual or hardcore, or that player hardcore or casual is a statement often thrown about with negative connotations; usually with the individual or game in question being too much of one or the other, but which one, and did you actually mean it as an insult? Without taking in a lot of supporting context it is almost impossible to tell, this is obviously quite problematic. Why do we even do this, when really casual and hardcore don't mean what we are trying to say.

Quite literally the only people who benefit from this homogenisation of gamer-slang are internet trolls. It is a well known fact people like being atrocious to each other; especially in the consequence-proof shelter of the internet. Having quick tags to use to diminuitise complex enmities encourages this kind of attack, when someone says "Bejewelled is too casual" they usually mean "There is not enough competition, violence or photo-realistic steroid addicts chest bumping each other; and I have the emotional complexity of an accountant's calculator, rendering me unable to appreciate anything else. Furthermore I lack the eloquence to communicate this point to you; so I sincerely hope your Babelfish can translate this message from the incoherent keening noise I am actually making."

It is well documented that humans like to form cliques, and draw lines; we are still tribal beasts and need to quickly identify if an individual can be categorised as an "us" or a "them". The hardcore/casual moniker is simply a tag like the Facebook "like" (and nonexistent dislike). The problem here is that each and every person has a different idea of whether casual or hardcore means good or bad, and this idea often changes on a game by game basis.

Believing both "Plants vs Zombies is good because of its casual visuals and input" and "Civilization Revolutions is bad because of its casual visuals and input" is not an unusual pair of opinions for one person to hold. It is precisely this kind of example that just shows how misused these terms are, one one hand I could be saying "The casual interface of PvZ means interaction is straight forward and accessible." On the other hand the exact same words tagged on to Civ:Rev could probably be interpreted as "The mechanics are watered down in comparison to Civ4 and the experience is a lesser one because of it." however, I don't agree with this, I actually like Civ:Rev.

I believe the only accurate uses of either word when applied to a gamer is when describing the frequency at which a person plays. However this is still used as an insult, often in competitive environments such as WoW, where even in PvE content it's a constant jostling for topping the damage meters, having the best loot, or most bragging rights. The frequent player is then branded a "no-lifer". This is a vapid insult, the fact they play more often has no relevance to why the aggression takes place, it is simply jealousy over an other's possessions.

From a development standpoint, casual elements are those that make the game easy to pick up and put down without having to commit to it; and hardcore elements are those which aim shamelessly to hook players in for the long haul. I think it is here where the root cause of the current beliefs surrounding casual games lies, the throwaway nature designed in to the casual games, which means they require little investment to attract players, means that they provide next to nothing for people playing bigger more complex games.

They are disdainfully referred to as "time-wasters" which is ironic, that is what they are designed to be, a little fun to pass time. The fact that so-called "hardcore" gamers encounter this kind of game and can be repulsed by it enough to lash out; informing their social circles of this "travesty" is laughable, these games aren't designed for them.

To return to the closing point of the article we are all indeed gamers, someone reading a review, gaming forum, or a blog post like this is likely to be entrenched in the culture of games, and play one game or another to a "hardcore" degree. It is important to note that it is not important what game or collection of games this particular individual is interested in; it makes no difference as the Escapist article points out the main differentiation is whether the person identifies themselves as a "gamer" either privately or publicly. The use of this tribal language only acts as a dividing barrier between games, if you are a Playstation player and hate Xbox Live gamers, why is that? is there anything you can say that isn't a sweeping generalisation?

If someone invests a large amount of time in to a game, they are not "hardcore" they are a gamer, if someone just happened to like the look of the Bejewelled decides to play it now or then when they have time at work they are may be a "casual gamer" but there is nothing wrong with that, Implying there is, is just a horrible mirror form of the unintelligent hate that anti-game fundamentalists throw at the industry. In the same way that playing computer games doesn't make you a sub-standard person, not playing games doesn't either.