False dichotomy: hardcore vs. casual

[Sansnom]

No, you disagree. Don't we this. If you play regularly - you are not casual. If you play a lot as well - you are hardcore. If you play CASUALLY (without commitment or permanence; occasionally or irregularly) - you are a casual, no matter how much time you spend in one session. It doesn't matter why you play casually be it your general approach to gaming - or life obstacles. Irrelevant.

I think everyone has different definition of casual and hardcore. I personally do not associate casual related to playtime. I define it along the lines of how dedicated a person is to the game.

For example using gears. A casual, my definition, would just look at certain stats. It has higher primary stats or it has higher item level. Therefore it is considered an upgrade. A hardcore would understand that the secondary stats also matters. Does it help to reach a soft cap etc.

So a hardcore to me has done additional research, homework if you like, into what is best for their toons or play style.

No unlike sports. Some just play football. While others would spend additional time training to get better at it.

[arkanon]

ill save you some time reading the dudes opinion:

"Who do these features appeal to? Socially awkward people who weren't able to join guilds / be friendly with people / build a reputation in previous iterations of WoW. "

Thats his theory.

- - - Updated - - -

What are you talking about?

She is saying that continuing beyond 75 is mandatory for serious endgame content because you continue to gain 3% stamina, and that increase in stamina is required for harder content - thats what shes saying, i think its quite clear. You are welcome to disagree obviously, but i dont see how you could misinterpret such a simple comment.

[Caprias]

Just because you define something doesn't mean that is the definitive word. You think casual means one thing. I think it means something else. So therefore, we disagree.

There is a dictionary and set definitions so no bad things happen because of misunderstandings of "your personal" definition and "your" truth....

[Elim Garak]

Just because you define something doesn't mean that is the definitive word. You think casual means one thing. I think it means something else. So therefore, we disagree.

No, I tell you what casual actually means - you disagree. It is your god-given right to be wrong, so no problems there. Just don't lump me in with you - I don't disagree with facts. You do.

I think everyone has different definition of casual and hardcore. I personally do not associate casual related to playtime. I define it along the lines of how dedicated a person is to the game.

For example using gears. A casual, my definition, would just look at certain stats. It has higher primary stats or it has higher item level. Therefore it is considered an upgrade. A hardcore would understand that the secondary stats also matters. Does it help to reach a soft cap etc.

So a hardcore to me has done additional research, homework if you like, into what is best for their toons or play style.

No unlike sports. Some just play football. While others would spend additional time training to get better at it.

"Additional time" eh? It's all about time. No matter how you slice it. Dedication equals time. Knowing shit - equals time. Getting skilled - equals time. Dedicated people don't play casually. Because what would be the point of wasting all that time learning shit and getting better at - when you are playing by the mood (I don't feel like playing today or this week), i.e. not regularly?

That's why hardcore raiders become casuals when they reach the top they have set themselves to reach. They know everything about the game but they've seen it all already. So they spend less time on it.

"Hardcore or casual" have nothing to do with skill and knowledge.

[Doffen]

Back in the day it was easier, if you raided 6 times a week you were hardcore. Raiding 2 or 3 days then, casual.

Nowadays there is a broadened amount of content to do in the game, or to focus on. So a hardcore player could be a pet battle champion who do pet battles 5 hours a day. The OP might place him in the socially akward base(lol), while he would be classified as hardcore. It is a bit more relative these days, before in TBC for instance that person would be casual. So I guess the most correct definition these days would be time spent, as an easy measurement.

I would definitely be seen as hardcore these days. I like to be good in what I am doing. But if the 21 year old me would see the player I am now back then he would have been thinking:

"Fucking casual scrub"

[Raelbo]

First paragraph of the OP is fundamentally incorrect.

Oh I completely agree. In fact I think pretty much everything about the OP is fundamentally incorrect. My point really was that the content he wrote had little to do with his chosen title.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I tell you what casual actually means - you disagree. It is your god-given right to be wrong, so no problems there. Just don't lump me in with you - I don't disagree with facts. You do.

Except that the definition you have chosen for casual is not factually an exclusively correct definition. The term is fairly broad and is subjective depending on context.

