Is everyone a gamer?

[FPLOON]

If everyone's a gamer, then no one's a gamer...

Other than that, not really because not everyone takes up the title in general, let alone know the definition(s) for said title...

did you just beat m to the punch?

Metaphorically, yes? I mean, I've never seen that video before in my life...

 

[infohippie]

I have been a gamer for over thirty years, from back when "gamer" generally meant "tabletop wargamer and/or roleplayer", and not so much the video gaming scene that was still in its infancy.

Right, but it was catered to in a different way, and now they're a minority as opposed to the core of the Western hobby.

Yeah, but people are aware "gamer" has long been viewed as toxic, and defend the toxic behaviours without wanting to be seen as toxic.

I disagree. Dudebro gamers have long been seen as toxic, but I hardly even consider them "gamers".

The problem is that people like dudebros get in on multiplayer games and make things more miserable for everyone with toxic behavior.

And people either don't want to talk about it or downplay the damage it does to the community.

Yeah, that is a problem and one we SHOULD be talking about. But don't (anyone, not just you) blame it on "gamers". It's a problem with assholes, not gamers. Just some of those assholes happen to game.

 

[OpticalJunction]

I define a gamer as someone who plays video games, not casual mobile games but full fledged pc or console games, at least once every couple of years. And by that definition, clearly not everyone is a gamer. Young males under the age of 30 are the biggest demographic probably.

 

[Erttheking]

I have been a gamer for over thirty years, from back when "gamer" generally meant "tabletop wargamer and/or roleplayer", and not so much the video gaming scene that was still in its infancy.

Right, but it was catered to in a different way, and now they're a minority as opposed to the core of the Western hobby.

Yeah, but people are aware "gamer" has long been viewed as toxic, and defend the toxic behaviours without wanting to be seen as toxic.

I disagree. Dudebro gamers have long been seen as toxic, but I hardly even consider them "gamers".

The problem is that people like dudebros get in on multiplayer games and make things more miserable for everyone with toxic behavior.

And people either don't want to talk about it or downplay the damage it does to the community.

Yeah, that is a problem and one we SHOULD be talking about. But don't (anyone, not just you) blame it on "gamers". It's a problem with assholes, not gamers. Just some of those assholes happen to game.

I blame it on gamers when gamers excuse it and let it happen because "it's normal".

And the problem with assholes is that we're all assholes sometimes.

 

[infohippie]

I have been a gamer for over thirty years, from back when "gamer" generally meant "tabletop wargamer and/or roleplayer", and not so much the video gaming scene that was still in its infancy.

Right, but it was catered to in a different way, and now they're a minority as opposed to the core of the Western hobby.

Yeah, but people are aware "gamer" has long been viewed as toxic, and defend the toxic behaviours without wanting to be seen as toxic.

I disagree. Dudebro gamers have long been seen as toxic, but I hardly even consider them "gamers".

The problem is that people like dudebros get in on multiplayer games and make things more miserable for everyone with toxic behavior.

And people either don't want to talk about it or downplay the damage it does to the community.

Yeah, that is a problem and one we SHOULD be talking about. But don't (anyone, not just you) blame it on "gamers". It's a problem with assholes, not gamers. Just some of those assholes happen to game.

I blame it on gamers when gamers excuse it and let it happen because "it's normal".

And the problem with assholes is that we're all assholes sometimes.

I don't see gamers excusing it because "it's normal". I do see them saying there's not a lot they can do about it, which is true enough. You can tell a dickhead that he's being a dickhead, but you can't control whether he will respond to that. I see it all the time in online games. Someone starts being a bit of a cock, people tell him so, he acts out more because it's getting him attention, so people just put him on block because how do you reason with someone like that unless you're close enough to simply punch him?
Being a cock is an art form on the internet, and it's far from only gamers that do it. In fact I'd say it's a little less likely to be gamers than it is many other groups, because most gamers want to get on with gaming.

 

[Aesir23]

In terms of the billions of people on this planet, I would say no. In terms of people who play games then I would say yes. I don't really see any other way to define it other than just "people who play video games as a hobby" regardless of whether it's some guy spending his entire weekend playing WoW or if it's someone who really only likes to play games like Peggle or Bejeweled.

I don't really see a point in creating some sort of list of requirements that someone needs to meet in order to be able to call themselves a gamer. This was mentioned above but it's really not worth the time or the effort and I don't see anything that could be gained from it except for someone trying to feel superior to "those darned casuals" or whoever it is they're trying to vilify.

