Is everyone a gamer?

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I'm sorry, that's untrue. When the game is a visual novel and there's hour-long segments of story without any gameplay, you can't say you're "getting back to the game". Visual novels are games where the game IS the story. When the game is 80% story and 20% gameplay, skipping the story is a pretty big freaking deal.

This is like, a higher amount of cutscenes than metal gear or something. That much. The point of playing it is getting the story.

And some people will skip those. It's not a big deal.
Ok, so someone isn't `passionate` because they skip cutscenes, that's a line for you. I bet you it isn't for many people.
Hell, I know some people who would claim that playing VN's in the first place doesn't make you a gamer.
I don't know why we're pretending there's some universal way to tell if someone is or isn't a gamer if that universal way is NOT `do they play games`.

But lets say you know someone who identifies as a gamer who you see skips cutscenes in VN's. Do you say:
`Oh I know you think you're a gamer, but unfortunately you're mistaken because you don't have this amount of passion when you are playing this game`?

Have you ever actually told someone they were mistaken in their identification? How did that go?

Yeah the thing is, no matter what people say VNs are games, they're really old games too, they're what inspired Jrpgs. Just because people can say they're not games, that doesn't mean anything, as they're actively, provably wrong.

You must examine the reason one uses to skip. Most often is "I don't care about all this shit, I don't care about these characters, I just wanna move on". That, that is apathy. I'm sorry, it is.


You don't need to confront people for this issue, that'd be rude. Being rude is never good. You just kinda make a mental note of it so that when the person says something which depends on their credentials of passion regarding gaming, you can then use it as references for how much weight you should put on their opinion.

Basically, I would never be rude about such an issue to someone but in cases where I'm looking for information, I wouldn't go to them to ask and their opinions would hold less weight, directly due to this aspect of their behavior.

Ok, let me rephrase then:

Why are you so concerned about the labels people put on their leisure time, and who made you god of those labels?

It is the natural order of things for people to feel the need to need to right wrongs once they see them. If you see the fridge door has been forgotten half way open, even if it's not in your house and it's not your fridge, you have an urge to close it anyways, no? It's that sort of thing.

I'm not the god of the labels but that doesn't mean I'm wrong, either.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It's very strange reading conversations like this when video games form only a part of my overall gaming hobbies. Entitled video-game brats trying to hog the gamer title from all the historical miniatures collecting, board game playing, card hoarding, table-top RPG monkeys! Get your own word.[footnote]Joke, for the love of god it's a hyperbolic joke![/footnote]

Honestly though, I don't see the point of making a distinction in the first place. We've got the Ultra-hardcore, "will be replacing their 2 Titan video cards in the next two years whether they need to or not" crowd, we've got plenty of adjectives for folks who concentrate on different genres, we've got language for people who play professionally...

Why's the root word so important? Why does there need to be a mutually agreed on catch-all that not everybody can fit into? It'd be like: "Yeah, we've got Metal-heads, Punks, and Audiophiles, but we cover them all with "music-ers", and you aren't one of them if all you do is listen to the radio on the way to work."

Amusing anecdote: Back when I was a young'un, my Grandmother begged my Mom to not let us kids bring over the Gameboy when Grandma was baby-sitting us. Reason?

As soon as she sat down and popped in Tetris, she'd get nothing done that day and she was starting to develop hand cramps from playing.

She was freaking good. Better then I ever got anyway. Saw the spaceship and everything.

 

[Something Amyss]

As for the dictionary point, you were the one who brought up the common use argument.

No, I responded to your claims that the dictionary did it wrong because it didn't consider a specific definition that has meaning to you. It's false to claim this was ever the definition and flat-out wrong to accuse the people behind the dictionary of doing what you claim.

As for the rest of yoru argument, all I have to say is this: you claim inclusivity, and then go on to later indicate people are partaking in a "me too" situation. That's...the opposite of inclusiveness.

I've been "included" right out of it.

And there's really no point in saying anything else. "Gamers" can keep the term, and I encourage others to cede it to them

When have they ever enjoyed being hoisted on their own petard? If similar people in other areas are a guide, they'll be loud and in our faces until they literally die, and they are pretty young. We're the ones who have to adapt to them, in the way that science has adapted to cope with the inevitable attempts to sell snake oil in its many forms. Trying to fight against the nature of some people is a losing proposition.

