Well, Link has a magic red tunik that allows him to enter hot rooms. But, really, who plays any of these games for their portrayal of realism? Hell, all the series started out as (and continue to be) carefully constructed rooms with series of platforms floating in thin air. But I wouldn't trade my unrealisic floating platforms for ANYTHING though... they MAKE the platforming genre, and they make it fun. Some games attempt to portray a little more realism than others (Metroid or Halo compared to Mario) but they're all pretty unrealistic... but that's not why we play them.
Watch it... he'll probably pull the, "but more power = better AI" arguement on you, which in theory, may be the case, but in practice, has NEVER actually proven true.
360 and PS3 are graphics whores, they offer no additional gameplay features. Since I consider "hardcore" to have NOTHING to do with graphics (most text-based adventure games from back in the day were pretty hardcore), this arguement is just idiotic. In fact, I think graphics are often used to supplant hardcore gameplay. Instead of making them work/think, just throw nifty graphics at them, and they'll have fun. Man... Ratatoilli has far better graphics than any videogame... therefor, it must be HARDCORE!
Actually, I've never understood the draw of fighters, and I've never understood why games like VF, Tekken and Soul Calliber are considered more technical than SSBM. In fact, a few years back, a few people in college brought down a GameCube with Soul Calliber. They said they'd played the game for years. But after about 5 minutes on the controls, I was beating the ever-loving shit out of them, and they started to make it a contest to see who could finally beat me. I didn't think it involved nearly as much strategy as SSBM, which I've played for about 4 years now, and consider myself pretty damn good.
I guess, what I meant by SSBM not being hardcore is, someone can have never played it before, pick it up, and play it for 20 minutes and enjoy it. It has no over-arching plot, it has no requirement of dedication you have to put into it... simply just skill. That's not hardcore, for me.
I never had a problem with save areas in MP. Well, maybe once, after I defeated Theardis, I was down to bawlz health, and then died immediately afterwards, but by that time, I'd figured out how to beat him, and defeated him easilly.
I'd love to see them release it for the Wii... but nothing would save MP2, that game was crap.
Resolution aside, you still get two things that a DVD player won't do: progressive scan, and widescreen. To be honest, the biggest visual difference *I* see between SD and HD is getting rid of interlaced video. NTSC resolution is actually pretty good at the distances you usually watch TV. But with the flicker that interlacing causes, NTSC is crap. SD -> ED is a much bigger jump in quality than ED -> HD. So, for me the difference between 720p and 1080p is a drop in the bucket.
Well, considering that a game disc costs next to nothing to produce, by including it and adding $50, they've just made $50 on every console, or at least insured a sale of Motorstorm with every console. "Leaving Motorstorm Out" doesn't save them any money. Remember, this is all about them, not about us.
BTW: WTF is o great about Motorstorm anyway? I played it in a GameStop, and it basically seemed like a less-fun version of Excite Truck. Kinda sad when one of the biggest games for the PS3 is comparable to one of the lower-rated games on the Wii.
In the Zelda overworld, you are correct, there isn't much emphasis in how to get from point A to point B (although there is some) but inside dungeons, the gameplay becomes VERY similar. Navigating dungeons in Twilight Princess, for instance, isn't really that different from navigating Norfair or Phendrana. There are subtle differences: keys and dungeon items, instead of "activating the elevator" in Metroid; but these aren't genre defining differences, more like slightly different storytelling devices that basically do the same thing.
Basically, Metroid is like Zelda if there were ONLY dungeons and no overworld. The differences between a Zelda overworld and a dungeon, however, can be fairly minor, in many cases. Sometimes getting to the dungeon takes about the same kinds of navigational skills and enemy killing as the actual dungeons themselves. But, again, I don't see these as genre defining differences. Final Fantasy IX and Grandia II are both considered RPGs, even though Grandia II doesn't have an overworld.
To me, both Zelda and Metroid are in the same category because they cross genres in a similar manner. The mixture is a bit different: Metroid has more action and navigation, Zelda has more puzzles and NPC interaction, but just in different amounts.
Here's the kicker, generally, fans of one game are also into the other game, and for similar reasons. Sure, you'll find one person who hates Zelda and loves Metroid, or vice-versa, but usually its because they have some stick up their ass about the stylistic principals behind one, not because they don't like "that kind of game."
