Is everyone a gamer?

[MrFalconfly]

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?

Maybe, but wouldn't you agree that a one word identifier is more efficient

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

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.

The reason is that if "I am a gamer" means nothing substantial then it cannot be used as a tool of inclusiveness and it can't be used to build common ground. Distinctions can be used for either excluding or including. In my experience gamer has been a term used for inclusion far more than exclusion.

When I ask if someone is a gamer it is because I want to know how to include them and what common ground we can build on. I have never, not even once, seen someone exclude a person because they "weren't a real gamer" in real life. But I have seen many instances of strangers being able to instantly bridge the gap through their mutual self identification as gamers. For people like me, a social but quite shy gamer, the distinction is a method to instantly be at ease and find common ground with a new individual or group. I may be among strangers, but if they are gamers then I am among friends.

In my experience, the gamer/non gamer distinction is inherently inclusive.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

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.

Nobody's picking out people and saying "you're not a gamer, scram!". People are just reacting when clearly non-gamers try to act with unearned authority and ignorantly speak of things they do not comprehend.


Going back to your earlier post, the definition of the equivalent for a professional being the Esports crowd isn't as good as it may seem. For certain genres, sure, but for ones without competitive aspects, such as Jrpgs for example, you can't really have that. Yet, there still is a divide between the equivalent of the Esports people for these games and the nongamers. I speak of this with first hand experience, as I am both a Jrpg fan and a competitive fighting game player who has made money playing games. The mettle that goes into practicing for competitive events is the identical attitude that is required by players who are the ones that get the most out of their RPGs, who pay full attention to all the story parts and think critically, who break down, analyze and maximize the turn based systems. Just because there's no multiplayer in some games it doesn't mean these games can't be tackled with this attitude I speak of and it is not the money and fame that makes Esports big or "pro", it is this attitude of treating gaming as significant that permeates them that really matters. That's the REAL key, the real defining factor. Those who have that attitude in them, they're the gamers, even if they love non-competitive single player stuff. There's lot of them too, some may not be as proficient but the passion is there and that passion is what is required out of one to be a gamer and not just someone consuming media.

 

[Phasmal]

The reason is that if "I am a gamer" means nothing substantial then it cannot be used as a tool of inclusiveness and it can't be used to build common ground. Distinctions can be used for either excluding or including. In my experience gamer has been a term used for inclusion far more than exclusion.

When I ask if someone is a gamer it is because I want to know how to include them and what common ground we can build on. I have never, not even once, seen someone exclude a person because they "weren't a real gamer" in real life. But I have seen many instances of strangers being able to instantly bridge the gap through their mutual self identification as gamers. For people like me, a social but quite shy gamer, the distinction is a method to instantly be at ease and find common ground with a new individual or group. I may be among strangers, but if they are gamers then I am among friends.

In my experience, the gamer/non gamer distinction is inherently inclusive.

Well, I'm glad that's your experience. I still think it's entirely pointless to try and define who is and isn't a gamer, when different people clearly have different `lines` for this sort of thing.
I'll probably still use it as a quick way of talking about my hobby, but I'm not really invested in it as a label.

Nobody's picking out people and saying "you're not a gamer, scram!". People are just reacting when clearly non-gamers try to act with unearned authority and ignorantly speak of things they do not comprehend.

Well that's just plain silly. First of all, it's not really a thing that happens with any frequency (I've never had this happen to me in my 20+ years of playing games) and even if it was, it's not really a big deal.

EDIT: Not to mention, you can't really judge someone else's `passion` for games. But yeah, that's all I'll say on that.

I dunno.
I'mma just throw the towel in on this discussion. I don't get why it matters so much, and I don't think I'm going to.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

Yeah, I get where you're coming from. I've altered my diction to "I play video games" or "I like video games," both because I get yelled at for not being a "real gamer" and because I see exactly what non-"gamers" associate me with the minute I say that. It's sort of the equivalent of saying "Hi I'm Zachary Amaranth. I have leprosy." People immediately do a mental backstep because, well....

I'm pretty sure they expect me to start communicating through death threats and obscenities at any moment.

The best I can hope for, with "gamer," is that I'll be branded "one of the good ones."

I get that from people for things I can't help. I won't be accepting it for things I can.