Can you name another instance where such a debate has been met with the level of theatrics and histrionics "gamer" has?

Because I'm honestly reaching for one and cannot find one. Not even the music snobs I hung around with.

But I think you're wrong. We don't have to adapt to them. The only reason this has cropped up is because it's the end of an era, not the beginning of one. This is a fight against a decline of relevance, like the RIAA fighting to keep CDs alive. I'm all for Max Planck as far as science goes, but ideas in a marketplace change a lot faster as one bodies gains or loses relevance. You don't need people to literally die out, only for their demographic to no longer matter.

Tat was actually the thrust of many of those "gamers are dead" articles: the decrease of power and influence of a group almost universally perceived as caustic by anyone outside that group--even other people who engage in gaming in a non-casual sense.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's very strange reading conversations like this when video games form only a part of my overall gaming hobbies. Entitled video-game brats trying to hog the gamer title from all the historical miniatures collecting, board game playing, card hoarding, table-top RPG monkeys! Get your own word.[footnote]Joke, for the love of god it's a hyperbolic joke![/footnote]

Yes, but Inquest already coined terms for us in the 90s. Dice Chucker and Card Flopper. It gets worse when you're both, because then you're a flucker, but still.

It is the natural order of things for people to feel the need to need to right wrongs once they see them. If you see the fridge door has been forgotten half way open, even if it's not in your house and it's not your fridge, you have an urge to close it anyways, no? It's that sort of thing.

The difference being, one is something with actual consequences and little effort. This fight about the label "gamer" is the opposite. It's more like coming into someone else's house and insisting that their fridge isn't at a proper temperature for hours on end.

Shutting a door is something trivial and can actually spare potential harm. Either wasted food to spoilage or even illness.

If my grandmother calls herself a gamer...what? What are the consequences? Or if ten do? A hundred? An army of grandmothers calling themselves gamers? Because I can't think of one that's even as mildly inconveniencing as maybe having to replace my milk.

 

[Something Amyss]

The debate over "gamer" is typical of anything in identity politics. From the abortion debate to the confederate flag, it's all more alike than not.

You use two examples I'm actively involved in. I'm still missing the similarities, but I don't think it comes down to experience.

 

[Dango]

A lot of people drive cars, but some people are way more into cars than others, video games are the same way.

 

[sumanoskae]

If the term "Gamer" is to be of any use to this culture, than no; not everybody can be described as a "Gamer". Occasionally watching a film does not make you an aficionado of the medium.

And yes, this is a useful distinction. If I'm expected to take anyone's opinion on any subject seriously, than I would hope they had some experience with it.

I would, however, divorce the term from the time one spends on the hobby in terms of raw play hours. I think a useful definition of a "Gamer" is "Someone who knows about and enjoys the artistic medium of video games". That is to say, people who enjoy games on their own merits, outside of a purely social context, and who have at least a basic understanding and/or educated opinion of what makes a game engaging.

 

[Callate]

I think there's an issue behind an issue, here, and literalism of labeling gets in the way.

From where I stand, "gamer" is mostly a matter of self-identification. If you call yourself a gamer, and you play games, fine. It doesn't matter if that game is Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Dear Esther, Puzzle and Dragons, Civilization V, Skyrim. or Candy Crush. If games are important enough to you that you'd describe them as being an integral part of your self-description, welcome to the club.

However.

If all you eat is McDonalds, you can still call yourself an "eater", too. Hell, you could call yourself a "foodie", though you'd probably find it hard to get anyone to take you seriously. And you are! You are someone who eats food, and self-describes as same.

All the same, I don't give a flying @$%# that you think my Beef Bourginon should have a lot more salt.

Entry to "the club" does not give you the inherent right to tell other people that they're doing it wrong.

Okay, rephrase. I believe in free speech and all that; go ahead and tell other people they're doing it wrong. But they're not obligated to listen. And the more you stamp your feet about it, the more you confirm that they're right not to listen to you.

If you would wax poetic about the degeneracy of someone else's gaming, but never ever degrade yourself to at least try the games they're playing with a half-open mind... You do not have my ear.