Honestly, it's the sort of thing that is petty and childish at best.

 

[Phasmal]

Old question and I stand by my thoughts:

I cook dinner for myself, it doesn't make me much of a chef.
My mom has a vegetable garden, that doesn't make her a farmer.
I know some first aid: it doesn't make me a doctor. (same logic, I won't let my chiropractor do open heart surgery just because he's a doctor).
I sing in the shower, it doesn't make me a singer.
I can fix minor problems in my toilet, it doesn't make me a plumber.

Ah this is the other comment that always pops up in these types of threads which is:
If I do [insert activity here] it doesn't make me a [insert professional who does activity as their job here].
So as it would follow, if you game it doesn't make you a pro-gamer/eSports star.
.... It does kinda make you a gamer though.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

My opinion is that if you are looking for a useful term that establishes common interests between two individuals then the catch all definition might just be the most useless thing in the world. If anyone who so much as boots up angry birds is a gamer then the term means so little as to be essentially meaningless and is therefore socially worthless.

A distinction is only exclusionary if you make it so, but distinctions are natural tools for building an inclusive group. By insisting on a "non exclusionary" definition for something like gamer you are destroying a tool used to establish instant comradery and inclusiveness. I can instantly establish common ground and find a good way to include someone simply by discovering if a person identifies as a gamer.

Or at least I used to be able to. Now I ask if someone is a gamer, they say yes, and I try to use that to include them (what games do you like? Do you play any consoles?) and then they sheepishly say "oh, I really only play plants vs zombies sometimes on the bus" and they feel all the more excluded because they so obviously do not fit in with a group that seriously cares about games.

A more general term might be more inclusive in a purely pedantic sense but is in a practical sense more exclusionary because it can no longer be used as a tool to establish common interest and inclusion.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Old question and I stand by my thoughts:

I cook dinner for myself, it doesn't make me much of a chef.
My mom has a vegetable garden, that doesn't make her a farmer.
I know some first aid: it doesn't make me a doctor. (same logic, I won't let my chiropractor do open heart surgery just because he's a doctor).
I sing in the shower, it doesn't make me a singer.
I can fix minor problems in my toilet, it doesn't make me a plumber.

Ah this is the other comment that always pops up in these types of threads which is:
If I do [insert activity here] it doesn't make me a [insert professional who does activity as their job here].
So as it would follow, if you game it doesn't make you a pro-gamer/eSports star.
.... It does kinda make you a gamer though.

Alright how about this.

Some random guy driving to work in his Citroën Berlingo (ugly piece of dreary bollocks on four wheels) isn't a petrolhead.
Guy who drives his Citroën Saxo VTS to the max at a track-day most certainly IS a petrolhead.
Or guy who modifies his Peugeot 106 for rally would be a petrolhead.

Just like a random pleb playing peggle once in a while normally wouldn't be identified as a gamer, but a person who uses his weekend or more to hone his/her skills at some game, like Assetto Corsa, or CS:GO would be identified as a gamer.

 

[Phasmal]

Old question and I stand by my thoughts:

I cook dinner for myself, it doesn't make me much of a chef.
My mom has a vegetable garden, that doesn't make her a farmer.
I know some first aid: it doesn't make me a doctor. (same logic, I won't let my chiropractor do open heart surgery just because he's a doctor).
I sing in the shower, it doesn't make me a singer.
I can fix minor problems in my toilet, it doesn't make me a plumber.

Ah this is the other comment that always pops up in these types of threads which is:
If I do [insert activity here] it doesn't make me a [insert professional who does activity as their job here].
So as it would follow, if you game it doesn't make you a pro-gamer/eSports star.
.... It does kinda make you a gamer though.

Alright how about this.

Some random guy driving to work in his Citroën Berlingo (ugly piece of dreary bollocks on four wheels) isn't a petrolhead.
Guy who drives his Citroën Saxo VTS to the max at a track-day most certainly IS a petrolhead.
Or guy who modifies his Peugeot 106 for rally would be a petrolhead.

Just like a random pleb playing peggle once in a while normally wouldn't be identified as a gamer, but a person who uses his weekend or more to hone his/her skills at some game, like Assetto Corsa, or CS:GO would be identified as a gamer.

