Dividing Gamer-Types

[Maveroid]

I'll make this as short as possible.
I propose thinking of new terms to describe the different types of Gamers in order to keep the public from stereotyping us
Actually, 'every type of gamer' might sound like a lot of new terms, so let me elaborate.

Its not that I want 'outsiders' to know about JRPGs, RTS, FPS, and etc. and call every gamer by their favorite genre just so that we can feel less misunderstood, since that would make matters worse in a weird way.
What I would like to see is a division between the two major types Gamers; esports/competitive games and artistic/singleplayer/normal games. Its not that I do not enjoy competitive gaming and I am not looking down on it or anything, it is just a bit misleading to put both of them in one category because the actual people differ so much from one another.

I know that someone would shoot me down for saying this, but competitive gamers are a little bit like athletes because of their ambition. They want to be the very best like no one ever was, and that's pretty much their goal. Again, that's totally fine and I am not aiming to offend anyone (please trust me). However, there is that other side of gaming that has been overshadowed in the last couple of years, and that's the people who like enjoying a game like a movie or a painting.

I know you have heard this before, so excuse me for reiterating everything that you already know, but it would be weird to just start talking without any background (because of the many negative implications that one could make right away).
It was just weird when people automatically assumed that I play Call of Duty and invited me to come and play with them at my university's game room just because I said that I enjoy playing video games. I don't feel ashamed or anything, its just confusing.

Its a little bit like a person who likes to draw comics is expected to draw the most realistic setting just because he said that 'he likes to draw'. Of course he could do it and it wouldn't look too bad because of his experience, but it wouldn't be anything like something that his counterpart (I am sorry, I can't think of the term, I am uninformed and ignorant) would draw.

So what do you think? Should we start referring to the two sides of gaming separately in order to avoid confusion and misunderstanding, or should we just be quiet and accept it like musicians who don't care to be summarized with one term even though every instrument is so extremely different from one another?

Also, I hate being included in the 'Gamers are violent' reports just because Call of Duty raises your adrenaline levels. Not that Vanquish wouldn't raise those adrenaline levels, but it would feel different when you lose against yourself or the computer and therefore make you more self-destructive than 'violent'.

 

[srm79]

I just don't count anyone who only plays CoD/FIFA/Yearly-expansion-pack-of-choice-here as a gamer. And I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks of my gaming habits. Problem solved.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

How about we all stop stereotyping and trying to label others in order to make ourselves feel more important?

Yeah, I think that sounds like a good idea.

 

[Maveroid]

I just don't count anyone who only plays CoD/FIFA/Yearly-expansion-pack-of-choice-here as a gamer. And I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks of my gaming habits. Problem solved.

I guess you never answer a "What do you like to do in your free-time?"-question with "I like playing video games", because I believe you would care a little bit more when a person that seems interesting to you finds you less interesting because of the Call of Duty stereotype, which does not even apply to all Call of Duty players but more to Gangstas and idiots.
If you do mention that you like gaming and still don't care if someone thinks like that, you might just be an individual that does not enjoy social interaction or just stereotypes people who are uninformed about Gaming to be generally ignorant, which is wrong.

How about we all stop stereotyping and trying to label others in order to make ourselves feel more important?

Yeah, I think that sounds like a good idea.

'More important' as in 'Not according to stereotype?'. I don't think we are all attention-seeking people that want to be respected as wise men or something, I just think most of us have grown too defensive. I read a forum post about whether or not people mention whether their hobby is playing video games and most people said that they don't because of the stereotype. Its a little sad, almost like discrimination, if we feel like that.

So yeah, it would be a great idea if we all stop stereotyping or just divide the stereotype in small chunks like in other media.

 

[krazykidd]

But those two are not enough . The way i see it ( which you might or might not agree with ) there are:

Competitve gamers: those who like to play multiplayer games and go to tournaments.

Single player ( or lone) gamers: who play for story and fun without any stress put on winning . Those who enjoy the experience playing a game alone.

Casual gamers : people that play occasionally and don't put more effort than necessary to understand the medium.This also includes , but is not limited to ,people that play games on easy mode, because they just want to coast through the story without much resistance, sometimes using cheats just because they can.

Hardcore gamers: people that do reasearch on the medium , likes to learn and read up on games . These people also like to play video games but also get better at them.This also includes but is not limited to masochist gamers, gamers that like challenge and push difficulty to new heights , sometimes even giving themselves a handicap.