EDIT: Not to mention, you can't really judge someone else's `passion` for games. But yeah, that's all I'll say on that.

Not that this will stop anyone from doing that, or defining "games" however is convenient.

it is the definition used by gamer culture at large, or at least it was.

Only if you already redefine the term to presuppose the exclusion of anyone who disagrees with you. This hasn't been the standard definition in gamer culture, it's been the standard definition within "gamer" culture. This is the equivalent of saying there are no poor Americans, because American has always included "wealthy" within its definition. We shouldn't have to redefine this term to include poor Americans, it's already inclusive.

And even then, you have to ignore the very next sentence I say to get there.

In my experience, the gamer/non gamer distinction is inherently inclusive.

You say that, but your words are inherently exclusive.

You can have the label. I don't want it and I don't think anyone should want it. That's not my call, however, and you can call yourself what you want. But your dictionary argument is straight-up wrong, and it's not the folks who make the dictionaries who are to blame.

 

[JustAnotherAardvark]

Yet when were talking about gamers we never refer to just anybody who plays games.

Cyclist.
Poker player.
Writer.
Programmer.
Skier.
Bowler.

We seem to get that there's a spectrum in a great many hobbies and jobs, and the terms are generally used to describe someone who 'does it a lot' rather than, well, everyone who's done it at least once.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Well that's just plain silly. First of all, it's not really a thing that happens with any frequency (I've never had this happen to me in my 20+ years of playing games) and even if it was, it's not really a big deal.

EDIT: Not to mention, you can't really judge someone else's `passion` for games. But yeah, that's all I'll say on that.

I dunno.
I'mma just throw the towel in on this discussion. I don't get why it matters so much, and I don't think I'm going to.

It happens frequently enough in circles not as much gaming-focused as forums such as this one.

I believe you can tell if someone thinks games matter by the manner in which they conduct themselves regarding them. You may not be able to tell for sure that there IS passion (and nobody is trying to determine that) but you can, most definitively, tell when there isn't passion.

I legit have read reviews docking points from visual novel/Srpg games due to the fact that if the player skips the cutscenes (in a VISUAL NOVEL game) they will miss things and thus end up not having an enjoyable time. They were saying it like it's new information. The review was taking for granted that the average player would just skip the text, not caring about the story.

It's a bit more widespread than you may think lol.

 

[Something Amyss]

Cyclist.
Poker player.
Writer.
Programmer.
Skier.
Bowler.

We seem to get that there's a spectrum in a great many hobbies and jobs, and the terms are generally used to describe someone who 'does it a lot' rather than, well, everyone who's done it at least once.

I really don't see people complaining that the guys who play poker once a week for fun are in any way infringing on the serious poker players, though. And you're still a skier if you stick to the bunny slopes. Hell, you're a skier whether you're cross-country or downhill. There are casual bowlers, you don't need to be a professional or even a hobbyist to be labeled a programmer (unless hobbyist has had its definition changed), anyone can call themselves a writer[footnote]as a writer, a hardcore writer, you have my permission[/footnote], people who bicycle to work are called cyclists to the point the literature warns for them, despite it being a mode of transit.

Let me know if I missed any.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

The reason is that if "I am a gamer" means nothing substantial then it cannot be used as a tool of inclusiveness and it can't be used to build common ground. Distinctions can be used for either excluding or including. In my experience gamer has been a term used for inclusion far more than exclusion.

When I ask if someone is a gamer it is because I want to know how to include them and what common ground we can build on. I have never, not even once, seen someone exclude a person because they "weren't a real gamer" in real life. But I have seen many instances of strangers being able to instantly bridge the gap through their mutual self identification as gamers. For people like me, a social but quite shy gamer, the distinction is a method to instantly be at ease and find common ground with a new individual or group. I may be among strangers, but if they are gamers then I am among friends.

In my experience, the gamer/non gamer distinction is inherently inclusive.

Well, I'm glad that's your experience. I still think it's entirely pointless to try and define who is and isn't a gamer, when different people clearly have different `lines` for this sort of thing.
I'll probably still use it as a quick way of talking about my hobby, but I'm not really invested in it as a label.

I am not invested in it as a label either, because ultimately if the people trying their best to make the term more "inclusive" get their way it is no skin off my back. It is just mildly annoying and I don't see any point at all to the change. It is not going to change gamer culture one bit, because the people who now newly fall under the label "gamer" will not really be part of the group.

