next »

[Derek]

It's basically the area between casual and hardcore.  The real "mainstream," I guess!

See! That's why we have the word "mainstream"! So that I don't have to get confused!

"Core" indeed! Pshaw!

That's true but Jenova Chen uses the term "core" so you know it's got to be good! :D

Did he even invent the term?  I'm not sure.  In any case, all these gaming terms are pretty useless in the long run.

[DrDerekDoctors]

LOL! If I ever needed a reason not to use the term...

[Oddbob]

Oh come on, it just flows off the tongue!

[caffeinekid]

I would be afraid of calling myself a core gamer in case shmup fans tried shooting me.

[Dan MacDonald]

The terms core market and core gamer have been around for a long time. It refers to the primary gaming genera's  in the retail space FPS, RTS, RPG, Strategy etc. It also refers to the markets that make all the money, PC Retail games and Console games.

Mainstream is a little bit of a misnomer, it means for the most part "the prevailing group". Which kind of makes sense for the PC Retail and Console markets since they make the most money. But even those core markets are not a part of the American (for example) mainstream the way movies are. Movies are easily accessible to a wide segment of the population appealing to many different preferences and tastes.

If there was a game that really was mainstream it would have to be something like WoW that appeals to just about everyone in one way or another and just about everyone has at least herd of it. I think that's why "Core" is actually a better term then "Mainstream" because much of the core market is actually incredibly niche and appeals only to very advanced and particular subsegments of the gaming audience.

[DrDerekDoctors]

"core" just seems unnecessary when we have "mainstream" and while it might not be the right word, people use the language incorrectly all the time because the incorrect way is more widely understood.

[Alec]

Shoot the Core!!

[Kornel Kisielewicz]

The term Independent seems rather already defined, meaning "not tagged to a restrictive Publisher/Distributor". You do work, and you try to sell it, and not the other way around ;]. I actually searched for a more formal definition. This is the closest I got:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_game

(there's no TIGSource link, the shame for them!)

In the course of my Game Programming/Design adventures, I actually coined another definition of the term "Indie". For me, the "independence" is not from publishers/distributors, but independence from money. This of course is almost unreal if you consider doing any game that needs more artistic resources. But it does describe my definition of "independence". The freedom to create what I envision, not worrying about wether anyone will buy it, anyone will be interested in publishing in, or anyone will be willing to provide me with resources for it.

Is such independence possible at all for larger than one-man projects?

Hopefully not. I hope to find the answer to that "the hard way" ;-].

P.S. Hello all, I'm new here, but I'm glad to lurk .

[Dan MacDonald]

"core" just seems unnecessary when we have "mainstream" and while it might not be the right word, people use the language incorrectly all the time because the incorrect way is more widely understood.

It probably is unnecessary, but it does exist. If you got to GDC (or other less independent circles) you'll hear the terms used interchangeably.

[Alec]

I thought "Core" was used when looking at it as a spread from "Casual" to "Hardcore"... where "Casual" means games for grandma, and "Hardcore" is the 15 year old "OMGGUNSBOOBS!!" crowd. I was always under the impression that the "Hardcore" end was more "Mainstream"... i.e. the games that actually make lots of money.

[Arne]

I thought "Core" was a tight group of people at the center of something. Condensed? Might it mean genre? I dunno, I've heard so many definitions.

Independent to me means... boundless. Not having to cater other people (publishers and what they think the mainstream audience want). I guess the indie spirit would be... fearless and daring (which doesn't necessarily equal innovation, it can be revival of old "considered dead" concepts aswell).

[DrDerekDoctors]

"core" just seems unnecessary when we have "mainstream" and while it might not be the right word, people use the language incorrectly all the time because the incorrect way is more widely understood.

It probably is unnecessary, but it does exist. If you got to GDC (or other less independent circles) you'll hear the terms used interchangeably.

Just one of the *many* reasons that I don't go to the GDC.

[Anthony Flack]

For me, the "independence" is not from publishers/distributors, but independence from money.

The funny thing is, it seems from all the interviews I've read, the head honcho of Treasure almost runs his company this way.

Why did you support the N64 much more than the Playstation? Because our team wanted to make games for the N64 and didn't fancy the PS so much. Why do you hardly ever make sequels? Because we only make them when the team that made the original game feels like making a sequel. And so on.

Whenever they need some more money they can always do another contract job. Perhaps McDonald's Treasure Land Adventure II...?

[MattC]

To me, "mainstream" gamers are all of those people who, if asked if they were a gamer, would say no. They play Madden or other annual sports games. They might play the Sims, Nintendogs, and the ubiquitous licensed title. They don't keep up with the "scene." They walked into Best Buy on November 17th to get a PS3 without even knowing the price.

If we're going to use the term "core" I'd say it refers to everyone who considers themselves a "gamer."

"Hardcore" is easy enough to define, but I also think that many "casual" players are quite hardcore too. Just because they play puzzle games or mini golf doesn't mean they're not at it over eight hours a day like some hardcore folks. I think the way that the phrase "casual gamer" is being marketed today is inaccurate in that it's used as a catch-all for the "casual," "core," "dormant," and even the "non-gamer" crowd. (Is "non-gamer" supposed to have quotes? It's all marketing garbage anyway.)

So, honestly, I'd rather do away with all of these lame categories. It's just as useless as attempting to get a solid set of game "genres." But I suppose it can be important in the way you market your game and who you want to "market" to. Which is unfortunate.

[moi]

Are we on the verge of our first forum split?
"Core" or "Mainstream"?CHOOSE YOUR SIDE!

[Alec]

I think we're all agreeing that we don't give a fuck about what those words mean.

[vitaminNewB]

2nd, 3rd, infinity-ith that.
And the FORUM sayssssss.

AMEN SISTAzz!@!$%!@$!@#$

[BMcC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_game

(there's no TIGSource link, the shame for them!)

Someone add one!

Tim's blog's up there, though, so that's good.

For me, the "independence" is not from publishers/distributors, but independence from money.

Is anything independent from money anymore?  I think it's more about not letting it own you.

I think we're all agreeing that we don't give a fuck about what those words mean.

Yes, exactly. 

[Dan MacDonald]

So to bring it full circle, the spirit of independent gaming (whatever you want to call it) is this.

Instead of looking for a way to make money and then designing a game that will capitalize on it, you look for a good game you can make and then try to make money from it.

Is it more then this? or is it really that simple?

[BMcC]

I think it may be that simple.

(Oh please, Kenta Cho, let it be that simple!)