The action/adventure genre, as it is, is sort of a grabbag of genres. There are much fewer cliches than in any other genre, so there are fewer common things to pin them down with. All RPGs have HP/MP and a skill system, all FPSs have similar gameplay, all RTSs have some sort of "mine the gold so you can build the jellopy." Where as action/adventures like Zelda, Metroid, and Castlevania (another series that fits easily within this category), don't have as many concrete ideas that tie them all together. But it's their willingness to mix multiple genres that makes them action/adventure games in the first place.
Following team sports is becoming like an addiction, akin to gambling. You have a bunch of people who sit around, and do nothing but check the scoreboard, watch the game, and play the latest video game. It's not some kind of intelligent activity, like even playing the sport itself, which requires learning skills, training, etc. They just get an addreneline rush from watching people do it.
Sports games are just another medium to fullfill that addiction. So OF COURSE Madden's going to be one of the best selling games ever, every football addict is going to run out and buy it! That's like saying that Budweiser is the best beer in the world... no, it's just the cheapest and most wellknown way of fullfilling alchoholism.
Meanwhile, sit a sports gamer down in front of WiiSports, a game that actually DOES require physical training (to some degree), and they'll scream "GAYYY!" because the "badass meter" doesn't read high enough.
You speak the truth. Sometimes I just use the term "hardcore" in it's pornographic definition... ie: senseless, shocking and adreneline producing. If that were the case, many FPSs would fall into that category and most adventure games would not.
However, it's tough because the Metroid series started as a conglomerate of many genres:
- it had the intense action of a shooter - it had the jumping of a platformer - it had the non-linear and non-episodic structure of an adventure game - one could also equate it's health and item pickups to giving it RPG-like qualities
The Prime series is EXTREMELY faithful (IMO) to the original side scrollers, Prime 1 probably even slightly edging out Super Metroid as my favorite in the series. But with that territory comes the mish-mash of genres that is the Metroid series.
When Metroid first appeared, since games hadn't developed quite so much, most games fit into pretty well defined genres. Metroid was all alone in it's genre-crossing form. But now, practically all platformers have an adventure element (Mario 64 started that), most shooters do as well, and non-linear/non-episodic content tends to be more the norm these days.
Generally, I consider it in the same relative genre that the modern Zelda games are, action adventure, just with a bit more of an action element. They actually play out relatively similarly. So, whatever genre Metroid Prime is, make sure to put it in the same genre as Zelda. POV is not really all that important.
Echos and Hunters were SHIT, but Talon IV (Prime 1) was a VERY worthy successor to Zebes.
I'm skeptical of this new one. I much prefer the natural subterainian feel of the old school Metroids and Prime 1, this one seems to have too many "high tech installations." Where's my lava pools and dark, eerie caverns?
I'll just start by saying I'm a huge smash bros fan, and consider myself fairly good at the game.
On the other hand, I can understand why someone wouldn't consider it hardcore, exactly. It is a pick up/put down kind of game that people with any level of experience can participate in. Same reason I don't consider most FPSs hardcore.
To me, hardcore implies "required commitment". When I picked up Resident Evil 4 the other day, I knew that I was going to have to play the game for many hours to really get the full experience out of it, since a lot of the enjoyment has to do with furthering the plot, as well as long term problem solving.
I also started playing Battlefield 2142 the other day, but aside from the "ranking" system, every time I pick it up, it's the same... with no progressive quality. I can play it for 20 minutes and never play it again, and I will have gotten 20 minutes of enjoyment out of it. If you were to play RE4 for 20 minutes and never play it again, that would have just been a huge waste of time.
The one thing that does possibly make Smash Bros hardcore is it's unlock system, you have to play for many hours, and through many single player battles to get all the characters/stages. And seeing how everyone expects you to have everything unlocked, THAT'S a commitment.
I'd say someone who digs back to the past to play Metal Gear 1 is pretty frickin' hardcore! Last years hardcore doesn't suddenly become this years casual game, ya know. In fact, many would claim the opposite. What Nintendo's doing isn't about hardcore/casual, it's about getting back to roots.
Action movie watching adults of the 1990s... and so on. Although, in reality, movies were pretty crappy during the 90s, and they feel like they've improved a lot in the 00s.
