Can I suck at games and still be a "Serious Gamer"?

[Dargocitfer]

So, here's the thing: I kind of suck at playing video games, especially ones that require any kind of fast reflexes. I've always had slow reflexes; it seems to be the way my muscles are wired.

But, I love playing games. So, if I'm playing Half Life 2 or Serious Sam, I set it to the easiest setting. I can solve the puzzles in Portal 2 with little difficulty, but if I need to shoot a portal on a tiny spot while flying through the air... that can become a frustrating 30 minutes of me dying a lot. But the games are still fun, in spite of any annoying (to me) parts.

This is a major reason why I don't tend to like multiplayer games. I know that I will be the one who ruins things for the rest of the group, because my "skillz" are lacking, and it's no fun being yelled at and called "N00b!" all of the time. I enjoy the persistent world concept of MMOs, but I always play solo, because I don't want to piss people off.

Anyone else in the same boat? Does one *have* to play things at the hardest level to be considered a "serious" gamer? Can't I love games and still suck at playing them?

 

[CopperBoom]

You make your own rules.
No need to seek the approval of others and be judged by their yardstick.

If you love them and play them it sounds pretty serious to me; but; it also sounds like you need outside validation which I do not get.

Not enjoying playing with others, OH THAT I GET!
More because I am can compete but am more interesting in story and a good time not playing the same maps with the same gameplay over and over like a sport.

 

[dingodakka]

I'm in the same boat and I think of my self as a serious gamer, why?

Because gaming is my life I spend a lot of time gaming, and when I'm not gaming I'm talking about gaming I'm all ways up to date with latest news and newest releases, hell I'm usually a head of the guys that work down at my local store.

So yeah I'm far from the level worlds best players, but I put my all in to it and I love it and that's what it's all about, having fun and playing hard.

 

[Dargocitfer]

I'm not really seeking outside validation, more like I thought this might be an interesting topic of discussion.

Most people around here aren't the type who would be shouting "N00b!", which is why I thought I might be able to get some reasoned opinions.

I do occasionally feel like I miss out on some cool things, (Co-Op mode of Portal 2, for example) but for the most part I feel like as long as I am having fun playing, then what difference does it make?

But I know there are people who look down on players who use the easy setting, and feel that you must not be a "real" gamer if you are doing so. I am curious if anyone here feels that way, and if so, why?

 

[redisforever]

Well, honestly, I think serious gamers are those who are serious about playing games. They don't need to be good, but they are serious about games as an activity.

EDIT: Also, can you really quantify 'good' at games?

 

[Fasckira]

Its perfectly safe to describe yourself as a serious or hard-core gamer; you love the culture, you love the games and you play when you can. It only comes into question if you refer to yourself as a pro-gamer

 

[Bobic]

If a fat guy jogs for four hours a day is he not a serious jogger?

 

[Panzervaughn]

If you are serious about your gaming, then you can be a serious gamer, even if its just you being seriously bad. ^_^

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Games in the end are about enjoying them. I am terrible at FPS, Portal, GTA, pretty much anything except flying or driving games when I play on the console. I am just not a console gamer, but I rock on the PC. Because consoles have consumed the market does that make me less of a gamer? No, because I have fun, I don't quit, and I am always excited about another game coming out.

 

[Mister Numbers]

Absolutely! If you are serious about gaming, then you are serious about gaming. It doesn't matter whether or not you think you are good at them. It has already been said, but you don't need to meet other peoples' standards for serious video gaming; it's all subjective.

 

[Tanakh]

then what difference does it make?

There is a big difference, the experience you get from a multiplayer amazing game like LFD2 has nothing to do with an amazing single player game like Final Fantasy Tactics. In my experience playing Portal 2 coop and single player are as far apart from each other as playing pokemon and total war, none is clearly superior, but they are nothing alike.

As for your question, up to you really, might be easier for you to answer if you replace "videogame" with "chess" or "bball", something that you are not involved in and love; and then apply the answer to your case.

 

[Panayjon]

If a fat guy jogs for four hours a day is he not a serious jogger?

You can't be much of a fat guy if you jog four hours a day.

Just like you can't be THAT bad at games if you're a 'serious' gamer.

However, the flaw of this discussion is that 'gamer' is not anymore descriptive than 'reader'. There are all kinds of genres out there, each with their own tropes, logic, and rules. Certainly many skills overlap, like the aforementioned Portal requiring some small measure of hand-eye coordination plus reflexes but its mostly apples and oranges really.

Either way, don't worry about it guy. Though, if you have a hang-up about 'sucking' you should instead challenge yourself and move up to 'normal' difficulty. They don't make games to be 'quarter-sucking' schemes anymore. You'll probably find you'll get more bang for your buck just because the game lasts longer! Feel the burn!

