I wouldn't say that somebody who plays a violent/competitive game is more of a "hardcore" gamer than others.

If you look at the hours played per user grand strategy games and simulations seem to be on the front row. And grand strategy gamers are probably one of the most balanced individuals I've met.

The only definition that I could come up for in the few minutes I spent thinking about it is that the "usual" flaming, hating and insulting gamers just seem to have an unhealthy emotional balance. Some of these I know in "real life" seem to be very disconnected from emotions "offline". But as soon as they turn on the computer, they release all of these stored emotions.

Just based on averages the games with the highest average playtime per player are usually strategy games, I would agree, but if you look at super hardcore player like the ones who devote more than 1000 hours to a specific game, the vast majority of them from my experience play games that are super violent or competitive like csgo, lol, dota, fortnite, etc.

Violent games attracting more violent types is an easy deduction to make. So the grandparent's comment makes sense.

But why, as you imply, more violent games would attract people "who care more about the games they play" (over other types of games)?

Don't e.g. chess players care as much "about the games the play", perhaps more so than some violent FPS player in times spent? Or RPG players?

Chess could definitely use some more content to keep players interested, maybe some new characters or a better story-line. And I'd kill for a graphical update, the game looks like it was made a thousand years ago! Unfortunately I think the devs have abandoned the project.

They said "violent/competitive", not just violent.

Which doesn't add much to the argument.

Would non-violent/competitive games also attract users more passionate for their games too? In that case competitive becomes synonymous with "games that attract passionate users", and the violent vs non-violent distinction is moot.

Else, "competitive" is irrelevant, and it's the "violent" part that matters. In which case, my argument holds: I don't see any reason to believe users of non-violent games are less passionate about their games.

And why would violent games be any more competitive than e.g. Chess, or Poker games, or some multiuser strategy game?

The competitive gamers that play PvP have a lot of feedback for game developers since bugs, design flaws, etc. can impact their gameplay and chance of winning. At least from the perspective of a gamer that is.

For example they play a battle royale genre game and 20-30 minutes into a match they are one of two teams left and then die blaming some perceived thing that happened like game physics getting in the way, it appears they were shot through a wall, etc. The immature gamer (aka 10-20 years old and maybe beyond) may believe their talents are greater than reality.

> aka 10-20 years old and maybe beyond may believe their talents are greater than reality.

This goes beyond age and is common outside of just competitive gaming. In the work place you see plenty of people who think e.g. manager's or other departments don't do anything, that they could run the company better, etc etc. On the flipside, I love hearing about people (in e.g. Overwatch) who get stuck at some ranking, hit a breaking point where they stop blaming others and focus on themselves, then slowly start to ascend.

It is very frustrating however to loose an advantage because the game is buggy

Yes and what I was alluding to is how do you know if it was buggy or you were just outmatched? If what you perceive happening leaves you thinking a bug caused your demise and not poor strategy, crappy gear, etc. then you will accumulate anger and resentment towards the game developer even if it is unwarranted.

Some bugs are just obvious. Rubber banding, walking and loosing health due to collision (or missing indicator that you got hit by an enemy)

”Caring more” or not, antisocial behavior is antisocial behavior.

I'm not one to define what makes a gamer "hardcore" (much as I despise the term), but surely someone who follows the industry and takes risks on unknown indies and genres is more "hardcore" than someone who will blindly buy the new AAA shooter-of-the-moment every year?

well because they don't actually hate those games / companies and are just showing their frustration with stuff. I remember when fortnite was released and updates every week and their pro community stance. everyone was happy on them, now you go to their discord and is mostly negative

Your comment seems almost tautological, especially the last part.