Spoiler: A little definition

petrolhead

noun: petrolhead; plural noun: petrolheads; noun: petrol-head; plural noun: petrol-heads
a car fanatic.

gamer


noun: gamer; plural noun: gamers

a person who plays a game or games, typically a participant in a computer or role-playing game.

Gamer is not equivalent to petrolhead. It's often used as if it is, but it's not. It just means someone who plays games.
We can argue the usefulness of it and how it might be better to differentiate between `core` and `casual` gamers, but they're all gamers at the end of the day- because they play games.

EDIT: Bolded so you can see what I'm getting at.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Old question and I stand by my thoughts:

I cook dinner for myself, it doesn't make me much of a chef.
My mom has a vegetable garden, that doesn't make her a farmer.
I know some first aid: it doesn't make me a doctor. (same logic, I won't let my chiropractor do open heart surgery just because he's a doctor).
I sing in the shower, it doesn't make me a singer.
I can fix minor problems in my toilet, it doesn't make me a plumber.

Ah this is the other comment that always pops up in these types of threads which is:
If I do [insert activity here] it doesn't make me a [insert professional who does activity as their job here].
So as it would follow, if you game it doesn't make you a pro-gamer/eSports star.
.... It does kinda make you a gamer though.

Alright how about this.

Some random guy driving to work in his Citroën Berlingo (ugly piece of dreary bollocks on four wheels) isn't a petrolhead.
Guy who drives his Citroën Saxo VTS to the max at a track-day most certainly IS a petrolhead.
Or guy who modifies his Peugeot 106 for rally would be a petrolhead.

Just like a random pleb playing peggle once in a while normally wouldn't be identified as a gamer, but a person who uses his weekend or more to hone his/her skills at some game, like Assetto Corsa, or CS:GO would be identified as a gamer.

Spoiler: A little definition

petrolhead

noun: petrolhead; plural noun: petrolheads; noun: petrol-head; plural noun: petrol-heads
a car fanatic.

gamer


noun: gamer; plural noun: gamers

a person who plays a game or games, typically a participant in a computer or role-playing game.

Gamer is not equivalent to petrolhead. It's often used as if it is, but it's not. It just means someone who plays games.
We can argue the usefulness of it and how it might be better to differentiate between `core` and `casual` gamers, but they're all gamers at the end of the day- because they play games.

EDIT: Bolded so you can see what I'm getting at.

Well after the English language accepting "Literally" as being synonymous with "Figuratively" (basically only being used for Emphasis) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/literally I have little respect for any English definitions on any words.

 

[Phasmal]

Well after the English language accepting "Literally" as being synonymous with "Figuratively" (basically only being used for Emphasis) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/literally I have little respect for any English definitions on any words.

Fair enough but if we're not going off definitions then we are making the discussion of what gamer `means` pretty much moot.

I'll never understand the urge to put people in the `not-gamers` category. Why do we feel we must be separate from them?
I mean, I've nearly spent more on video games and gaming in general this month than I did on food [small](I don't have a problem)[/small] and that's not going to all suddenly disappear into nothingness because I think a person who just plays The Sims is a gamer.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Old question and I stand by my thoughts:

I cook dinner for myself, it doesn't make me much of a chef.
My mom has a vegetable garden, that doesn't make her a farmer.
I know some first aid: it doesn't make me a doctor. (same logic, I won't let my chiropractor do open heart surgery just because he's a doctor).
I sing in the shower, it doesn't make me a singer.
I can fix minor problems in my toilet, it doesn't make me a plumber.

Ah this is the other comment that always pops up in these types of threads which is:
If I do [insert activity here] it doesn't make me a [insert professional who does activity as their job here].
So as it would follow, if you game it doesn't make you a pro-gamer/eSports star.
.... It does kinda make you a gamer though.

Alright how about this.

Some random guy driving to work in his Citroën Berlingo (ugly piece of dreary bollocks on four wheels) isn't a petrolhead.
Guy who drives his Citroën Saxo VTS to the max at a track-day most certainly IS a petrolhead.
Or guy who modifies his Peugeot 106 for rally would be a petrolhead.

Just like a random pleb playing peggle once in a while normally wouldn't be identified as a gamer, but a person who uses his weekend or more to hone his/her skills at some game, like Assetto Corsa, or CS:GO would be identified as a gamer.

Spoiler: A little definition

petrolhead

noun: petrolhead; plural noun: petrolheads; noun: petrol-head; plural noun: petrol-heads
a car fanatic.

gamer


noun: gamer; plural noun: gamers

a person who plays a game or games, typically a participant in a computer or role-playing game.