I'm not particularly "into" sports games. I prefer my car racing to involve weapons and/or explosions. Flight simulators beyond about the World War I level get too complicated for me to enjoy them. That doesn't mean that the people who do enjoy those games are doing it wrong.

And if I grimace at the possibility that more of the development money that used to go into memorable AAA games (and admittedly, some terrible ones) is now going into shallow touch-screen casual games, at least I've played enough Facebook and Android games to recognize that when I'm not waiting in a line or for a bus, I want something more.

 

[sumanoskae]

If the term "Gamer" is to be of any use to this culture, than no; not everybody can be described as a "Gamer". Occasionally watching a film does not make you an aficionado of the medium.

And yes, this is a useful distinction. If I'm expected to take anyone's opinion on any subject seriously, than I would hope they had some experience with it.

I would, however, divorce the term from the time one spends on the hobby in terms of raw play hours. I think a useful definition of a "Gamer" is "Someone who knows about and enjoys the artistic medium of video games". That is to say, people who enjoy games on their own merits, outside of a purely social context, and who have at least a basic understanding and/or educated opinion of what makes a game engaging.

If only there were some way to distinguish between the normal consumer, and aficionados. If only there were some word that you and I had both said- oh wait, it's aficionado.

There you go. Everyone who plays games is a gamer, but not all are gaming aficionados.

Ask 100 people if they know of the term "Aficionado"; ask 100 people if they know of the term "Gamer"; I think the results will be in favor of the latter. "Gamer" is just a simpler, more intuitive term.

It's not my favorite term, but I think it's the most common description of how I view video games that is remotely accurate.

 

[sumanoskae]

I think there's an issue behind an issue, here, and literalism of labeling gets in the way.

From where I stand, "gamer" is mostly a matter of self-identification. If you call yourself a gamer, and you play games, fine. It doesn't matter if that game is Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Dear Esther, Puzzle and Dragons, Civilization V, Skyrim. or Candy Crush. If games are important enough to you that you'd describe them as being an integral part of your self-description, welcome to the club.

However.

If all you eat is McDonalds, you can still call yourself an "eater", too. Hell, you could call yourself a "foodie", though you'd probably find it hard to get anyone to take you seriously. And you are! You are someone who eats food, and self-describes as same.

All the same, I don't give a flying @$%# that you think my Beef Bourginon should have a lot more salt.

Entry to "the club" does not give you the inherent right to tell other people that they're doing it wrong.

Okay, rephrase. I believe in free speech and all that; go ahead and tell other people they're doing it wrong. But they're not obligated to listen. And the more you stamp your feet about it, the more you confirm that they're right not to listen to you.

If you would wax poetic about the degeneracy of someone else's gaming, but never ever degrade yourself to at least try the games they're playing with a half-open mind... You do not have my ear.

I'm not particularly "into" sports games. I prefer my car racing to involve weapons and/or explosions. Flight simulators beyond about the World War I level get too complicated for me to enjoy them. That doesn't mean that the people who do enjoy those games are doing it wrong.

And if I grimace at the possibility that more of the development money that used to go into memorable AAA games (and admittedly, some terrible ones) is now going into shallow touch-screen casual games, at least I've played enough Facebook and Android games to recognize that when I'm not waiting in a line or for a bus, I want something more.

Couldn't have said it better myself; good form.

 

[Phasmal]

Yeah the thing is, no matter what people say VNs are games, they're really old games too, they're what inspired Jrpgs. Just because people can say they're not games, that doesn't mean anything, as they're actively, provably wrong.

Well, yeah, I agree.

You must examine the reason one uses to skip. Most often is "I don't care about all this shit, I don't care about these characters, I just wanna move on". That, that is apathy. I'm sorry, it is.

And apathy = not a gamer? C'mon.
You never played a game in which you just wanted to get through it?
I dunno man, the whole thing seems too judgy to me, and it often needs to go off of assumptions.

I agree people SHOULD have somne passion, but can you really say someone who does nothing but play games but does things you think are apathetic is not a gamer?

Pardon me if this is getting annoying, I'm not super invested, just interested in the reasoning.

You don't need to confront people for this issue, that'd be rude. Being rude is never good. You just kinda make a mental note of it so that when the person says something which depends on their credentials of passion regarding gaming, you can then use it as references for how much weight you should put on their opinion.