Well, there's a distinct difference between games that are, from the ground up, "innovative", and games that involve a lot of creativity in order to make them as good as they were. Twilight Princess was so good because of all the attention to subtle aesthetic details. It's goal wasn't to be genre-breaking, but to be incedibly intriguing in its own right. Sometimes the most creativity goes into works that are not ground breaking, because there's so much concentration on subtlety. That's what I loved about Twilight Princess.
Madden, on the other hand, is extremely cookie cutter. Just slap the stats of the new season on there, tweek the gameplay slightly, and up the polygon count.
I sort of liken Nintendo to Pixar. The "badass meter" for WarioWare and Ratatoilli is extremely low, but they're probably a lot more creative and sophisticated than most of the generic blockbuster action films and games out there. It's sad to say this, but Finding Nemo probably had more sophisticated themes, jokes, and dialog than you'll find in 95% of other movies these days. But it's all about the "badass meter", of which Pixar films and Nintendo games read very low on.
In many ways, it's children who are getting the more creative endevours, where-as adults are moving into a place where they want to be enesthitized. I don't remember it being that way during the 80s, most adults didn't pay much attention to action films... those were mostly for teens.
Actually, most FPSs bore me from lack of depth in exactly the same way, for the same reasons. They're repeatitive, episodic, and quick to pick up and put down... and this comes from someone who is inately HORRIBLE at FPSs.
My theory is that there's very little difference between the mental dedication of Halo and Rayman Rabbids, but that the "badass" meter reads high enough for FPSs that most people who play them on a regular basis, tout the games, and themselves as "hardcore gamers".
Maybe they're slightly removed on the continuum, simply because you don't find people dedicating hundreds of hours to Raving Rabbids. But a game with an arc that REQUIRES 40-60 hours of play and includes a lot of problem solving, I would consider much more "hardcore", even if it doesn't read as high on the "badass" meter.
Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Zelda, Metroid, Fallout, Final Fantasy, Oblivion, Grand Theft Auto - all of these are at the center of hardcore gaming. Most FPSs don't qualify, in my book, since they don't inherently require any length of time or dedication.
And item pickups? Arcade games invented item pickups back in the day, and I'd be hard pressed to call Allyway a hardcore game (maybe now, since it requires someone who is interested in games that are not readily available).
I'd consider most of those casual games, except for maybe Final Fantasy, which REQUIRES hours and hours of dedication in order to really enjoy it (not sure if that's actually the qualification for hardcore, but it's in there). Halo is one of the most casual games I've ever played, you can just pick it up and play it for 5 minutes and you'll have fun with it. Same (supposedly) with WWII shooters (although I find them boring no matter how much time you sink into them), Doom, Quake, UT, etc. Madden, actually is probably along side Final Fantasy, neither might be super-popular, but it still requires a lot of time to really get anything out of it (from what I've heard).
Pretty much any RPG or adventure game, these days, could be classified as "hardcore" simply because of the amount of time it takes to complete them... there are no "stages" to judge your progress like with Halo or Mario. Battlefield 2142? That's starting to get more hardcore, since there are A LOT of long-term goals defined in the game if you play it for long enough.
But I would call most FPSs casual games... well, maybe not quite that, but not hardcore, anyway, they're way too big of mass appeal, and they take no time to just pick up and put down. To me that qualifies as "casual".
Rush is a BIG exception, Rush has great lyrics, Peart is a god. Even though I completely dissagree the Ayn Rand school of thought, Rush definitely is able to make great lyrics out of it. But aside from them, I really don't listen to progrock/metal for its lyrics. Genesis had some witty things back in the day, same with King Crimson, and once in a while DT pens some decent words, but even those I wouldn't call "excellent". Folk music probably has the best lyrics out there, but I'm not interested in the instrumental side of Folk, so it doesn't do much for me. Compared to pop or country, yeah, prog's got some decent stuff, but in the grand scheme of things, most of them come from a musical background and not a litterary one.
You make some good points, although my beef is that everything on Vapor Trails sounded the same, and it was also reflected in it's extremely high compression, which kept everything at the same volume. That's NOT what progmetal is about, progmetal is about the peaks and valleys, the tension and release.
BTW: Counterparts, a template for ProgMetal? Dream Theater and Fates Warning were already around for quite a few years before that, and DT came out of the docket with a bang with WDADU (even if it didn't sell very well). And I don't understand why you hold Signals as being one of their greatest, Subdivisions, Analog Kid, Weapon, Loosing It are incredible, but everything else on there I find unlistenable. Hold Your Fire is definitely one of my favorites (hint, my original handle was "Prime Mover") as are Presto and Roll the Bones, but I'm also really fond of Perminant Waves too.