It is not about some arbitrary lines (you must have done X to be a gamer!), it is about the fact that they will simply not fit in. Again, I have never seen in real life anyone make the claim that a person must conform to some list of experiences to be a real gamer. But you have to have experienced gaming to understand it. Just like how you can't know what it is to be a hockey player without playing hockey and you can't relate to literature buffs on their level without actually being one.

So even if people manage to change the common use of "gamer" to include the guy that plays Peggle for 15 minutes a day on his work PC it wont really matter. Eventually some new term (perhaps enthusiast gamer) will come to replace the term gamer and to make the same distinction that was being made before and this entire exercise will have been pedantic and pointless.

Changing the word wont actually change anything real, so why should we bother? All it will do is cause confusion and annoyance in the short term.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

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.

Yeah, I get where you're coming from. I've altered my diction to "I play video games" or "I like video games," both because I get yelled at for not being a "real gamer" and because I see exactly what non-"gamers" associate me with the minute I say that. It's sort of the equivalent of saying "Hi I'm Zachary Amaranth. I have leprosy." People immediately do a mental backstep because, well....

I'm pretty sure they expect me to start communicating through death threats and obscenities at any moment.

The best I can hope for, with "gamer," is that I'll be branded "one of the good ones."

I get that from people for things I can't help. I won't be accepting it for things I can.

EDIT: Not to mention, you can't really judge someone else's `passion` for games. But yeah, that's all I'll say on that.

Not that this will stop anyone from doing that, or defining "games" however is convenient.

it is the definition used by gamer culture at large, or at least it was.

Only if you already redefine the term to presuppose the exclusion of anyone who disagrees with you. This hasn't been the standard definition in gamer culture, it's been the standard definition within "gamer" culture. This is the equivalent of saying there are no poor Americans, because American has always included "wealthy" within its definition. We shouldn't have to redefine this term to include poor Americans, it's already inclusive.

And even then, you have to ignore the very next sentence I say to get there.

In my experience, the gamer/non gamer distinction is inherently inclusive.

You say that, but your words are inherently exclusive.

You can have the label. I don't want it and I don't think anyone should want it. That's not my call, however, and you can call yourself what you want. But your dictionary argument is straight-up wrong, and it's not the folks who make the dictionaries who are to blame.

Distinctions exist even if you pretend they do not, and the fact of those distinctions can be used either to bring people together (inclusion) or drive them apart (exclusion). That you see distinctions as inherently exclusive says something about you, not about the nature of distinctions between individuals.

As for the dictionary point, you were the one who brought up the common use argument. The appropriate use of the term gamer (and how many think it should be expanded to be more inclusive) has been a massive subject of discussion for several years now. By your own argument definition is based on common usage, and the massive ongoing discussion of what it should come to mean illustrates that all inclusive is not what it did mean.

 

[Riot3000]

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.

Yeah I am getting tired of this gamers are inherent toxic and defend toxicity like some the people here believe. This weird ass responsibility to exsponge all toxicty is just insane. Most gamers I know shut down toxic people or kick that person and go on with their lives but to expect gamer removes all of it like magic that is just out there.

Honestly I call myself a gamer and no I am not going to be ashamed because of other assclown with this weird sense of shared responsibility.

I would even further that gaming even have sub categories because only seeing it in the eyes of "hardcore" or "casual" is limiting. I would say fighting games have their own distinct sense of community compared to say MMO's. Now there can be some cross section but a discussion about RPGs would be different from FPS discussions and attitudes.

There probably tiers to gaming and I don't that excluding anybody at the end of the day. Also I will call myself a gamer no problem if people want to hold to their stereotypes of neckbeards and basement dwellers while claiming the intellectual high ground that is on them.

 

[Something Amyss]

You're missing that when people have been saying "Gamers are toxic" they're already talking about a small sub category. GG keeps saying that all gamers are under attack, but we're just not. They are.

Actually, most of what I've seen is that the label "gamer" is toxic. This also happens to be my specific opinion, so there's a possibility for selection bias. The "'gamers' are over" stuff seems to be the minority, though.