Now the first two are the 'types' of gamers, and the second two are the 'prefixes' that cartegorizes the gamer. Meaning , you could have a :

Casual Competitve gamer
Casual lone gamer
Hardcore competitive gamer
Hardcore lone gamer


Then there is the Average gamer. The in between gamer is you will . The gamer that likes playing multiplayer with friends, but doesn't worry too much on winning. Gamers that play games for fun and story, likes a mild challenge , usually playing games on normal mode.The reads up on gaming news ever so often but no more than necessary.Those that appreciate the medium and reconizes it's potential. And like to see themselves get better at games without wanting to be the best or brag about it. Basically a mix of the four above.

I would agrue that most people fall into the Average gamer type. Anwyays thats my two cents.

Edit: I edited my post to make it clearer.

 

[srm79]

I guess you never answer a "What do you like to do in your free-time?"-question with "I like playing video games", because I believe you would care a little bit more when a person that seems interesting to you finds you less interesting because of the Call of Duty stereotype, which does not even apply to all Call of Duty players but more to Gangstas and idiots.

Er, I do actually. It's just a hobby or past time like any other. I'm not sure what the "Call of Duty Stereotype" even is, because it's played by so fucking many people. The only stereotype that exists is really within the gamer community, where we tend to slate the "bro-gamers" who only play the annual CoD and sports games updates. But a non-gamer wouldn't be clued up on such things so...er...

If you do mention that you like gaming and still don't care if someone thinks like that, you might just be an individual that does not enjoy social interaction or just stereotypes people who are uninformed about Gaming to be generally ignorant, which is wrong.

I wonder what Dr. Freud would make of that? Perhaps I'm just not ashamed or uncomfortable or insecure enough to give a toss what anyone thinks about it? Or is that too obvious?

 

[Ordinaryundone]

How about we all stop stereotyping and trying to label others in order to make ourselves feel more important?

Yeah, I think that sounds like a good idea.

'More important' as in 'Not according to stereotype?'. I don't think we are all attention-seeking people that want to be respected as wise men or something, I just think most of us have grown too defensive. I read a forum post about whether or not people mention whether their hobby is playing video games and most people said that they don't because of the stereotype. Its a little sad, almost like discrimination, if we feel like that.

So yeah, it would be a great idea if we all stop stereotyping or just divide the stereotype in small chunks like in other media.

Whats wrong with everyone just being like "Hey, I like video games". Why does what game they play matter? Why does how much they play matter? It's a freaking entertainment medium: being "more devoted" doesn't mean shit at the end of the day. Thinking otherwise is just pointless self-aggrandizement.

 

[The Abhorrent]

There's an article which has been around for quite a few years now, Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDS [http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm] By R.A. Bartle, which addresses the the types of players seen "multi-user dungeons" (basically the predecessors to modern MMOs). The suits from a standard deck of cards were used in the title to label the archetypes, but the article also has some other (more apt) descriptors: achievers, explorers, socializers, and killers. Like all forms of generalizing people into groups, everyone will have elements of everything instead of falling neatly into a single catagory; still, they'll probably lean towards one particular archetype in particular. With a surprisingly small leap, this can hypothetically be extended to all genres of gaming since it deals with the player's motives.

---

To give a brief rundown, this is what the archetypes are concerned with:

Achievers
Winning and progression are the dominant motives at play here, achievers want to get as far as possible and complete as many (and/or the loftiest) goals as possible. Tend to be a very competitive group, but they aren't outwardly malicious (can be quite sporting actually)... though they probably don't take kindly to having their time wasted.

Explorers
Gatherers of knowledge, lovers of sight-seeing, and all that comes with finding out what exists within a new world to be discovered; they're also interested in learning how the mechanics of a game work, and how they can be broken. In any event, these are the people who are most likely to be the repositories of knowledge for a game. Easy to draw into a game, but they're quick to move onto other games once they've exhausted all that there is worth learning about in the game they're currently interested in (unless there's another motive keeping them around). Anyhow, the main motive here appears to be learning something new and/or solving puzzles; these guys love a good head-scratcher. They also enjoy storylines, though mostly to see how events play out.

Socializers
This group likes talking and getting to know people, so the motive should be clear enough. They might also be the group most interested in a good story, but from a different angle than that of explorers; they want to see what happens to the characters in the story, not just how things go.