Honestly, I've always prefered when bands would eventually move out of their D&D days. Dream Theatre had D&D lyrics for their Majesty demos, and some of WDADU, but even by that time, they were pretty obvious alegories that could be applied to anything. Fates Warning, IMO, only got good after they dropped their D&D lyrics, around Perfect Symmetry... although the only album of there's I think is AAA grade was APSOG, which is one of my favorite albums ever. I'm of the feeling that most bands' best material is mid-career... that's when they tend to start experimenting with a lot more subtlety without going overboard on the mellodrama. My favorite DT album is Six Degrees, for instance.
Yes were etherial and transendental... but their lyrics were nonsensical. Flawed? Most definitely, but they were successful in that they were primarilly about the drama the words provoked, not in telling a litteral story. Great band, a personal favorite.
Okay, the point is, prog has really shitty lyrics, we know that. The music is 90% about the instrumental stuff, but sometimes lyrics have a tendancy to hold back the instrumental material.
Fuck yeah... been listening to the PT for years now. They've become a surprisingly large inspiration on my own work. I don't care for his voice much, but his vocal harmonies are something to be studied. I don't have their new album yet, as I'm sorta wanting to go back to jazz/fusion and classical material for a bit, but I hear its great, and I'll eventually pick it up.
Although, PT is a lot like Marillion, who have been doing great shit forever.
Oh, I was also on a big Flower Kings kick for about a year there. I was really liking the fusion direction they were taking on in Space Revolver and Unfold the Future. Unfortunately, they've COMPLETELY turned on it, and are back to doing meloncholly, sappy, retro stuff. I'm pretty upset because they really filled a nitch between jazz and prog that not many bands do these days.
Speaking of which, my newest find is Hiromi, a young Japanese jazz piano chick whose stuff sounds like a cross between Chick Corea and Dream Theater.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Link has a magic red tunik that allows him to enter hot rooms. But, really, who plays any of these games for their portrayal of realism? Hell, all the series started out as (and continue to be) carefully constructed rooms with series of platforms floating in thin air. But I wouldn't trade my unrealisic floating platforms for ANYTHING though... they MAKE the platforming genre, and they make it fun. Some games attempt to portray a little more realism than others (Metroid or Halo compared to Mario) but they're all pretty unrealistic... but that's not why we play them.
Watch it... he'll probably pull the, "but more power = better AI" arguement on you, which in theory, may be the case, but in practice, has NEVER actually proven true.
360 and PS3 are graphics whores, they offer no additional gameplay features. Since I consider "hardcore" to have NOTHING to do with graphics (most text-based adventure games from back in the day were pretty hardcore), this arguement is just idiotic. In fact, I think graphics are often used to supplant hardcore gameplay. Instead of making them work/think, just throw nifty graphics at them, and they'll have fun. Man... Ratatoilli has far better graphics than any videogame... therefor, it must be HARDCORE!
Actually, I've never understood the draw of fighters, and I've never understood why games like VF, Tekken and Soul Calliber are considered more technical than SSBM. In fact, a few years back, a few people in college brought down a GameCube with Soul Calliber. They said they'd played the game for years. But after about 5 minutes on the controls, I was beating the ever-loving shit out of them, and they started to make it a contest to see who could finally beat me. I didn't think it involved nearly as much strategy as SSBM, which I've played for about 4 years now, and consider myself pretty damn good.
I guess, what I meant by SSBM not being hardcore is, someone can have never played it before, pick it up, and play it for 20 minutes and enjoy it. It has no over-arching plot, it has no requirement of dedication you have to put into it... simply just skill. That's not hardcore, for me.
I never had a problem with save areas in MP. Well, maybe once, after I defeated Theardis, I was down to bawlz health, and then died immediately afterwards, but by that time, I'd figured out how to beat him, and defeated him easilly.
I'd love to see them release it for the Wii... but nothing would save MP2, that game was crap.
well, deinterlacing isn't the same as natively progressive, though.
Just a knitpick, but 720i does not exist.
Ummm... no
Resolution aside, you still get two things that a DVD player won't do: progressive scan, and widescreen. To be honest, the biggest visual difference *I* see between SD and HD is getting rid of interlaced video. NTSC resolution is actually pretty good at the distances you usually watch TV. But with the flicker that interlacing causes, NTSC is crap. SD -> ED is a much bigger jump in quality than ED -> HD. So, for me the difference between 720p and 1080p is a drop in the bucket.
