I Think Gaming Needs a Renaming....

[tahrey]

I think the reason these threads come up is that we see a lot of flak hitting gaming as a medium when it doesn't deserve it or when other non-gaming media (i.e. movies) are involved in a similar situation and no one thinks anything of it.
(snip)
I mean, it is getting better. Video games are now legally considered a form of art(yay!), so things are improving. Any attempt or desire the change the name I find to be merely a wish for respect where it is due.

I agree at least with this part of it. OK, the pastime doesn't have that good an image. But is rebranding it with a moniker that probably won't take, and will easily be seen through going to do jack shit? A rose by any other name...

And I think you'd all know what I meant if I was to try insulting someone by calling attention to how they are follically and vertically challenged and enjoy the company of Rosie Palm and her four sisters on far too regular a basis?

How about we keep the name as it is, and try to improve the image as well? Or just sit it out ... the same as a lot of new things that come on the scene and are derided and misunderstood at first, that all typically bites the dust after, oh, a half century (we're 3/5ths the way there) once most of those who raise the biggest stink are either dead or no longer in a position to continue stink-raising.
Heck, my mother's heading for retirement in a couple months, but even she's been known to enjoy the odd round of Tetris - even before casual gaming was a "thing". There's going to be a majority either on "our" wavelength, or at least sympathetic to it, before too long. Why act as sops to the elder bigots by changing our shit around?

 

[ManWithHat]

Spoiler: And I quote...

I think the reason these threads come up is that we see a lot of flak hitting gaming as a medium when it doesn't deserve it or when other non-gaming media (i.e. movies) are involved in a similar situation and no one thinks anything of it.
(snip)
I mean, it is getting better. Video games are now legally considered a form of art(yay!), so things are improving. Any attempt or desire the change the name I find to be merely a wish for respect where it is due.

I agree at least with this part of it. OK, the pastime doesn't have that good an image. But is rebranding it with a moniker that probably won't take, and will easily be seen through going to do jack shit? A rose by any other name...

And I think you'd all know what I meant if I was to try insulting someone by calling attention to how they are follically and vertically challenged and enjoy the company of Rosie Palm and her four sisters on far too regular a basis?

How about we keep the name as it is, and try to improve the image as well? Or just sit it out ... the same as a lot of new things that come on the scene and are derided and misunderstood at first, that all typically bites the dust after, oh, a half century (we're 3/5ths the way there) once most of those who raise the biggest stink are either dead or no longer in a position to continue stink-raising.
Heck, my mother's heading for retirement in a couple months, but even she's been known to enjoy the odd round of Tetris - even before casual gaming was a "thing". There's going to be a majority either on "our" wavelength, or at least sympathetic to it, before too long. Why act as sops to the elder bigots by changing our shit around?

I will have to agree with you. A name change probably isn't needed and likely won't do anything otherwise. Possibly more harm than good. We may just have to ride it out until all those naysayers are long gone and dead and then our beloved medium will have its much deserved peace and quiet. Until then, we'll just have to be more sociable with those "outsiders" and act like normal people.

 

[SammiYin]

It IS a toy...

what are you even doing on the escapist?

I apologise, I didn't realise gaming had to be super serious and manly and totally not a toy for people to enjoy it. My bad.

I never said it had to be super serious, but to say that it is just a toy after many people on thsi very forum tried to get it respected by others is just trolling in my eyes.

Call it whatever you want, as far as I see it, taking games too seriously and trying to get it'respected' and 'accepted' by other people is even more childish than just flat out admitting it is a toy.
It's like a fat guy sitting with his 'graphic novel' collection raging at anybody who calls them what they are, comic books.

There's more ways to be respected than by trying to be something you're not.

 

[Abengoshis]

Interactive Entertainment! BRAVO! BRAVO! HOW BLOODY ORIGINAL. ¬_¬

That has got to be the most vague title I have ever seen.

Also, it won't stop it being called a toy, since toys are also "interactive entertainment"...

 

[jovack22]

This is why STD is no longer politically correct to say and is replaced with STI.

That's because they aren't diseases - they are infections.

I really, really hope you're not being serious...

Serious as to why medical science chose to rename the condition to reflect them being sexually transmissible infections? I suppose we are.

It's clear you have had no experience with the medical field then.

The change was created mainly because the word "disease" carries a larger stigma over the word "infection".

Search up disease and infection and you'll see the two words will often go hand in hand. The fact that many people can have the infection but not display symptoms could also be said that they have the disease but are not displaying any symptoms yet -- which is the reason why some person thought that diseases had to be characterized by visual symptoms (which is the easiest way of primary screening).