Killers
Ever ran into "that guy", the one who wants to murder everything in sight simply to do so? That's this guy. The motive here seems to be dominance, which comes with a clear correlation to malicious behaviour. They'll engage in other tasks, but quite often it's to get a rise out of people or beat them at something. Depending on your perspective, they can be considered the "trolls" of the gaming community; they're certainly the main group from which "griefers" come from.

Four semi-distinct groups, four central motives. Still surprisingly applicable after 15-16 years after the article was first published.

---

To give an idea of what genres each group might be interested in...

Achievers -- Any game which offers a high degree of challenge, especially if there's some sort of reward at the end of it all. Highly competitive genres (RTS, FPS, fighting, etc.) will also be popular.

Explorers -- RPGs, adventure games, and so on. Probably the group most likely to prefer single-player games.

Socializers -- Social games, anything with a good story?

Killers -- First person shooters are the easy answer, especially those centred around death-match variants (and don't be surprised if they focus on killing the opposition in objective-focused matches).

 

[Maveroid]

Whats wrong with everyone just being like "Hey, I like video games". Why does what game they play matter? Why does how much they play matter? It's a freaking entertainment medium: being "more devoted" doesn't mean shit at the end of the day. Thinking otherwise is just pointless self-aggrandizement.

Er, I do actually. It's just a hobby or past time like any other. I'm not sure what the "Call of Duty Stereotype" even is, because it's played by so fucking many people. The only stereotype that exists is really within the gamer community, where we tend to slate the "bro-gamers" who only play the annual CoD and sports games updates. But a non-gamer wouldn't be clued up on such things so...er...

Hmm, that's true, it is just an entertainment medium of course.
I agree, I do seem to take it a lot more seriously than I should.
But I hope you can kind of see where I am coming from, even if it is a little pathetic when it comes to entertainment.

Imagine a person who dislikes movies because of his belief that they are only about mindless action scenes. Imagine him slightly insulting a person for watching so many movies in his free time. Wouldn't the movie-lover want to show him that there is more than just Transformers 3 and Robert Downey Jr because he just loves the medium so much?

I know its unrealistic because everyone already knows that there is a difference between blockbuster movies, oscar movies and the many other types of movies since it has been proclaimed for a long time.
When someone tells you that he likes to watch movies, you immediately picture him to be someone who is really into the industry and knows everything from history to present... At least that's what I always imagine.

What about games? Imagine a girl that you like and would like to get to know. When you say that you like video games she could, and most likely will, just think of Call of Duty and maybe even despise you for playing the same game as those loud and angry guys that she has met before. Its not that she is ignorant since there is no obligations for her to go on the internet and research this particular medium, so you can't hate her for not knowing anything about it. Then again, she will still subconsciously associate you with that particular game and those particular experiences that she had in the past, so you are automatically a bit less appreciated.

I thought dividing video games into two would create the same effect as the movie industry.

I wonder what Dr. Freud would make of that? Perhaps I'm just not ashamed or uncomfortable or insecure enough to give a toss what anyone thinks about it? Or is that too obvious?

I wouldn't refer to people that care about the feedback of others as insecure, but I suppose that is just my opinion. I did not want to insult you in any way or imply anything of the sort. I am sorry.

 

[Maveroid]

There's an article which has been around for quite a few years now, Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDS [http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm] By R.A. Bartle, which addresses the the types of players seen "multi-user dungeons" (basically the predecessors to modern MMOs).

(I am sorry for cutting your quote short)

As much as I appreciate the attempt of categorizing ourselves according to our gaming motives, it is still only effective for our 'inter-community' interaction. The categories are great and Bartle did a great job from what I've read in your post, but they are a bit too hard to understand for outsiders (even if they seem simple).

People shouldn't be bothered with so much information about our hobby since it is... Just our hobby. That's why I was thinking about small categories that everyone can understand even if they haven't played a game before.

Imagine a news station referring to the 'violent gamers' simply as those e-sports fanatics. That would raise a lot of questions right away because of the 'sports' in the title and maybe the general public wouldn't just go off and say "All e-sports gamers are violent" just because it sounds too specific. It is weird, but it seems like a broader category is easier to stereotype than a small one, even though a small one features less individuals, which is why I thought cutting our community into two separate smaller ones would help.