Why would I get a 1080p set a year or two down the road? I had my last SDTV for 10 years, and I just spent $450 on a new HD set.
Well, considering that a game disc costs next to nothing to produce, by including it and adding $50, they've just made $50 on every console, or at least insured a sale of Motorstorm with every console. "Leaving Motorstorm Out" doesn't save them any money. Remember, this is all about them, not about us.
BTW: WTF is o great about Motorstorm anyway? I played it in a GameStop, and it basically seemed like a less-fun version of Excite Truck. Kinda sad when one of the biggest games for the PS3 is comparable to one of the lower-rated games on the Wii.
I'll shoot...
In the Zelda overworld, you are correct, there isn't much emphasis in how to get from point A to point B (although there is some) but inside dungeons, the gameplay becomes VERY similar. Navigating dungeons in Twilight Princess, for instance, isn't really that different from navigating Norfair or Phendrana. There are subtle differences: keys and dungeon items, instead of "activating the elevator" in Metroid; but these aren't genre defining differences, more like slightly different storytelling devices that basically do the same thing.
Basically, Metroid is like Zelda if there were ONLY dungeons and no overworld. The differences between a Zelda overworld and a dungeon, however, can be fairly minor, in many cases. Sometimes getting to the dungeon takes about the same kinds of navigational skills and enemy killing as the actual dungeons themselves. But, again, I don't see these as genre defining differences. Final Fantasy IX and Grandia II are both considered RPGs, even though Grandia II doesn't have an overworld.
To me, both Zelda and Metroid are in the same category because they cross genres in a similar manner. The mixture is a bit different: Metroid has more action and navigation, Zelda has more puzzles and NPC interaction, but just in different amounts.
Here's the kicker, generally, fans of one game are also into the other game, and for similar reasons. Sure, you'll find one person who hates Zelda and loves Metroid, or vice-versa, but usually its because they have some stick up their ass about the stylistic principals behind one, not because they don't like "that kind of game."
The action/adventure genre, as it is, is sort of a grabbag of genres. There are much fewer cliches than in any other genre, so there are fewer common things to pin them down with. All RPGs have HP/MP and a skill system, all FPSs have similar gameplay, all RTSs have some sort of "mine the gold so you can build the jellopy." Where as action/adventures like Zelda, Metroid, and Castlevania (another series that fits easily within this category), don't have as many concrete ideas that tie them all together. But it's their willingness to mix multiple genres that makes them action/adventure games in the first place.
Following team sports is becoming like an addiction, akin to gambling. You have a bunch of people who sit around, and do nothing but check the scoreboard, watch the game, and play the latest video game. It's not some kind of intelligent activity, like even playing the sport itself, which requires learning skills, training, etc. They just get an addreneline rush from watching people do it.
Sports games are just another medium to fullfill that addiction. So OF COURSE Madden's going to be one of the best selling games ever, every football addict is going to run out and buy it! That's like saying that Budweiser is the best beer in the world... no, it's just the cheapest and most wellknown way of fullfilling alchoholism.
Meanwhile, sit a sports gamer down in front of WiiSports, a game that actually DOES require physical training (to some degree), and they'll scream "GAYYY!" because the "badass meter" doesn't read high enough.
You speak the truth. Sometimes I just use the term "hardcore" in it's pornographic definition... ie: senseless, shocking and adreneline producing. If that were the case, many FPSs would fall into that category and most adventure games would not.
Amen.
However, it's tough because the Metroid series started as a conglomerate of many genres:
- it had the intense action of a shooter
- it had the jumping of a platformer
- it had the non-linear and non-episodic structure of an adventure game
- one could also equate it's health and item pickups to giving it RPG-like qualities
The Prime series is EXTREMELY faithful (IMO) to the original side scrollers, Prime 1 probably even slightly edging out Super Metroid as my favorite in the series. But with that territory comes the mish-mash of genres that is the Metroid series.
When Metroid first appeared, since games hadn't developed quite so much, most games fit into pretty well defined genres. Metroid was all alone in it's genre-crossing form. But now, practically all platformers have an adventure element (Mario 64 started that), most shooters do as well, and non-linear/non-episodic content tends to be more the norm these days.