At least that's how we talk about things in drug research at the pathology labs. I know MDs who still say STD and agree that the change to STI is completely insignificant and silly.

 

[Tharwen]

Interactive Entertainment... hmm... it's too hard to say easily in conversation. We need an alternative.

May I suggest 'Intie' for starters?

 

[jovack22]

This is why STD is no longer politically correct to say and is replaced with STI.

That's because they aren't diseases - they are infections.

I really, really hope you're not being serious...

Serious as to why medical science chose to rename the condition to reflect them being sexually transmissible infections? I suppose we are.

It's clear you have had no experience with the medical field then.

The change was created mainly because the word "disease" carries a larger stigma over the word "infection".

Search up disease and infection and you'll see the two words will often go hand in hand. The fact that many people can have the infection but not display symptoms could also be said that they have the disease but are not displaying any symptoms yet -- which is the reason why some person thought that diseases had to be characterized by visual symptoms (which is the easiest way of primary screening).

At least that's how we talk about things in drug research at the pathology labs. I know MDs who still say STD and agree that the change to STI is completely insignificant and silly.

You are most welcome to your opinion. I'll stick to the correct term.

It's not an opinion. Did you read what I wrote? Let me be more clear since I work in this field. They changed it primarily because of the stigma and negative connotation associated with the word, and because for the common person with no background in microbiology, the word infection implies that they may have contracted something without realizing it -- thus reducing the spread through superficial means... so it was more of an epidemiological/social reason rather than a biological one.

Diseases and infections go hand in hand. Not all diseases are infectious (genetic diseases etc), but all infections are caused by an invading parasite species -- which of course will exhibit some sort of negative attribute -- i.e. a disease. Which is why many MDs PhDs scholars etc (myself included) believe the change was pointless. Not all infections exhibit characteristics immediately, but will in fact manifest themselves eventually in the case of STD/STIs when in the right circumstances.

Would you consider HIV a disease? I mean, it's just a BBV infection right... Do you see the folly in that train of thought now?

It's fine if you wish to just "stick to the correct term" but hopefully now you understand the reasons behind things.

 

[Particulate]

Interactive Virtual Scenario. How's that for hoighty toighty?

that's pretty hoighty toighty

 

[jovack22]

This is why STD is no longer politically correct to say and is replaced with STI.

That's because they aren't diseases - they are infections.

I really, really hope you're not being serious...

Serious as to why medical science chose to rename the condition to reflect them being sexually transmissible infections? I suppose we are.

It's clear you have had no experience with the medical field then.

The change was created mainly because the word "disease" carries a larger stigma over the word "infection".

Search up disease and infection and you'll see the two words will often go hand in hand. The fact that many people can have the infection but not display symptoms could also be said that they have the disease but are not displaying any symptoms yet -- which is the reason why some person thought that diseases had to be characterized by visual symptoms (which is the easiest way of primary screening).

At least that's how we talk about things in drug research at the pathology labs. I know MDs who still say STD and agree that the change to STI is completely insignificant and silly.

You are most welcome to your opinion. I'll stick to the correct term.

It's not an opinion. Did you read what I wrote? Let me be more clear since I work in this field. They changed it primarily because of the stigma and negative connotation associated with the word, and because for the common person with no background in microbiology, the word infection implies that they may have contracted something without realizing it -- thus reducing the spread through superficial means... so it was more of an epidemiological/social reason rather than a biological one.

Diseases and infections go hand in hand. Not all diseases are infectious (genetic diseases etc), but all infections are caused by an invading parasite species -- which of course will exhibit some sort of negative attribute -- i.e. a disease. Which is why many MDs PhDs scholars etc (myself included) believe the change was pointless. Not all infections exhibit characteristics immediately, but will in fact manifest themselves eventually in the case of STD/STIs when in the right circumstances.

Would you consider HIV a disease? I mean, it's just a BBV infection right... Do you see the folly in that train of thought now?

It's fine if you wish to just "stick to the correct term" but hopefully now you understand the reasons behind things.

As I said: I'll go with the majority of the medical world and recognize them as infections.

Better you go with the flow for now then, so when and if you go into the field yourself you can form your own opinions. I'm glad you learned something.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

No need to add more syllables to describe things for no reason... I actually just read George Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language last night and this is the exact thing he talks about. Why do we need to act like "gaming" is a bad term to begin with and what will fancying up the description do to change it?

 

[TehCookie]

I got ninja'd by Shakespeare. "What's in a name? That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet." Giving it a new name would not change the games itself and the new name would be associated with all the same stigmas the current one is. They are against the medium itself not the name.