Importantly, being "casual" is not a binary term. It's a relative term that pertains to the levels of dedication, committment and seriousness which one applies to the game. The less dedicated, committed and serious one is about the game, the more casual one is. The more dedicated, committed and serious one is about the game, the less casual (or more hardcore) one is. It's a spectrum, with being totally hardcore on the one end, and being totally casual on the other, with the vast majority of people falling somewhere between those two extremes. The fact is that pretty much everyone is partially casual and partially hardcore. What differentiates us is how much.

Therefore, the definition of the term "casual" as a noun (as in, to call someone a casual) is entirely subjective based on a threshold within the spectrum that is not universally defined or accepted.

"Additional time" eh? It's all about time. No matter how you slice it. Dedication equals time. Knowing shit - equals time. Getting skilled - equals time. Dedicated people don't play casually. Because what would be the point of wasting all that time learning shit and getting better at - when you are playing by the mood (I don't feel like playing today or this week), i.e. not regularly?

That's why hardcore raiders become casuals when they reach the top they have set themselves to reach. They know everything about the game but they've seen it all already. So they spend less time on it.

"Hardcore or casual" have nothing to do with skill and knowledge.

I agree with parts of what you say, but disagree with others.

Dedication/Committment and Seriousness are not just about time spent. While spending time is generally a requirement of those, the converse is not true. It is totally possible to spend time in the game without being dedicated, committed or serious. It's all about what you spend that doing in the game, and the attitude you apply while doing it. And while it may be true that most players who spend a lot of time in the game are dedicated, committed and serious about the game, it is certainly not true of everyone.

Regarding skill and knowledge, the same applies. While I'd agree that the level of skill and knowledge one has does not define how casual/hardcore someone is, they do tend to go hand-in-hand bacause both skill and knowledge are most effectively acquired through dedication and commitment. That being said, it is possible to be extremely committed and dedicated to the game and yet avoid acquiring either skill or knowledge. So while a lot of skill and/or knowledge about the game would suggest a high probability of commitment to the game (which may be past or present), and thus that the person is or was somewhat hardcore, a lack of skill or knowledge doesn't really suggest anything in and of itself.

[Elim Garak]

Except that the definition you have chosen for casual is not factually an exclusively correct definition.

I didn't choose it, It is the one and only correct one.

Importantly, being "casual" is not a binary term.

It is.

Therefore, the definition of the term "casual" as a noun (as in, to call someone a casual) is entirely subjective based on a threshold within the spectrum that is not universally defined or accepted.

A fact doesn't need to be universally accepted to be a fact.

[Raelbo]

I didn't choose it, It is the one and only correct one.

Of course you chose it. You haven't even bothered to cite where you got it from, yet feel entitled to claim, with authority, that it is the correct one?

It is.

Given that I substantiated my reasoning, you pretty much need to do the same if you expect anyone to take you seriously.

A fact doesn't need to be universally accepted to be a fact.

I never said it did.

The fact is that the term "casual" is subjective. And by your own admission, no one needs you to accept it as such.

[Elim Garak]

Of course you chose it. You haven't even bothered to cite where you got it from, yet feel entitled to claim, with authority, that it is the correct one?

Facts are not chosen. They just are.

Given that I substantiated my reasoning, you pretty much need to do the same if you expect anyone to take you seriously.

I already did. Go back and read. Also, I don't need anything from anyone here.

I never said it did.

You did.

The fact is that the term "casual" is subjective. And by your own admission, no one needs you to accept it as such.

The term "casual" is objective, people's interpretation of it may be subjective - but I don't care about that.

[ecospherez]

I already did. Go back and read. Also, I don't need anything from anyone here.

You don't need anything from anyone here apart from making sure they understand that your definition of hardcore and casual is the correct 1.

You've offered ZERO evidence to support your claim on what the correct definition of a hardcore/casual player is because there isn't 1, because it varies. You are completely wrong.

Link proof or STFU, and no not some blog post from someone else saying it, because i can link 1 straight back claiming something else.

[Fartoo]

For some reason in WoW (moreso than any other game i've played), the playerbase always uses World First mythic raiders as their example as someone being "good" at the game.

That's like me using the world record Super Mario 64 runners as a benchmark of "good" and then complaining that I cant be good unless I invest years of theorycrafting and work.