 

[Dargocitfer]

Well, honestly, I think serious gamers are those who are serious about playing games. They don't need to be good, but they are serious about games as an activity.

EDIT: Also, can you really quantify 'good' at games?

I suppose "good" is really hard to quantify. I've seen videos of a guy who can toss around cubes in Portal like they are beach balls, and you hear about someone who completes Uncharted 3 in 188 minutes... But those type of people are what I would call "exceptional" at their game. Just "good"... that's a much broader spectrum.

It depends on what you consider the goal of a game is, I suppose. In sports, the goal is to score as many points as possible, while preventing the opposing team from scoring. So, it's quite easy to say: "He is good at that sport", because he succeeds at the goals. But for a video game, the "goal" is more nebulous. For some people, it might be completing the game, getting to that "end content". For others, it might be a high score, or as many achievements as possible (just another scoring system, really). For someone else, it might be exploring every aspect of the game, doing everything they can.

I guess it's great that there are so many kinds of games, and many ways which they can be enjoyed. I said that I "suck" at many games, but if I am succeeding at *my* goals, then I'm not really "sucking", am I? (Of course, you still wouldn't want me on your team in TF2...)

 

[TheGreekGeekPrick]

Anyone else in the same boat? Does one *have* to play things at the hardest level to be considered a "serious" gamer? Can't I love games and still suck at playing them?

No, someone who *has* to play every game on hardest needs to seriously re-evaluate their free time. Don't worry about it. "Serious" gamers aren't "serious" because they're good, they're good because they're serious. And yes, I can see how the argument can be turned around. If you see video games as more than just a throw-away hobby for an hour each week and a new popular title in your library once a year, you're good.

 

[Eggsnham]

So, here's the thing: I kind of suck at playing video games, especially ones that require any kind of fast reflexes. I've always had slow reflexes; it seems to be the way my muscles are wired.

But, I love playing games. So, if I'm playing Half Life 2 or Serious Sam, I set it to the easiest setting. I can solve the puzzles in Portal 2 with little difficulty, but if I need to shoot a portal on a tiny spot while flying through the air... that can become a frustrating 30 minutes of me dying a lot. But the games are still fun, in spite of any annoying (to me) parts.

This is a major reason why I don't tend to like multiplayer games. I know that I will be the one who ruins things for the rest of the group, because my "skillz" are lacking, and it's no fun being yelled at and called "N00b!" all of the time. I enjoy the persistent world concept of MMOs, but I always play solo, because I don't want to piss people off.

Anyone else in the same boat? Does one *have* to play things at the hardest level to be considered a "serious" gamer? Can't I love games and still suck at playing them?

I'm sorta the same way, there are a few games that I can be really good at, or at the very average, but most games that require any type of specialized skill or reflex are the ones I suck at. Granted, if I can just play the game for a while and get a feel for it, I'll start to slowly improve. It's true that practice makes perfect. True for just about everything, real or not.

Anyways, I say no; that you don't have to be an ultra skilled player to be considered a gamer. Videogames are about having fun, so just play them how you want to.

 

[Blunderboy]

Skill is in no way a reflection of your devotion to/love of the medium. I'm sure there are many 'serious' film fans who couldn't direct a film to save their lives.

 

[MassiveGeek]

This is kind of the completely wrong way to look at things.

It would be like saying that someone who's just started out drawing/playing some instrument, that isn't that good yet or maybe won't get that brilliant at it can't be "serious".
Your skill level isn't what makes you a "serious" gamer. I consider myself a gamer because I have a passion for games, it's a main hobby of mine, something that I value and prioritise. I enjoy it, I love it.

I don't fucking care that people think I'm a noob if I keep to easy/normal difficulty, I'm playing games to enjoy myself, not to get frustrated. It doesn't have to be a second job for you, some people do enjoy challenging themselves and beating games on the highest difficulty, but there's more than one way to enjoy games for fucks sake.

Calm down. There's no need to care what an arrogant fuckface thinks is and isn't serious gaming.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

I'm a gamer. That's who I am, but besides Second Life (which I just logged off from since the grid is all screwed up ATM) I can't actually recall the last game I played. I do play games, but not all that often, and I'm not all that good at them.

I am still a gamer. I lap up gaming news and culture, and it is important to me. I had a conversation with a friend of a friend the other night talking about games like Diablo, World of Warcraft, EVE Online, and Final Fantasy. This went on for quite a while, and got fairly in depth too. I've never actually played any of those games, but I know them, and I enjoy talking about them.