After all, we are quite different. While both types of gamers interact with one another and even try out 'the other games', they are still very different. I remember Mike Ross (one of the most famous Street Fighter players) talked about Dark Souls. While he enjoyed it, it was a very different experience for him and his opinion would not impact the actual target-demographic of Dark Souls.

Then again, that's just what I think. Thanks for the link btw!

 

[Ordinaryundone]

snip

You worry too much. If a person would think less of you because you subscribe to a specific hobby, then they aren't really a person worth hanging out with. In that same regard, what do you really care what they think? Again, its an entertainment medium: for most people, the only negative conotations with gaming are that your preferred entertainment invovles sitting around and not getting much sun. If, say, a girl knows enough about video games to associate CoD with angry guys (which, by the way, is a terrible generalization in of itself), then she knows enough about it to know that CoD isn't the only type of video game. People with less experience won't know enough about the genre to negatively stereotype you beyond "nerd".

If it really bothers you, then just point out the fallacy to someone making the observation. "You like video games, you must play a lot of FPS" "You like art, do you do a lot of fingerpainting?" That sort of thing. It's rude, and more than a little petty, but it'll get the point across.

 

[MammothBlade]

.

Explorers
Gatherers of knowledge, lovers of sight-seeing, and all that comes with finding out what exists within a new world to be discovered; they're also interested in learning how the mechanics of a game work, and how they can be broken. In any event, these are the people who are most likely to be the repositories of knowledge for a game. Easy to draw into a game, but they're quick to move onto other games once they've exhausted all that there is worth learning about in the game they're currently interested in (unless there's another motive keeping them around). Anyhow, the main motive here appears to be learning something new and/or solving puzzles; these guys love a good head-scratcher. They also enjoy storylines, though mostly to see how events play out.


Explorers -- RPGs, adventure games, and so on. Probably the group most likely to prefer single-player games.

Ooh, this sounds a lot like me. Though I do like to immerse myself as an adventurer in the game world, and have an effect upon in-game events as opposed to just exploring alone.

Thanks for the link, very interesting.

There are definitely different motives for playing games. For me, it's a mix of things. Sometimes I want an adventure and a story, sometimes I want guts and glory, sometimes I want a creative outlet, but even better, games which provide all of those at the same time. Other people are going to have their own reasons.

It's a good idea to categorise people for the main reasons they play... and not so helpful to divide gamers into a dichotomy of hardcore and casual.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

There's an article which has been around for quite a few years now, Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDS [http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm] By R.A. Bartle, which addresses the the types of players seen "multi-user dungeons" (basically the predecessors to modern MMOs). The suits from a standard deck of cards were used in the title to label the archetypes, but the article also has some other (more apt) descriptors: achievers, explorers, socializers, and killers. Like all forms of generalizing people into groups, everyone will have elements of everything instead of falling neatly into a single catagory; still, they'll probably lean towards one particular archetype in particular. With a surprisingly small leap, this can hypothetically be extended to all genres of gaming since it deals with the player's motives.

---

To give a brief rundown, this is what the archetypes are concerned with:

Achievers
Winning and progression are the dominant motives at play here, achievers want to get as far as possible and complete as many (and/or the loftiest) goals as possible. Tend to be a very competitive group, but they aren't outwardly malicious (can be quite sporting actually)... though they probably don't take kindly to having their time wasted.

Explorers
Gatherers of knowledge, lovers of sight-seeing, and all that comes with finding out what exists within a new world to be discovered; they're also interested in learning how the mechanics of a game work, and how they can be broken. In any event, these are the people who are most likely to be the repositories of knowledge for a game. Easy to draw into a game, but they're quick to move onto other games once they've exhausted all that there is worth learning about in the game they're currently interested in (unless there's another motive keeping them around). Anyhow, the main motive here appears to be learning something new and/or solving puzzles; these guys love a good head-scratcher. They also enjoy storylines, though mostly to see how events play out.

Socializers
This group likes talking and getting to know people, so the motive should be clear enough. They might also be the group most interested in a good story, but from a different angle than that of explorers; they want to see what happens to the characters in the story, not just how things go.

Killers
Ever ran into "that guy", the one who wants to murder everything in sight simply to do so? That's this guy. The motive here seems to be dominance, which comes with a clear correlation to malicious behaviour. They'll engage in other tasks, but quite often it's to get a rise out of people or beat them at something. Depending on your perspective, they can be considered the "trolls" of the gaming community; they're certainly the main group from which "griefers" come from.

