Gamer "Inflation." Everyone is a "Gamer" now.

[Slayer_2]

So, again I ask, what authoritative and liscencing body set up that objective standard? Who owns the term officially?

And if you asked that, I would then ask you what "authoritative and liscencing body" set up the "objective standard" for the term 'athlete', and who "own the term officially"? Or the term 'racer'. Or 'marksman'. Or any other hobby-related term.

Fact is that if I called myself an athlete, yet couldn't play any sport really well, lacked a lot of knowledge about sports and sporting culture, and generally didn't interest myself in that stuff, people would call me out on it. But if you don't agree that everyone who's played Angry Birds is a "gamer", someone inevitably gets their panties in a knot.

Captcha: "be mine" Sorry captcha, I'm happily committed to a free life right now, I can't get involved with someone.

 

[Mirroga]

So you actually want Gamers to go back from being unaccepted nerds of society who waste their time playing games?

If I'm seeing the pattern, you like the old-style gamer that isn't mainstreamed. Isn't that synonymous to the word Hipster?

Either ways, I have yet to see a female who would like to go back to a time where the only "job" they have are being housewives.

 

[NortherWolf]

You've got a group of people who think they have the right to label themselves as 'Gamers' when all they play is Angry Birds, Minecraft, CoD, and whatever the music game flavor of the month is. Sorry, but that's like calling yourself a film buff when all you watch are Action and Comedy movies. Just because you can drop the cash needed to buy an XBox360 and a few games doesn't mean you're a gamer.

Being a gamer mean you play EVERYTHING. From Shooters to RPGs, from Grand Strategies to Visual Novels, you play it all. It means owning a collection spanning multiple consoles and generations. It means having more game related music on your MP3 player than non-game related.

Really? Oh, awesome!
Hey, you know what? Go toss Tobias Bjarneby a mail. I'm sure the guy who's founded three video game magazines here in Sweden would like to know he's not a gamer according to your daft standards.
Hell, none of the guys or girls who worked for him would either.

 

[xPixelatedx]

I don't necessarily agree. I am not trying to be elitist or anything, I am not saying someone needs to know the Konami code or the order in which to beat MM2 bosses in order to be called a gamer. I just think to be called something like "gamer" you have to have an interest in games, is that really unreasonable? Many of the newer people who started playing games this gen have no interest in them. They are just the kind of people who hop on any dumb/popular craze that happens to be swinging by, and any of these distractions are interchangeable, which is what Nintendo just found out. Nintendo discovered many of these people they brought into the living room this gen are, in fact, an unsustainable audience. This is why the wii is already dead and Nintendo is already apologizing to their original audience (which they previously shunned).
There is an clear and defining difference between the person with Nintendo power posters all over their walls and your grandmother who only plays Angry Birds in the dentist's office. Is it really such a big deal to point that difference out? Why is it considered "PC" to ignore that reality? Do we really have to homogenize the categories just to make everyone feel like kindred spirits? I am sorry, but my Aunt is not an avid movie-goer simply because she saw Avatar at the height of it's popularity, nor is she a car enthusiast because she drove there. Again, I just consider "Gamer" as someone who is interested in games, and simply playing one doesn't denote interest.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

There is an clear and defining difference between the person with Nintendo power posters all over their walls and your grandmother who only plays Angry Birds in the dentist's office. Is it really such a big deal to point that difference out? Why is it considered "PC" to ignore that reality? Do we really have to homogenize the categories just to make everyone feel like kindred spirits? I am sorry, but my Aunt is not an avid movie-goer simply because she saw Avatar at the height of it's popularity, nor is she a car enthusiast because she drove there. Again, I just consider "Gamer" as someone who is interested in games, and simply playing one doesn't denote interest.

Obviously that distinction is there, but it's fairly meaningless. I don't define people by their hobbies, and I don't care to be defined by my hobbies. This need to delineate a community and sniff out pretenders is rooted in insecurity and a kind of grade school tribalism that I would expect most people to grow out of in their late teens and early 20's. The fact is that our experiences and predilections do not grant us membership in an exclusive club, make our opinions more valid, or give us a podium from which we can safely hurl aspersions at those with less established backgrounds in our hobby. Perhaps you've been gaming for 10 years, and feel that makes you a "gamer". I've been gaming for 30 years. What does that make me? Do I get to question your authenticity? I bet you never even PLAYED M.U.L.E.!