Gamer is not equivalent to petrolhead. It's often used as if it is, but it's not. It just means someone who plays games.
We can argue the usefulness of it and how it might be better to differentiate between `core` and `casual` gamers, but they're all gamers at the end of the day- because they play games.

EDIT: Bolded so you can see what I'm getting at.

Did it ever occur to you that the definition of gamer in the dictionary might have been written by someone outside of gaming culture, and therefore someone who did not understand the term as it is used? We don't have an arbiter of the English language. Words, especially terms like gamer that are born from slang usage, are defined by how they are used, not by what Merriam-Webster says.

Going back to the example of petrolhead, the more pedestrian form might be driver. Gamer has historically been a term that means something much closer to petrolhead than driver, and everyone who knows anything about gamer culture knows it. The fact that we actually call it "gamer culture" is sign enough of that alone. It has only been relatively recently that people have been making a real effort to change it to be a more general term.

We have plenty of terms that I could point to like gamer that technically might mean "on who does a thing at all" but really actually mean an enthusiast. Diver, for example (in the case of scuba diver.) I dive occasionally. But I would not pretend that I am a diver or that I would fit in with divers.

So I see what you are getting at, but I don't agree with the "appeal to logic" style reasoning. It assumes consistency in the English language that simply does not exist.

 

[Something Amyss]

I disagree. Dudebro gamers have long been seen as toxic, but I hardly even consider them "gamers".

Weirdly enough, it's not the "dudebros" people tend to find issue with.

I blame it on gamers when gamers excuse it and let it happen because "it's normal".

Excuse? More like defend.

I don't know if it's always been toxic, because at one time being a tight knit community that had mutual backs against a hostile "outside" kept gaming going in the West. It became toxic when the "outside" stopped making trouble and started playing games with us though.

I didn't say always, I said "long." However, part of the toxicity comes from having "mutual backs" against a hostile "outside." This was a problem. It's been a problem since at least the early 90s. It's been toxic to outsiders whether the outsiders were actually against games or just perceived as such.

The irony here, as I think another forum member has pointed out recently, is that the hostility usually had little to do with video games as an identity deal and more to do with nerds. People reacted with hostility because they were picked on for being nerds, not for being gamers. Games were at best a comorbid factor and more likely irrelevant.

In high school, I actually ran RPGs with members of the football, basketball and track team. To clarify, I mean D&D/World of Darkness RPGs. They weren't picked on for playing RPGs. A bunch of my friends were gamers. Gaming was fairly socially popular in the 1990s, even among the evil "jock" and "prep" groups. I'm not going to pretend I was this amazing social butterfly, but again. I didn't get picked on for being a gamer. I got picked on for being a freak. And for letting my freak flag fly. Though I'm pretty sure my freak flag was going to fly, whether I let it or not.

But I can't be "us vs them" because I don't have any problem with a lot of "them" and frequently have problems with a lot of "us."

And that seems to be what a lot of this comes down to--a continuation of a clique war that was never my fight in the first place.

It's toxic, because they're still fighting a few blogger/youtube/twitter personalities that have the same old message. The thing is is, those people are no longer a social force, they're a strawman. Hence the toxin.

It's toxic now because of the increasing irrelevance of the "core" gamer. This strawman you're talking about isn't the focus of the outrage or venom. This whole thing is outrage because what Leigh Alexander said wasn't wrong because gamers are a super strong market force, but rather because the "traditional" demographic has already lost. It's not the majority or even the plurality now. I think the last number was a fifth of the market was "core" gamers.

And the beautiful thing is, all those libertarian gamers who argued for the free market and told people to vote with their wallets and justified a lack of women and minorities in games are now on the receiving end of their own logic, as the market rightfully should go to the "soccer moms" and "fake" gamers who are--by their own logic--the dominant market force.

Ironically, this probably could have been mitigated by simply not having tantrums over those people being a part of gaming in the first place. "Gamers" are becoming a niche market. I honestly hope all those "libertarians" appreciate the irony.

Gamer is not equivalent to petrolhead. It's often used as if it is, but it's not. It just means someone who plays games.
We can argue the usefulness of it and how it might be better to differentiate between `core` and `casual` gamers, but they're all gamers at the end of the day- because they play games.

