Defining the "Gamer"

[Brian Tams]

As a foot note, you should work on not sounding so ass-holish when responding to someone's curiosity. It might help avoid misunderstandings in the future.

I apologize for coming off as hostile, but I'm afraid the very act of categorizing people as "gamers" and "non-gamers" and making exclusions based on those judgement is an of itself a bit of an ass-holish act. And the reason myself and the rest of us are so keen on expressing disgust for it is because, more often than not, this desire to categorize people as "gamers" comes from a desire to exclude them and to put yourself up on a pedestal above them. It's a sickening thing that's shown up on these forums many times in the past, and frankly it's getting old. While that may not be your intention in this particular case, I'm afraid your wording and desire to judge people based on arbitrary parameters is very reminiscent of those aforementioned assholes.

So perhaps you have your own parameters, but I don't really see the point in it. I have a friend at work who plays LoL and watches tournaments on his phone when he's on break, but to me he isn't a "gamer." He's just Alex, and Alex likes LoL. That's just an aspect of him. Alex also likes the bright yellow pants and suspenders he bought recently. And I have another friend who plays Touhou. I don't think of him as a gamer, either. He's Matthew. Matthew also likes hats. And my sister in law is addicted to playing Angry Birds on my brother's iPad. And she's Brittney.

So categorize people if you must, but just know the way that you use those categories is not the way most people do when they want to set absolute parameters on what a "gamer" is. Most people around here are just keen on deciding who is and isn't cool enough for our exclusive little club.

Thank you for replying, and I respect your position. It's a shame that so many people will use the label "gamer" to achieve such negative goals, and it's a shame that the discussion around the label has been handled in such a way on this site. I do believe that, if people would act like adults, an interesting discussion could blossom about the label "gamer". But, unfortunately, it would seem that such a thing can't happen without emotions running high (and emotions always kill debates), so I think its best if the discussion is ended here.

 

[Hero of Lime]

For me, a gamer is someone who's main, or one of their main hobbies is playing video games. Simple as that. I like to imagine other gamers wouldn't classify what games one plays that makes one a gamer, obviously it happens a lot, which sucks.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

To me it's someone who in some way shape or form makes their living through playing video games. While this initially applies to professional gamers, I could understand it being used to describe critics or even testers.

I like to cook, it doesn't make me a chef.

My friend likes to sew, it doesn't make her a tailor.

I play the occasional video game, it doesn't make me a gamer.

It's a hobby for me, I don't let it give me a label. I don't consider myself a Reader, TV-Watcher, or Mini-Golfer, so why would I consider myself a gamer?

This analogy doesn't really work though.

With food, it wouldn't be a cook but a gourmet that is like a gamer. What would be like a chef is a game designer.

For me, a gamer is someone who's main, or one of their main hobbies is playing video games. Simple as that. I like to imagine other gamers wouldn't classify what games one plays that makes one a gamer, obviously it happens a lot, which sucks.

I agree. Even games that are typically seen as being the area of casual gamers, if a person tends to play a lot of them and/or devotes a lot of time to them, then I'd consider them a gamer. I guess it's sort of like, do you play games to pass time while waiting for something you'd rather be doing? Or do you deliberately seek out games as something to do even when other options are available? Or... something like that.

 

[lacktheknack]

To define a gamer, you think of yourself and your gaming habits, and then you think of someone else that you hate/think you're better than, and their less intense gaming habits.

Then, you choose a general definition that includes you in the definition, and excludes the second person.

And that is the definition of a gamer.

...I'm sorry, I'm doing this wrong, aren't I?

 

[Saltyk]

As others have said, if you play games regularly, than you are a gamer. If you identify as a gamer, then you are a gamer. No need for a litmus test. I'm not going to ask you which weapon Bright Man is weak against to show that you are a "true gamer". Partly because I don't even know. So that would be stupid of me. Don't use fire elementals on the Materia Keeper, though. Galian Beast is your worst enemy on that boss.