Four semi-distinct groups, four central motives. Still surprisingly applicable after 15-16 years after the article was first published.

---

To give an idea of what genres each group might be interested in...

Achievers -- Any game which offers a high degree of challenge, especially if there's some sort of reward at the end of it all. Highly competitive genres (RTS, FPS, fighting, etc.) will also be popular.

Explorers -- RPGs, adventure games, and so on. Probably the group most likely to prefer single-player games.

Socializers -- Social games, anything with a good story?

Killers -- First person shooters are the easy answer, especially those centred around death-match variants (and don't be surprised if they focus on killing the opposition in objective-focused matches).

If you combine this with the two sets of Magic the Gathering archetypes (the first one is Timmy, Spike, and Johnny, the second one is Melvin, Vorthos, and some other name I can't remember) you get a pretty accurate picture. Timmy's like big, flashy monsters, Spikes like to win at all costs, and Johnny's like to tinker with the mechanics to find broken combinations of rules that the designers didn't notice. With video gamers, this would translate more to "play for fun, play to win, play to find weird exploits in the engine." Vorthos, Melvin, and whatever the other one is deal with attitudes about story in games. The only one I clearly remember is Vorthos, who lives for the lore. These would be the guys who read all of the books in an Elder Scrolls game and then starts editing the wiki.


As for the OP's categories: no, just no. The competitive grouping is okay (it basically aligns with Spike), but the other one is way too broad, and it's basically a way of saying it's not normal to like multiplayer. I mean, what would you call a guy like me, who likes multiplayer, can get competitive, but also loves single player and exploration? Also, one who likes "art" but hates "arty," and sees very little "art" in games? It just seems like the OP put what he liked about games in one category, and what he didn't in another, instead of splitting up the different concepts.

Edit: Here's a couple of links to better descriptions about the MTG archetypes:

Johnny, Timmy, Spike

Vorthos, Melvin, Melthos

Looks like I couldn't remember the third story profile because they don't have one; it's just Melvin, Vorthos, or a combination of the two.

Edit Edit: An even better article on the first group of archetypes, it breaks them down a bit more into subtypes that really can be applied to gamers of pretty much any stripe.

 

[Maveroid]

As for the OP's categories: no, just no. The competitive grouping is okay (it basically aligns with Spike), but the other one is way too broad, and it's basically a way of saying it's not normal to like multiplayer. I mean, what would you call a guy like me, who likes multiplayer, can get competitive, but also loves single player and exploration? Also, one who likes "art" but hates "arty," and sees very little "art" in games? It just seems like the OP put what he liked about games in one category, and what he didn't in another, instead of splitting up the different concepts.

Again, it isn't about the specifics since 'outsiders' should not be bothered with details, its about the idea of helping them understand that there is more than just the games that are being marketed so much.

Its not about you, its about the games. The public does not care who YOU might be, they should just know that if you are a 'Gamer' you are not necessarily someone who plays the blockbuster games. Again, my movie example. If you like movies, you don't necessarily watch Transformer 3 just because it sells well, you might (or should) hate it.

I am sorry if I come across as egocentric or rude, I just think my point didn't come across. Again, this is not about OUR interests. Books are being categorized, movies are often being referred to as artsy, oscar movies or blockbusters and it is general knowledge by now, but games are just games and there aren't any popular divisions to them. There are no WIDESPREAD divisions.

You worry too much. If a person would think less of you because you subscribe to a specific hobby, then they aren't really a person worth hanging out with. In that same regard, what do you really care what they think? Again, its an entertainment medium: for most people, the only negative conotations with gaming are that your preferred entertainment invovles sitting around and not getting much sun. If, say, a girl knows enough about video games to associate CoD with angry guys (which, by the way, is a terrible generalization in of itself), then she knows enough about it to know that CoD isn't the only type of video game. People with less experience won't know enough about the genre to negatively stereotype you beyond "nerd".

If it really bothers you, then just point out the fallacy to someone making the observation. "You like video games, you must play a lot of FPS" "You like art, do you do a lot of fingerpainting?" That sort of thing. It's rude, and more than a little petty, but it'll get the point across.

I suppose you are right about me, but its not just how others perceive us.
I just wish games were more accepted. You know, like movies are accepted.