 

[Riot3000]

You're missing that when people have been saying "Gamers are toxic" they're already talking about a small sub category. GG keeps saying that all gamers are under attack, but we're just not. They are.

What GG has to do with this I do not know but I will bite.

You could of fooled me for the longest that was throwing everyone under the bus. As for GG that was going happen because of a mix of exaggerated stereotypes, mixed with a some self loathing, and unfortunately peoples political and personal views being so blurred with a pinch of the social climate caused something to explode.

Honestly I don't agree with everything GG but I don't see them as vanguards trying to perserve the "great toxicness" of gamers.

 

[McMarbles]

The question you should be asking isn't "Is everyone a gamer?" The question you should be asking is "Why the hell does it matter so much to me?"

 

[McMarbles]

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.

Every single one of these examples is of a person who gets paid/makes a living doing his/her particular activity.

I guess if you're not a professional competitive gamer/paid streamer, you don't get to call yourself a gamer. Works for me!

 

[Eliam_Dar]

In general, when I use the term gamer, I refer to someone who is not only an avid gamer, but also has some knowledge about the culture.
I do not consider gamer to be someone playing mostly casual games, even if they themselvves consider to be a gamer
And I don't say this in a derogatory way, but simply as a manner to put a label on people with whom I share a common background, and that I can talk about this hobby.

 

[CaitSeith]

Gamer: a term that everyone knows what it means, but means something different to everyone.

 

[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.

Yeah I am getting tired of this gamers are inherent toxic and defend toxicity like some the people here believe. This weird ass responsibility to exsponge all toxicty is just insane. Most gamers I know shut down toxic people or kick that person and go on with their lives but to expect gamer removes all of it like magic that is just out there.

Yup, we're not some centrally organised group with a ruling council to define how "gamers" should act (or, what, they get their magic decoder rings taken away?). All any gamer can really do is tell people in his immediate circle to knock it off when they are being tools.

Honestly I call myself a gamer and no I am not going to be ashamed because of other assclown with this weird sense of shared responsibility.

I would even further that gaming even have sub categories because only seeing it in the eyes of "hardcore" or "casual" is limiting. I would say fighting games have their own distinct sense of community compared to say MMO's. Now there can be some cross section but a discussion about RPGs would be different from FPS discussions and attitudes.

There probably tiers to gaming and I don't that excluding anybody at the end of the day. Also I will call myself a gamer no problem if people want to hold to their stereotypes of neckbeards and basement dwellers while claiming the intellectual high ground that is on them.

Yep, exactly. I am a gamer, if someone wants to sneer at that from their own smug sense of intellectual superiority then I guess I no longer have to care about their opinions. For the record, I am greatly in favour of more diverse representation in gaming, I am greatly in favour of more women in gaming, I love weird artsy games (hell, I bought and enjoyed The Path, Gone Home, and Cart Life amongst other things), and I don't give a shit about GamerGate, or any of the nonsense surrounding it. But I am a gamer and fuck you if you think that term tells you any more about me than the fact that I game and love it.

 

[CaitSeith]

Gamer: a term that everyone knows what it means, but means something different to everyone.

Of course a word without a shared meaning is a meaningless word. I'd argue that instead you devolve it to the most common applicable meaning, like "reader". Gamer is someone who plays games, any other qualifications makes it untenable.

People insisting that they're gamers like that means something else need to figure out what they really are.

The fact that several people who don't play games also give a more specific meaning to the word "gamer" than the broad definition of "someone who plays games" doesn't help much.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Er...there's always (since I was a tot anyway) been a distinction between a "gamer" and a "non-gamer" and, frankly, it hasn't just been whether or not a person plays games.

It's always been a term to denote an enthusiast; someone who devotes a large amount of time, thought, and potentially capital toward the hobby.

This is why we had that whole "casual" vs. "hardcore" gamer thing crop up and why the former are still considered "gamers." The "casual" gamer may be filthy, but they still spend a lot more time interacting with or playing games than the vast majority of people who have, at one point or another, fucked around with Angry Birds for five minutes on the bus or who occasionally pop open Solitaire for a quick round or two while their files transfer.

"Gamer" is...hell, it's a colloquial term. Always has been.

I don't get this relatively recent insistence about changing the established meaning.

What's to be gained here?
What was the impetus for it?
What's the long game?
What's the fuckin' point?