In the last year, we've redefined so many terms. Hell, we've literally redefined what "scare quotes" are to better fit a narrative of outrage. We're literally altering grammar to better fit gaming outrage.

Let them have the word, Phasmal. It's radioactive anyway.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Well after the English language accepting "Literally" as being synonymous with "Figuratively" (basically only being used for Emphasis) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/literally I have little respect for any English definitions on any words.

Fair enough but if we're not going off definitions then we are making the discussion of what gamer `means` pretty much moot.

I'll never understand the urge to put people in the `not-gamers` category. Why do we feel we must be separate from them?
I mean, I've nearly spent more on video games and gaming in general this month than I did on food [small](I don't have a problem)[/small] and that's not going to all suddenly disappear into nothingness because I think a person who just plays The Sims is a gamer.

Issue is that we still need two different categories to describe two different groups.

Two groups that seem to have been muscled together into one category.

We need a tag for the random motorist (let's call them the "players"), and one for the enthusiast (might as well call them the "gamers", because they are the people who want the tag).

 

[Something Amyss]

Did it ever occur to you that the definition of gamer in the dictionary might have been written by someone outside of gaming culture, and therefore someone who did not understand the term as it is used?

No, the dictionary codifies common usage. That's how dictionaries work. They don't invent words.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Did it ever occur to you that the definition of gamer in the dictionary might have been written by someone outside of gaming culture, and therefore someone who did not understand the term as it is used?

No, the dictionary codifies common usage. That's how dictionaries work. They don't invent words.

The dictionary is not some infallible codifier of language. There is some person or group of people somewhere who decides what the definition of a word will be in that dictionary, and if they do not understand the term and how it is used it goes into the dictionary wrong.

They don't invent words, but they can and do incorrectly define them.

That's how dictionaries work.

 

[Phasmal]

Issue is that we still need two different categories to describe two different groups.

Two groups that seem to have been muscled together into one category.

We need a tag for the random motorist (let's call them the "players"), and one for the enthusiast (might as well call them the "gamers", because they are the people who want the tag).

Don't we already have that? Hardcore gamer and casual gamer?

Gamer is not equivalent to petrolhead. It's often used as if it is, but it's not. It just means someone who plays games.
We can argue the usefulness of it and how it might be better to differentiate between `core` and `casual` gamers, but they're all gamers at the end of the day- because they play games.

In the last year, we've redefined so many terms. Hell, we've literally redefined what "scare quotes" are to better fit a narrative of outrage. We're literally altering grammar to better fit gaming outrage.

Let them have the word, Phasmal. It's radioactive anyway.

I'm kinda starting to think you're right. I only use the word these days as a quick way of saying `I like thing` and it's nice to find other people who do too (and because I spent waaay too much money and time on this hobby to say `no` if someone asked me if I was a gamer).

I'd like to think this isn't about being exclusionary, but I really don't see what other reason there would be for being annoyed if someone calls themselves a gamer without meeting the imaginary `gamer` quota that we all can't agree on.

 

[Something Amyss]

There is some person somewhere who decides what the definition of a word will be in that dictionary, and if they do not understand the term it goes into the dictionary wrong.

There is not one person who's sitting there deciding, and they didn't get the definition wrong because they're not using your personal definition. Any person or group can have their own meaning or definition, but that's not what the dictionary's therefore. It's not there for you or anyone else who retroactively decided the term meant something else, unless and until it enters public use as such. Claiming that they're the ones who don't get it is simply out of touch.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

There is some person somewhere who decides what the definition of a word will be in that dictionary, and if they do not understand the term it goes into the dictionary wrong.

There is not one person who's sitting there deciding, and they didn't get the definition wrong because they're not using your personal definition. Any person or group can have their own meaning or definition, but that's not what the dictionary's therefore. It's not there for you or anyone else who retroactively decided the term meant something else, unless and until it enters public use as such. Claiming that they're the ones who don't get it is simply out of touch.

But that is just it. It is not my personal definition, it is the definition used by gamer culture at large, or at least it was. In fact, it means that so hard that the entire culture of gaming is just called "gamer culture" because that is all that is needed. We don't need some differentiating term like "gaming enthusiast culture" or similar. For years and years all the people who used the term regularly used it to mean gaming enthusiast, and everyone even passingly familiar with gaming culture knows it. If that isn't common usage I don't know what is.

It has only been in recent years that people have been pushing for a reevaluation of the term out of some sense of political correctness, which I personally think is pointless at best.