 

[Maveroid]

Achievers
Winning and progression are the dominant motives at play here, achievers want to get as far as possible and complete as many (and/or the loftiest) goals as possible. Tend to be a very competitive group, but they aren't outwardly malicious (can be quite sporting actually)... though they probably don't take kindly to having their time wasted.

Explorers
Gatherers of knowledge, lovers of sight-seeing, and all that comes with finding out what exists within a new world to be discovered; they're also interested in learning how the mechanics of a game work, and how they can be broken. In any event, these are the people who are most likely to be the repositories of knowledge for a game. Easy to draw into a game, but they're quick to move onto other games once they've exhausted all that there is worth learning about in the game they're currently interested in (unless there's another motive keeping them around). Anyhow, the main motive here appears to be learning something new and/or solving puzzles; these guys love a good head-scratcher. They also enjoy storylines, though mostly to see how events play out.

Does anyone else want to be in another category but can't get out of their own? I am an Achiever but I really want to be an Explorer... (sounds like MMORPG classes).
Something holds me back on exploring... I always want to finish a game or just become the best at it, even the environment is really beautiful. Seems like I don't appreciate my games as much as I should. I'll definitely try changing that as soon as I come home. I'll explore the *$!@ out of Soul Reaver.

 

[Nyaoku]

We already have divisions. They're just categorized now.
For example, let's divide the FPS genera.

The Camper - Don't normally care about high kill counts, more so enjoy that one good kill or providing intell to the group.

The Run n Gun guy - Fast paced adrenaline junkie. Normally the guys who rush at the beginning of every match.

The Tactician - Spends more time watching the map and directing others via mic rather than actually getting into the fight. Tends to help the team as a whole but tends to avoid FFA matches.

The pseudo hacker - The player who takes a lot of account for the technical side, leading their shots to account for lag, watching the ping regularly, and taking advantage of the various glitches to gain the upper hand. aka the opportunist.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

As for the OP's categories: no, just no. The competitive grouping is okay (it basically aligns with Spike), but the other one is way too broad, and it's basically a way of saying it's not normal to like multiplayer. I mean, what would you call a guy like me, who likes multiplayer, can get competitive, but also loves single player and exploration? Also, one who likes "art" but hates "arty," and sees very little "art" in games? It just seems like the OP put what he liked about games in one category, and what he didn't in another, instead of splitting up the different concepts.

Again, it isn't about the specifics since 'outsiders' should not be bothered with details, its about the idea of helping them understand that there is more than just the games that are being marketed so much.

Its not about you, its about the games. The public does not care who YOU might be, they should just know that if you are a 'Gamer' you are not necessarily someone who plays the blockbuster games. Again, my movie example. If you like movies, you don't necessarily watch Transformer 3 just because it sells well, you might (or should) hate it.

I am sorry if I come across as egocentric or rude, I just think my point didn't come across. Again, this is not about OUR interests. Books are being categorized, movies are often being referred to as artsy, oscar movies or blockbusters and it is general knowledge by now, but games are just games and there aren't any popular divisions to them. There are no WIDESPREAD divisions.

You worry too much. If a person would think less of you because you subscribe to a specific hobby, then they aren't really a person worth hanging out with. In that same regard, what do you really care what they think? Again, its an entertainment medium: for most people, the only negative conotations with gaming are that your preferred entertainment invovles sitting around and not getting much sun. If, say, a girl knows enough about video games to associate CoD with angry guys (which, by the way, is a terrible generalization in of itself), then she knows enough about it to know that CoD isn't the only type of video game. People with less experience won't know enough about the genre to negatively stereotype you beyond "nerd".

If it really bothers you, then just point out the fallacy to someone making the observation. "You like video games, you must play a lot of FPS" "You like art, do you do a lot of fingerpainting?" That sort of thing. It's rude, and more than a little petty, but it'll get the point across.

I suppose you are right about me, but its not just how others perceive us.
I just wish games were more accepted. You know, like movies are accepted.

Dang, man, if that's what this is about, I refer you to the other person you quoted. Games already are accepted; it's just the baby boomers (and maybe some of the older Gen X-ers) who don't get it, and they're getting very old, very fast.