This is not like a trade or a craft where you attend a school and earn accreditation. Being a gamer is not like being a doctor or electrician. There is no level of training that needs to be attained, no extraordinary level of skill required. If you want to self-define as a gamer, fill your boots. If you're playing games, how can it be anything but true? The only thing left to question is the degree of enthusiasm you have, and measuring one's enthusiasm for a purely recreational past time in order to determine whether to include or exclude them in your nebulously defined community might very well be one of the stupidest uses of time in the history of the world.

 

[Lilani]

Then there's this other guy who appears to be trying to convince himself that gamging is a generational thing...

You know what else was supposed to be a generational thing? Hippies. Hippies were fully behind a movement intended to bring peace and love to the world. Instead they became yuppies and brought forth junk bonds and wall street scandals... you know, passing on their values.

Are gamers better than boomer hippies? Maybe slightly, but they are most certainly not above selling out the passion of their younger years for profit in the most hypocritical ways possible. If there is any generational effect in play; it's going to be along the same lines that hippies turned into yuppies and sold out. If you take a look around today at the state of the industry, I'd say that's a fair analogy.

No, it's not a fair analogy, because hippies did start as a generational thing. The kids who grew up during the Great Depression became adults in the 1950s. Two things about them are important. 1: Most of them grew up with very little, and had to stretch every penny just to get by. 2: In the 1950s America was in the midst of a post-war economic boom, giving them a lot of disposable income. So that generation of the 1950s became very material-wealth oriented. Home appliances, suburbia, the nuclear family, the white picket fence...all of those became the big themes of the 1950s. You can even see it in the television ads and programs of the time--what is the defining show of the 1950s? Leave it to Beaver.

So it's no wonder that their children grew up to rebel against all of those themes, becoming the hippies of the late 1960s and 70s. Refusing to accept material wealth, pursuing alternative lifestyles, pursuing everything their parents hammered into them as vulgar or sinful. And the Vietnam War gave them even more fuel on which to burn their passions, as well.

That is how they started. As with all original rebels, though, they later became the inspiration for other rebels, and as with secondary rebellion movements they usually don't have the same intentions as the original rebellion. The same thing happened to Guy Fawkes--I doubt most people who don the mask of his face actually know what he did outside of what was said in V for Vendetta. That doesn't make the original Guy Fawkes a poser, just as it doesn't make the original hippies posers. What made the original hippies come to be was generational, and no number of posers in the present or future is ever going to change that.

Anyway, I am ambivalent on games being generational. I wouldn't be surprised if parents get their kids into games as they were into games, but I think it's a bit too individual of a thing to mark as a "trend" at this point.

Then he goes on to talk about the economy influencing game sales. So how are CoD sales growing in a recession while Nintendo languished during one of the biggest economic expansions in US history?

There is nothing generational or passive about it- the exponential increase in revenues the games industry brings in is a direct result of something sinister. You say it's great, I say you're paying a price.

I still don't get what you mean by "something sinister." Clearly you see something nobody else does, but you aren't saying it right out. So please, enlighten me. What do you think is going on with games, and what do you think is solving it?

 

[xPixelatedx]

This need to delineate a community and sniff out pretenders is rooted in insecurity and a kind of grade school tribalism that I would expect most people to grow out of in their late teens and early 20's.

That is definitely the extreme of this argument on one side, but pretending everyone is exactly the same for political correctness is the other extreme opposite of it. I don't think either hold much ground and hold a equivalent amount of 'crazies'.

Obviously that distinction is there, but it's fairly meaningless. I don't define people by their hobbies, and I don't care to be defined by my hobbies.

It isn't meaningless, in fact it is significantly meaningful. There is a reason we make distinctions to identify hobbyists, so we can make things and environments for them to explore and share their hobby. You know, web sites like this.

The fact is that our experiences and predilections do not grant us membership in an exclusive club, make our opinions more valid, or give us a podium from which we can safely hurl aspersions at those with less established backgrounds in our hobby. Perhaps you've been gaming for 10 years, and feel that makes you a "gamer". I've been gaming for 30 years. What does that make me? Do I get to question your authenticity? I bet you never even PLAYED M.U.L.E.!

That I do agree with. This isn't an exclusive club, nor should it be. Anyone can be a gamer if they want to be. I would just still abide by basic logic and restrict that classification for people with a genuine interest. Like everyone posting on this website right now; you're certainly all gamers. You came to a gaming website to talk about gaming, that's a genuine interest.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

That I do agree with. This isn't an exclusive club, nor should it be. Anyone can be a gamer if they want to be. I would just still abide by basic logic and restrict that classification for people with a genuine interest. Like everyone posting on this website right now; you're certainly all gamers. You came to a gaming website to talk about gaming, that's a genuine interest.

