The myth of the "hardcore" game.

I had an interesting discussion with student fellow Harris today about the meaning of "hardcore" as it applies to games and gamers. This is what it really boiled down into:
1. The "hardcore" level of games are born from the investment of the players not the game itself, for instance a casual game can become a hardcore game not from a change in the mechanics of the game itself, but from the inherent energy invested in the game by the player. For instance, something as simple as Tetris can be both a "casual" and "hardcore" game depending on the investment of the player.
2. Games should be classified by complexity of their systems, again, a game like Smash Brothers can be classified as a casual game by some players, but a hardcore game by another group, because of their extended time and investment in the mechanics of the game.
So what this really boils down to is that games are only really made hardcore by the investment of the players, but not the mechanics and system itself. On the flipside of the argument, there are games that are so complex that players have to invest so much time learning these systems that they become hardcore by default.
With this in mind, I think the end-goal for designers now is to create games that offer the ability to participate and enjoy through various levels of investment. While this is nothing new, I think it should be one of the elements at the fore-front of their minds at all times.