Edit: Besides, your categories still have the problem of acting like you can't enjoy competitive multiplayer and still be a "normal" gamer, as if all gamers who enjoy playing to win in an online environment care nothing about any other type of game, and are completely segregated from the rest of us. That's too ridiculous to even call a generalization; it's just /wrong./ I mean, I check every box in both of your categories (to varying degrees; I've never been much for games that try too hard to be "art"). If the categories were in any way accurate, I'd either like multiplayer, or like everything(or, for that matter, anything) else.

 

[Maveroid]

Dang, man, if that's what this is about, I refer you to the other person you quoted. Games already are accepted; it's just the baby boomers (and maybe some of the older Gen X-ers) who don't get it, and they're getting very old, very fast.

Edit: Besides, your categories still have the problem of acting like you can't enjoy competitive multiplayer and still be a "normal" gamer, as if all gamers who enjoy playing to win in an online environment care nothing about any other type of game, and are completely segregated from the rest of us. That's too ridiculous to even call a generalization; it's just /wrong./ I mean, I check every box in both of your categories (to varying degrees; I've never been much for games that try too hard to be "art"). If the categories were in any way accurate, I'd either like multiplayer, or like everything(or, for that matter, anything) else.

Yes... Of course, you are right =/
I do realize that many of us play multiplayer and other games at the same time (I do, in fact).

May I offer some more background for my initial idea? (I must be annoying the hell out of everyone participating here, I am so sorry)
I already mentioned the game room in our university, and I did check it out fairly early so that I might join in on some Street Fighter or something like that. Sadly, there were only 'Gangsta-type gamers' who were playing Call of Duty and cursing each other out in Ghetto slang. They were nice people and invited me to join, but I am pretty bad at shooters and don't enjoy the competition. I asked whether there were more games to play, and all of them seemed to agree that there was nothing as good as Call of Duty. Again, those were very nice people (and I am so sorry for referring to them as 'Gangsta-type gamers' which is a bad stereotype to begin with. My own experience has been very limited since I am still new to the States and Germany's Gaming scene was quite different from this one.)

Still, the game room is always filled with people, but it is always those kinds of gamers that play there; the new age of gamers, if I may call them that. I feel left out, but at the same time, my friends (who are all non-gamers,surprisingly) always ask me "Why don't you join? Isn't this heaven for you in there with that many people playing the best game out there?". Obviously, they believed that the success of this particular game means that it is the best, like many people believed Inception to be the best movie ever just because of the whole 'community' aspect of it.

My point is, if we could somehow divide ourselves so that the public could see that there are so many different kinds of video games and so many different people enjoying so many different things, I think such scenarios wouldn't be happening. It wasn't so much the fact that I could not socialize with the people playing there, I just felt bad when my friends expected me to be happy about it and join in.

Yes, its just an entertainment medium, but it does define me just as much as my writing, my drawings and my general interests. I don't want to be appreciated, I just want to be put in the right stereotype (at least)(that's impossible, isn't it?). It is embarrassing, but I do see Gaming as a scene, or maybe even a culture, like Goths or Metal-heads and etc. and maybe that is why I am a little frustrated with my problem to connect with the people that are actually part of it, which is why I would just like to divide it into at least two little groups for EVERYONE to understand.

Then again, maybe its enough to just understand our difference ourselves instead of letting everyone know.

 

[Wolfram23]

At least in BF3:

The pilots: These players love to fly or drive vehicles. If there's a vehicle spawn point, these guys are there.

The loner: These players are generally playing Recon, but not exclusively. They don't give a rats ass about anyone else on the team. They just want to get a good K/D ratio.

The helper: These players are often playing as Assault and resurrecting fallen comrades. They always spawn on a squad mate and like to stick to groups of allies.

The commander: These players are sometimes good, sometimes bad. Either way, they're yelling over chat what they think is the best strategy for their team. Attack this, defend that.

The douche: These players can be any combination of the above, but generally they all boil down to screaming insults at their team and lamenting how much of a "fail" their team is. They do absolutely nothing to help other players or sway the course of a battle, they just like to *****.

 

[Uriain]

I dont see why there needs to be these classifications.

If you play games, then your a gamer. Weather thats facebook games, or Hardcore tactical sims, Music Games or First Person Shooters. Your a gamer.

If you must "break down" this further, then really, it should be looked at in a focus on genre, then subset of that genre's characteristics.

For example, You play RPG's Primarily, but you try and do everything you possibly can, so you would be a RPG completionist .. etc etc

At least that's how I would look at it