Did I have a point? I don't think I did.

Whatever. Enjoy your games. Or not. No skin off my back.

 

[The_Echo]

Gamer.
Bookworm.
Film buff.

Video games.
Literature.
Film.

I really don't know why the definition of "gamer" is put up to such scrutiny. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

 

[Yopaz]

-snip-

What is with this obsession with categorizing ourselves? You spend a good portion of your post saying you don't have to play specific games or genres to be a gamer, and at one point you even contradict yourself by saying being a gamer comes down to the time and money you put into it, and then in the very next sentence say that if you only play free games that's fine too. What is the value in all this? Do you feel better knowing there are some people who play games that don't fit in your definition of a gamer? Because that's the only value I can see anyone placing in the idea. A way to be exclusive, a way to put yourself on top of others in some fashion. I don't care how apparently "loose" or "inclusive" you think your standards are. If you're putting limits or "You must invest THIS much time in games for me to take you seriously" signs everywhere, then you're doing the exact same thing as the "You must play THIS game for me to take you seriously" people, and it's just as idiotic and unnecessary.

Yeah, I don't get it either. It's not like we're getting any respect from being coined gamers, more the opposite shy why do we need to make sure that we are gamers, why do we need to make sure who can't be one?

Personally I don't ever call myself a gamer. I play games, but calling myself a gamer feels like using a term that indicates I do little else. Sure, I play games, I work out, I listen to music, I enjoy cooking, I enjoy discussing some political subjects from time to time. I don't feel games make up a big enough part of my life to identify myself by them. Especially not right now when I've only had the time to play a game properly once this entire week.

 

[Gatx]

Going off that though, if we want to consider the difference between a professional athlete and an athlete the salary (as in their dedication and investment is more or less equal) then you can't call yourself a gamer until you're so completely dedicated to one particular, competitive multiplayer game to the point of exclusion of almost everything else.

So what, we call people who play competitively gamers, and then everyone who follows the culture or who doesn't play competitively, we call "games fans"? It's awkward and unnecessary. In fact, this entire need to belong and exclude and divide is unnecessary. Sports is exclusionary by virtue of physical limitations; there will be athletes, and there will be spectators. Gaming, not so much. You don't have to be 250 pounds of muscle to be good at Street Fighter IV. Two of the best SSFIV players, Daigo Umehara, can't be any more different in terms of body type, background, and demeanor. Theoretically, anyone -- including your grandma if the arthritis hasn't set in -- can play and spend enough time on the game to be great.

So why the fuck, in this hobby that nearly anyone can pick up, do we act like those jocks in an 80's high school comedy?

Just to clarify, there's a different between "professional athlete" and an "athlete." Many of the competitors in the Olympics for instance are athletes, but not all of them make a living from sports the way NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. players do. They have hold day jobs and what not when not competing.

But anyway I was being facetious. I thought the idea that you'd only be a gamer if you played like a pro-gamer but without the money (seriously, the way those guys play games just doesn't seem fun) would be too ridiculous to take seriously. Besides, does it really matter to you if I really was saying that only an "elite" few can qualify to be true "gamers" if you're taking the stance that the label is meaningless in the first place.

 

[omega 616]

To me gamer is just a broad stroke word, if you play any type of game on any platform, then you're a gamer. From flash games to farm ville to candy crush saga to wow to star craft to street fighter.

To me there are then sub divisions, each one is perfectly fine to belong to. Casual is a farm ville type or plays very rarely, hardcore is you're starcraft pros (dedicated to just one game, maybe plays another game from time to time) and lastly serious gamer, who is probably all of you... Somebody who takes gaming a little too seriously at times, plays just about every genre, follows gaming news, stays up till silly o'clock watching next gen reveals, watches or attends expos, squees over soon to be released games, talks on forums about games, knows some release dates etc

That's just my own definitions though