And it's a self-selecting sample of people who come here, innit? We didn't make any distinction. They chose to make that distinction for themselves. There was no questionnaire or screening process. They didn't have to supply us with the Konami code or their Starcraft build order before they could start an account. I could come here 5 minutes after playing Angry Birds, and have that be the first game I ever played in my entire life, and I'd be a "gamer".

I'm not really sure what you're meaning with your "political correctness" comment in reply one. Can you re-phrase?

 

[Tsukuyomi]

You're a gamer if you play games and they're pretty much a major form of entertainment to you and it would be difficult for you to replace it completely with another form of entertainment.

By gods, I think he's got it! It's not elitist, it explains the heart of the matter, and it's a very simple qualifier. I could get behind this definition if we HAD to have one. I would like to think we don't, but in the event...

As for people continuously asking about WHY gaming becoming mainstream can be seen as bad, I think the bare-bones point is this: in a sense to some people it's a one-way door. People who walk in now are supposed to be more than welcome, but people like the OP and others who are "Hardcore" into the lifestyle aren't really afforded the same level of welcome in the outside world without adjusting their mannerisms and personality. It seems to apply not just to being a gamer but being a geek in general.

For example when people around me are telling jokes or funny stories, I have to keep my trap shut. Why? Because most of my funny stories are geeky to the point that normal people will stare at me blankly and there will be an awkward moment of silence before they act like I never said anything and move on. I'm written off as a loser for wearing geek-wear in public because I'm not tan, fit, and clearly wearing it ironically or to be hip as it's not the superhero of the month I'm wearing, but a hero I actually LIKE. To me this kinda sucks and it feels unfair. A sports-fan can be a sports-fan without much scrutiny. A car-nut can be a car-nut and most people will understand. But a guy who's sunk hundreds of hours into World of Warcraft, while still maintaining a social circle, holding down a good job, and living life outside of the game, is clearly a pasty nerd loser who has no business being outside his parents' basement and will likely never, ever, get laid.

Is the above a fair judgement on myself or anyone else who's enjoyed games and geek culture extensively? No. It's not. It's a 'fair is fair' issue I think in terms of some people believing that if geeks are going to be degraded for going into normal-person territory with their flag flying, brodudes and casuals should get the same treatment for coming into geek turf.

That said, though: The above revenge fantasy does absolutely zero percent of good to anyone on either side, and as I come to look at it more, I feel like the one-way door is a bit of a good thing in that it forces some of us to grow up. We can still love gaming as we do, but that doesn't mean broadening our horizons wouldn't do us some good. We like what we do and we do what we like but, as hard as it is to be the bigger man and whatnot, time comes when you have to do it. For those gamers among us who are unhappy about the influx of casuals, brodudes, jerks, and other non-gamers, unfortunately that time is now. It's hard, but we've gotta grow up and learn to live and let live. Understand that this is how the world works and it's likely how it will always work to some degree.

TL; DR: While I can see where some people are unhappy about people who normally would make fun of or look down on gamers endlessly coming into gaming territory, it's not going to change and bitching does no good. We're gonna have to grow up, let it go, and embrace the opportunities this situation has given.

 

[Fappy]

There is an clear and defining difference between the person with Nintendo power posters all over their walls and your grandmother who only plays Angry Birds in the dentist's office. Is it really such a big deal to point that difference out? Why is it considered "PC" to ignore that reality? Do we really have to homogenize the categories just to make everyone feel like kindred spirits? I am sorry, but my Aunt is not an avid movie-goer simply because she saw Avatar at the height of it's popularity, nor is she a car enthusiast because she drove there. Again, I just consider "Gamer" as someone who is interested in games, and simply playing one doesn't denote interest.

Obviously that distinction is there, but it's fairly meaningless. I don't define people by their hobbies, and I don't care to be defined by my hobbies. This need to delineate a community and sniff out pretenders is rooted in insecurity and a kind of grade school tribalism that I would expect most people to grow out of in their late teens and early 20's. The fact is that our experiences and predilections do not grant us membership in an exclusive club, make our opinions more valid, or give us a podium from which we can safely hurl aspersions at those with less established backgrounds in our hobby. Perhaps you've been gaming for 10 years, and feel that makes you a "gamer". I've been gaming for 30 years. What does that make me? Do I get to question your authenticity? I bet you never even PLAYED M.U.L.E.!