Generally, I consider it in the same relative genre that the modern Zelda games are, action adventure, just with a bit more of an action element. They actually play out relatively similarly. So, whatever genre Metroid Prime is, make sure to put it in the same genre as Zelda. POV is not really all that important.
Echos and Hunters were SHIT, but Talon IV (Prime 1) was a VERY worthy successor to Zebes.
I'm skeptical of this new one. I much prefer the natural subterainian feel of the old school Metroids and Prime 1, this one seems to have too many "high tech installations." Where's my lava pools and dark, eerie caverns?
Just think, you're lucky that you're not a kid today. Kids will soon be invading bee hives thinking that they're "one of the guys."
I'll just start by saying I'm a huge smash bros fan, and consider myself fairly good at the game.
On the other hand, I can understand why someone wouldn't consider it hardcore, exactly. It is a pick up/put down kind of game that people with any level of experience can participate in. Same reason I don't consider most FPSs hardcore.
To me, hardcore implies "required commitment". When I picked up Resident Evil 4 the other day, I knew that I was going to have to play the game for many hours to really get the full experience out of it, since a lot of the enjoyment has to do with furthering the plot, as well as long term problem solving.
I also started playing Battlefield 2142 the other day, but aside from the "ranking" system, every time I pick it up, it's the same... with no progressive quality. I can play it for 20 minutes and never play it again, and I will have gotten 20 minutes of enjoyment out of it. If you were to play RE4 for 20 minutes and never play it again, that would have just been a huge waste of time.
The one thing that does possibly make Smash Bros hardcore is it's unlock system, you have to play for many hours, and through many single player battles to get all the characters/stages. And seeing how everyone expects you to have everything unlocked, THAT'S a commitment.
Why must you be next-gen to be hardcore?
I'd say someone who digs back to the past to play Metal Gear 1 is pretty frickin' hardcore! Last years hardcore doesn't suddenly become this years casual game, ya know. In fact, many would claim the opposite. What Nintendo's doing isn't about hardcore/casual, it's about getting back to roots.
Action movie watching adults of the 1990s... and so on. Although, in reality, movies were pretty crappy during the 90s, and they feel like they've improved a lot in the 00s.
Well, there's a distinct difference between games that are, from the ground up, "innovative", and games that involve a lot of creativity in order to make them as good as they were. Twilight Princess was so good because of all the attention to subtle aesthetic details. It's goal wasn't to be genre-breaking, but to be incedibly intriguing in its own right. Sometimes the most creativity goes into works that are not ground breaking, because there's so much concentration on subtlety. That's what I loved about Twilight Princess.
Madden, on the other hand, is extremely cookie cutter. Just slap the stats of the new season on there, tweek the gameplay slightly, and up the polygon count.
I sort of liken Nintendo to Pixar. The "badass meter" for WarioWare and Ratatoilli is extremely low, but they're probably a lot more creative and sophisticated than most of the generic blockbuster action films and games out there. It's sad to say this, but Finding Nemo probably had more sophisticated themes, jokes, and dialog than you'll find in 95% of other movies these days. But it's all about the "badass meter", of which Pixar films and Nintendo games read very low on.
In many ways, it's children who are getting the more creative endevours, where-as adults are moving into a place where they want to be enesthitized. I don't remember it being that way during the 80s, most adults didn't pay much attention to action films... those were mostly for teens.
Actually, most FPSs bore me from lack of depth in exactly the same way, for the same reasons. They're repeatitive, episodic, and quick to pick up and put down... and this comes from someone who is inately HORRIBLE at FPSs.
My theory is that there's very little difference between the mental dedication of Halo and Rayman Rabbids, but that the "badass" meter reads high enough for FPSs that most people who play them on a regular basis, tout the games, and themselves as "hardcore gamers".
Maybe they're slightly removed on the continuum, simply because you don't find people dedicating hundreds of hours to Raving Rabbids. But a game with an arc that REQUIRES 40-60 hours of play and includes a lot of problem solving, I would consider much more "hardcore", even if it doesn't read as high on the "badass" meter.
Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Zelda, Metroid, Fallout, Final Fantasy, Oblivion, Grand Theft Auto - all of these are at the center of hardcore gaming. Most FPSs don't qualify, in my book, since they don't inherently require any length of time or dedication.