Basically, I would never be rude about such an issue to someone but in cases where I'm looking for information, I wouldn't go to them to ask and their opinions would hold less weight, directly due to this aspect of their behavior.

Yeah, but wouldn't you feel like a dick if you made a mental note that someone was not a True Gamer or whatever and then you were wrong?

I remember talking about games at my old job and there was a guy there who was asking me what I was playing at the time.
Me: Well on my handheld at the moment I'm playing Pokémon
Guy: (Looks at me like I just wiped my snot on him)
Me: And on my Xbox I'm nearly finished with Dark Souls
Guy: (All of a sudden wants to be my best friend)

I suppose if you don't judge people outwardly then it's fine, but sometimes people can tell.

 

[veloper]

Okay, here's the deal: you can call everyone who's ever played a game once, a "gamer", if you're also consistent and call everyone who's ever swallowed a bacterium, a "killer".

Narrow definitions are more useful.

Definitely. A runner is someone who runs. A marathon runner is someone who runs marathons. A professional runner is someone who runs professionally.

That the term Gamer was useful once to identify traits was because it was a novelty in general. Pong would be defined as being pretty casual nowadays, some wouldn't describe those people who play it once in a while as a gamer. Now, "everybody" plays some games the one way or the other, and it has lost its novelty and usefulness.

From a descriptive perspective, it simply doesn't make any sense anymore. The industry itself even refered to those dedicated to gaming as "core audience". This audience itself has also grown, and as well is, I THINK, what people here simply describe as someone who is a gamer.

Also, there are these curious cases: Your dad who plays Football Manager or Anno like it's his second job. At least with a lot of passion. Now, these games aren't even that casual. Especially in the late 90s, there were a lot of simulations with extensive complexity. But these "dads" have mastered them, more or less. And also, they only play these games. Now, are these persons no gamers? Or are they gamers? Are they core gamers? Don't they count?

I have to deal with language professionally. And also, I have a passion for certain languages. In German, it most likely would be clear that (the equivalent of) Gamer would be insufficient to describe someone with a passion for gaming, besides that sometimes, the equivalent (Spieler, Zocker) is often connotated with the addiction itself. But that also gets less and less frequent, since it simply fails to deliver the information properly in a conversation, since video gaming is more and more on the rise into mainstream society.

So, if you want to be precise, everybody who plays games is a gamer. If you need to differenciate, you need to be precise by describing properly, like defining with adjectives/adverbs or coining new terms altogether. If you simply want to defend the term that is associated with an identity, then also you have to realize that there are now different identities as well, all also ill-described as the same with the term "Gamer", even though it is indeed appropriate but insufficient, imo.

I personally think that everybody who plays games is a gamer. Those, who play games with a passion are core gamers. Those, who play complex games, but these complex games only are niche gamers. Those, who play casually, are casual gamers. But all are gamers.

Language can be identified as a lot of things. But it always, always is an appointment, an agreement on what means what. So, I'm certainly not saying and not even believing that my personal method is the best. But language will be defined by the majority that uses it.

If we're just going by the majority after all that, then gamer will still mean something like enthusiast gamer. It has no clearly defined edges, but it's most definitely NOT someone who, for example, plays windows solitaire on occasion.

Not a killer then.

 

[Naldan]

If we're just going by the majority after all that, then gamer will still mean something like enthusiast gamer. It has no clearly defined edges, but it's most definitely NOT someone who, for example, plays windows solitaire on occasion.

Not a killer then.

That's pretty, eh, optimistic. OK, within your circles, and I could do it within my inner ones, too, you can call a gamer a gamer and expect a proper result. The last time I did that "casually", that means believing someone who claims to be absolutely totally in gaming, was when that person played /that StarTrek game/, and I don't mean that MMO, I mean the movie tie-in, and played a bit Pokémon for I think two weeks.

And that person was convinced that /that StarTrek game/ was /the Shit/, in good shit, good stuff, you know.

edit: to be clear; that was all that person played while our friendship lasted for half a year.

 

[veloper]

Okay, here's the deal: you can call everyone who's ever played a game once, a "gamer", if you're also consistent and call everyone who's ever swallowed a bacterium, a "killer".