This is not like a trade or a craft where you attend a school and earn accreditation. Being a gamer is not like being a doctor or electrician. There is no level of training that needs to be attained, no extraordinary level of skill required. If you want to self-define as a gamer, fill your boots. If you're playing games, how can it be anything but true? The only thing left to question is the degree of enthusiasm you have, and measuring one's enthusiasm for a purely recreational past time in order to determine whether to include or exclude them in your nebulously defined community might very well be one of the stupidest uses of time in the history of the world.

There Guppy goes with his logic and reasoning! When will you learn?

 

[ElPatron]

What are you even complaining about, anyway? The only reason to make "gamer" a narrow term is to create a hierarchy of the different people who play different games

Which is why the term should just be dropped entirely or just used to describe a specific lifestyle common enough to be recognized.

Oh, well pardon me. So he's using an elitist and exclusionary mindset to ask for an estimate of what those other gamers are worth. My bad.

Sounds downright insulting in that phrasing, but I also felt that it was what he asked.

So, how's it going in asking your local or federal level lawmakers to codify that into an official requirement recognized by law before one can legally call themselves a gamer?

Before the reductio ad absurdum, you could just make a pretty easy parallel of "gamer" with "audiophile" or "cinephile".

 

[Atmos Duality]

Well how 'bout that.
Shit CHANGES as we get older?! Markets...can GROW?
I HAD NO IDEA!!
*derp!*

There's no need to feel "special" because you're a gamer. It's not a "title", and acting or even implying that it is is gateway to elitism.
We have too much of that crap within the gaming community as it is.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

I am absolutely baffled that anyone would ever want to go back to the old days of "bad social acceptance" of gaming besides for being one of the "different" people (you know, those people who say that X was so much better BEFORE it got popular)

because some people really do think that the wider market ruins the medium. And there's evidence for it. How many huge success AAA titles came out in the last few years? How many of those were actually GOOD? but because it's more profitable to market garbage to people who think it's fine cuisine, we will continue to have 9 generic uninspired monster sellers, and 1 future classic, that will be deemed a failure because the core audience is much smaller than the horde buying Inversion and Farmville points in the same transaction.

Now, I personally don't believe the abundance of casual gamers and disgusting microgames is a bad thing. Yet. So far, it doesn't ACTUALLY seem to ruin the hobby. But I do agree with the sense that there is this invasion and co-option going on by the "unworthy". It does bother me that the same word lumps me, a hardcore fan, with the ditzy girl who purchased fruit ninja. Because humans LIKE to be in groups, and when we feel the group is special, we dislike people that are unlike us being part of it, because we cannot help putting the group identity as part of our personal identity. It diminishes our sense of self when we see others get the same thing as we do, but for less effort. I spent hours plotting out a possible timeline for the zelda series, and discussing the psychological motivations of people that don't exist FOR FUN. You have a mostly-functional game about flinging avian creatures at poorly constructed walls. Your ability to use the same cultural identity as me upsets me, because I WORKED for it.

It is fair? probably not. It is sane? definitely not. But its THERE. It's especially strong since we don't live in a society where things are ever hard to come by (extreme poverty exists, but that's not relevant). Want a 500 dollar toy? save your allowance or wait for christmas. Need a car? parents will pay for insurance. Want to waste time getting a meaningless degree that fails to increase your academic ability or job prospects? everyone can go to college and you don't have to pay for it until you grow up, and who knows WHEN that will be.
So if we can delude ourselves into thinking we worked hard for something, we then delude ourselves that we deserve to be special because of it. We're like the dieter who exercises for 20 minutes and then rewards themselves with a cake. And then someone else helps themselves to a slice, thinking nothing of it because its there for everyone to eat, and you get mad because they remind you your "accomplishment" was meaningless.

So, yeah, everyone who plays games is a gamer, but i'm better than them because i'm a hardcore nerd. BOW BEFORE MY KNOWLEDGE OF FALLOUT: NEW VEGAS

 

[xPixelatedx]

That is definitely the extreme of this argument on one side, but pretending everyone is exactly the same for political correctness is the other extreme opposite of it. I don't think either hold much ground and hold a equivalent amount of 'crazies'.

So, how's it going in asking your local or federal level lawmakers to codify that into an official requirement recognized by law before one can legally call themselves a gamer?

I would like you to know that I appreciate your efforts in trying to validate my statement. I was certainly hoping people would provide us with ample examples of why both sides of this spectrum are equally ridiculous.