And item pickups? Arcade games invented item pickups back in the day, and I'd be hard pressed to call Allyway a hardcore game (maybe now, since it requires someone who is interested in games that are not readily available).
I'd consider most of those casual games, except for maybe Final Fantasy, which REQUIRES hours and hours of dedication in order to really enjoy it (not sure if that's actually the qualification for hardcore, but it's in there). Halo is one of the most casual games I've ever played, you can just pick it up and play it for 5 minutes and you'll have fun with it. Same (supposedly) with WWII shooters (although I find them boring no matter how much time you sink into them), Doom, Quake, UT, etc. Madden, actually is probably along side Final Fantasy, neither might be super-popular, but it still requires a lot of time to really get anything out of it (from what I've heard).
Pretty much any RPG or adventure game, these days, could be classified as "hardcore" simply because of the amount of time it takes to complete them... there are no "stages" to judge your progress like with Halo or Mario. Battlefield 2142? That's starting to get more hardcore, since there are A LOT of long-term goals defined in the game if you play it for long enough.
But I would call most FPSs casual games... well, maybe not quite that, but not hardcore, anyway, they're way too big of mass appeal, and they take no time to just pick up and put down. To me that qualifies as "casual".
Rush is a BIG exception, Rush has great lyrics, Peart is a god. Even though I completely dissagree the Ayn Rand school of thought, Rush definitely is able to make great lyrics out of it. But aside from them, I really don't listen to progrock/metal for its lyrics. Genesis had some witty things back in the day, same with King Crimson, and once in a while DT pens some decent words, but even those I wouldn't call "excellent". Folk music probably has the best lyrics out there, but I'm not interested in the instrumental side of Folk, so it doesn't do much for me. Compared to pop or country, yeah, prog's got some decent stuff, but in the grand scheme of things, most of them come from a musical background and not a litterary one.
You make some good points, although my beef is that everything on Vapor Trails sounded the same, and it was also reflected in it's extremely high compression, which kept everything at the same volume. That's NOT what progmetal is about, progmetal is about the peaks and valleys, the tension and release.
BTW: Counterparts, a template for ProgMetal? Dream Theater and Fates Warning were already around for quite a few years before that, and DT came out of the docket with a bang with WDADU (even if it didn't sell very well). And I don't understand why you hold Signals as being one of their greatest, Subdivisions, Analog Kid, Weapon, Loosing It are incredible, but everything else on there I find unlistenable. Hold Your Fire is definitely one of my favorites (hint, my original handle was "Prime Mover") as are Presto and Roll the Bones, but I'm also really fond of Perminant Waves too.
Honestly, I've always prefered when bands would eventually move out of their D&D days. Dream Theatre had D&D lyrics for their Majesty demos, and some of WDADU, but even by that time, they were pretty obvious alegories that could be applied to anything. Fates Warning, IMO, only got good after they dropped their D&D lyrics, around Perfect Symmetry... although the only album of there's I think is AAA grade was APSOG, which is one of my favorite albums ever. I'm of the feeling that most bands' best material is mid-career... that's when they tend to start experimenting with a lot more subtlety without going overboard on the mellodrama. My favorite DT album is Six Degrees, for instance.
Yes were etherial and transendental... but their lyrics were nonsensical. Flawed? Most definitely, but they were successful in that they were primarilly about the drama the words provoked, not in telling a litteral story. Great band, a personal favorite.
Okay, the point is, prog has really shitty lyrics, we know that. The music is 90% about the instrumental stuff, but sometimes lyrics have a tendancy to hold back the instrumental material.
Fuck yeah... been listening to the PT for years now. They've become a surprisingly large inspiration on my own work. I don't care for his voice much, but his vocal harmonies are something to be studied. I don't have their new album yet, as I'm sorta wanting to go back to jazz/fusion and classical material for a bit, but I hear its great, and I'll eventually pick it up.
Although, PT is a lot like Marillion, who have been doing great shit forever.
Oh, I was also on a big Flower Kings kick for about a year there. I was really liking the fusion direction they were taking on in Space Revolver and Unfold the Future. Unfortunately, they've COMPLETELY turned on it, and are back to doing meloncholly, sappy, retro stuff. I'm pretty upset because they really filled a nitch between jazz and prog that not many bands do these days.
Speaking of which, my newest find is Hiromi, a young Japanese jazz piano chick whose stuff sounds like a cross between Chick Corea and Dream Theater.