You don't have to set 1 foot into a raid to enjoy WoW
You don't have to do a single m+
If you personally see these accomplishments as a requirement to enjoy this game, then that's a personal issue

Either get better, devote more time, and change your outlook.

No, I do not see those accomplishments as a requirements to enjoy the game. What I was answering to is "The current WoW cannot be played from anyone who doesn't invest at least 2-3 hours per day, you simply can't perform no matter how mechanically good player you are.", why would you be unable to gather pets or mounts for less than 2-3 hours per day ?

The reason I mentioned raids and mythic plus, the thing you called me out for, is because those are the things that take some time and preparation. Why would you need to grind AP or specific gear or whatever if the only thing you're doing is flying around gathering shit ? You can just go, fly for an hour, kill a few rares and do a few quests and log off, no gear needed, no minimal requirement.

One advice, actually read the comments and pay attention to what you're responding to before posting another smart-ass comment next time.

[Raelbo]

Facts are not chosen. They just are.

As I already, you need to cite where you got it from. You have not done that, so your supposed "fact" cannot be claimed as such.

I already did. Go back and read.

No you didn't. Nothing you said before is a valid rebuttal to what I have said. Your entire rebuttal therefore consists of "it is". That's kindergarten level stuff.

You did.

I didn't. I said something else.

The term "casual" is objective

Then it shouldn't be hard for you to link a source to back up that assertion. Except you can't. Because you're wrong. And that really is all that needs to be said here.

[CrawlFromThePit]

ill save you some time reading the dudes opinion:

"Who do these features appeal to? Socially awkward people who weren't able to join guilds / be friendly with people / build a reputation in previous iterations of WoW. "

Thats his theory.

- - - Updated - - -



She is saying that continuing beyond 75 is mandatory for serious endgame content because you continue to gain 3% stamina, and that increase in stamina is required for harder content - thats what shes saying, i think its quite clear. You are welcome to disagree obviously, but i dont see how you could misinterpret such a simple comment.

It's very clear, I'm not saying "I don't understand", my "what are you talking about" refers to how incorrect the statement is. 3% stam helps but is not mandatory in any way and it's incredibly silly to believe it is necessary to clear mythic nyalotha.

[Charge me Doctor]

"Soft capped" at 75 and yet 3% stamina gain is completely mandatory for mythic raiding because a lot of mechanics do enough damage to nearly instagib you and every little counts. And many specs continue to benefit from more potent essences beyond 80.

It's not mandatory, as you yourself said - they nearly instagib you. If there would be unavoidable AoE for 500k damage on every boss you could argue that it's mandatory, because you have to push all raid members to 501k health. It does help to have 3% stamina, but it's far from mandatory

[Advent]

Just because you define something doesn't mean that is the definitive word. You think casual means one thing. I think it means something else. So therefore, we disagree.

He's going by the actual definition of the word, which actually makes sense. Some time ago that's actually how people defined them in social settings. "Bob comes to raid sometimes, but not always. He's pretty casual about it."

[Beefhammer]

He's going by the actual definition of the word, which actually makes sense. Some time ago that's actually how people defined them in social settings. "Bob comes to raid sometimes, but not always. He's pretty casual about it."

No I get that, but if Bob only has time to show up for raid on Tuesday nights, and does so every Tuesday night he is still a casual player.

[Elsif]

Excellently written

[Relapses]

Excellently written

No? It fails at every level of critical thinking. It's like a college term paper written about flat earth by somebody who intentionally insulates themselves from the outside world by only ever communicating with other flat earthers.

[Boricha]

To my mind, a hardcore player plays the game a lot, near exclusively, and completes high end content. Casuals can play a lot, a little, or in random stints and never accomplish much beyond leveling and matchmaking content. Normal players are in between.

[Freedom]

As someone who has a mental illness, isn't particularly social, and quit way back in Legion, I find this thread offensively bad. I hated the insulting RNG bullshit of Legiondaries, and found the endless grind of WQs to be horrible.

I figured it out a long time ago, that WoW has changed for the worse, and quit to stop feeling miserable. What exactly that says about YOUR addiction level, I won't say. If you really hate the game so much, you should just quit... and maybe go see a psychiatrist yourself. You don't need to have a major mental illness to need one. :P