If someone is ignorant enough to say they're toys for children because it has the word game in it, tell them a jellyfish isn't actually a fish even though it has it in the name.

 

[Kavachi]

It IS a toy...

what are you even doing on the escapist?

saying such things on a gaming-lifestyle forum seems like trolling to me

toy   
[toi]
?noun
1.
an object, often a small representation of something familiar, as an animal or person, for children or others to play with; plaything.
2.
a thing or matter of little or no value or importance; a trifle.
3.
something that serves for or as if for diversion, rather than for serious pratical use.

read #3 very carefully!

So music is a toy and all sports are toys? Don't you see how ridiculous that sounds

footballs, basketballs ect are and the same with musical instruments. We never said gaming is a toy which is the arguement you are trying to use.

what are you talking about? the reason for this conversation is because it was a response on someone saying that games are toys. Look back in the history, you'll see why you don't make sense right now.

 

[Kavachi]

It IS a toy...

what are you even doing on the escapist?

They are toys, he isn't joking. A toy is an object that exists to provide entertainment. A video game does just that. That doesn't mean it can't be any of the other fancy things we call them, like "art" and "medium" and "piece of technology", but it is also a toy. And so what? "Toy" is just a title given to it, it doesn't mean anything.

I agree. The term toy doesn't really mean anything to me either. But alot of people will dismiss games as "just a toy" and that is what we are trying to avoid.

Why? What do we care? Why should we care? Whenever anything fun comes along there is going to be haters who hate it. Will make up blatant lies about it to define it as evil. SO you can either take the low road and feed the trolls or you can take the high one and ignore them and let things continue and enjoy it inspite them. Afterall they haven't had any effect on D&D, movies, music, or comics. Everyone of these things not only were called evil and demonized by a small number but evolved and grew inspite them. Everytime a gamer gets their panties in a bunch because someone dismisses games they are just feeding the fire not helping the evolution.

The reason we should care is because the people saying this are people with power. Look at australia. The government thinks games are toys, and bans alot of them. Many parents don't let their kids play games because it would be bad for them and ""just a toy" anyway. These kinds of things are why you shouldn't ignore it, and defend the artistic recognition of games.

 

[mjc0961]

First, do you agree with me that gaming needs a rename in order to be taken seriously like films and novels?

And second, do you like my suggestion for what we could change the mediums name to? If not what would you call it if you could change the name?

First, nope. Changing names isn't going to help anything. It's just going to make us sound like all those people who whine about how comic books aren't comic books, they're graphic novels. Shut the fuck up, they're comic books. There is nothing wrong with reading comic books (or playing video games), and giving them a new, pretentious name isn't going to make the people who are already too stupid to not immediately look down on the medium suddenly start paying it its due respect.

Second, nope. "Interactive entertainment" sounds just as pretentious as other "new" names people have given things (see graphic novel example above). Plus, it's not a name that applies only to video games anyway. Choose your own adventure books are "interactive entertainment." Board games are "interactive entertainment." You've taken a name that describes one specific set of things and suggested we replace it with something that encompasses much more than the original name did.

Since I don't think the name needs to be changed, there is nothing I would change the name too, hence I have no answer to your third question. Video games is a fine name.

 

[Archer666]

This is the Comic Books = Graphic Novels thing all over again.

 

[Kavachi]

It IS a toy...

what are you even doing on the escapist?

I apologise, I didn't realise gaming had to be super serious and manly and totally not a toy for people to enjoy it. My bad.

I never said it had to be super serious, but to say that it is just a toy after many people on thsi very forum tried to get it respected by others is just trolling in my eyes.

Call it whatever you want, as far as I see it, taking games too seriously and trying to get it'respected' and 'accepted' by other people is even more childish than just flat out admitting it is a toy.
It's like a fat guy sitting with his 'graphic novel' collection raging at anybody who calls them what they are, comic books.

There's more ways to be respected than by trying to be something you're not.

This is not about renaming it, I don't care for that, this is about calling games "just a toy". Yes, they are for entertainment, but so are films, music and other arts. Would that classify them as "toys"? And you can call it immature, but I live in a school in which I am one of the only gamers. If I would not stand up and say that games are more than just "toys" ,who else would? It might seem childish, but all media had to go through this fase. But if you stop caring, and just say that they are toys, than nobody will try to take it seriously, and that will harm gaming. I just think that that shouldn't happen, because games are emotionally engaging, and for a lot of people a big part of their life involves gaming (socially, emotionally and educationally).