Narrow definitions are more useful.

Yes, we're all killers. We're not all murderers, or killers of animals. Isn't it amazing how we have all of these words for different things, instead of internet fights over (most of) them?

Where's the fight? All I see is fun. If you want to see a fight instead, go forth and call everyone you meet a killer and enjoy all the hostility.

 

[veloper]

If we're just going by the majority after all that, then gamer will still mean something like enthusiast gamer. It has no clearly defined edges, but it's most definitely NOT someone who, for example, plays windows solitaire on occasion.

Not a killer then.

That's pretty, eh, optimistic. OK, within your circles, and I could do it within my inner ones, too, you can call a gamer a gamer and expect a proper result. The last time I did that "casually", that means believing someone who claims to be absolutely totally in gaming, was when that person played /that StarTrek game/, and I don't mean that MMO, I mean the movie tie-in, and played a bit Pokémon for I think two weeks.

And that person was convinced that /that StarTrek game/ was /the Shit/, in good shit, good stuff, you know.

edit: to be clear; that was all that person played while our friendship lasted for half a year.

Far more common than that is the gamer understood as being the neckbeard gamer, with all the negative stereotypes surrounding the image, but an enthusiast gamer still.

 

[veloper]

Okay, here's the deal: you can call everyone who's ever played a game once, a "gamer", if you're also consistent and call everyone who's ever swallowed a bacterium, a "killer".

Narrow definitions are more useful.

Yes, we're all killers. We're not all murderers, or killers of animals. Isn't it amazing how we have all of these words for different things, instead of internet fights over (most of) them?

Where's the fight? All I see is fun. If you want to see a fight instead, go forth and call everyone you meet a killer and enjoy all the hostility.

I'm not the one trying to label other people, but thanks for the offer.

"People" is already a label. It's not an "offer", it's a suggestion and one you won't follow up on, because you already know the word "killer" colloquially means something else than you say it does.

 

[veloper]

Okay, here's the deal: you can call everyone who's ever played a game once, a "gamer", if you're also consistent and call everyone who's ever swallowed a bacterium, a "killer".

Narrow definitions are more useful.

Yes, we're all killers. We're not all murderers, or killers of animals. Isn't it amazing how we have all of these words for different things, instead of internet fights over (most of) them?

Where's the fight? All I see is fun. If you want to see a fight instead, go forth and call everyone you meet a killer and enjoy all the hostility.

I'm not the one trying to label other people, but thanks for the offer.

"People" is already a label. It's not an "offer", it's a suggestion and one you won't follow up on, because you already know the word "killer" colloquially means something else than you say it does.

No, I'm just not the type to get into semantic debates online. They're pointless, and people interested in more than a fight don't care for them.

What a shame. I thought you were up for this game, since you started the cascade by quoting me and all. Oh well. Maybe another time.

 

[Naldan]

Far more common than that is the gamer understood as being the neckbeard gamer, with all the negative stereotypes surrounding the image, but an enthusiast gamer still.

That seem to depend on who you converse with. I come from Germany and have "very special" circles, that's maybe why I found more acceptance rather than evolved prejudice. Yes, there is always prejudice, but... for example: Soccer is very big in Germany. Normally, those who really are into soccer here are stereotypical blokes. That's my prejudice and that's more often a hit than not. But then again, when I was attending a school for adults, this blurred more and more. Suddenly, people who were really into soccer also were relatively good at school on average. Of course, than there are entire regions like Bavaria, where gaming is seen as being for silly neckbeards, so to speak.

So maybe it depends on where you're living. I mean heavily. It seems like, for example, that the USA is so extreme, that there is a booming gaming culture, while there also are conservatives on a witch-burning level. Ultra conservatives. And I've got the feeling that also the American gaming culture is full of people with a very conservative mindset, although, ~in my experience(!!!!)~, these people are those who calls everybody else as so much left-wing that everybody else is literally Hitler. But enough with politics, don't worry.

What I'm trying to say, is that there is a country of extremes. That is definitely the USA. Those also make up in proportion the majority of the gaming community in the english-speaking sphere, at least those who are active and providing and creating content. This US gaming culture in itself is very diverse and full of extremes. Then mix the internet into this. Suddenly, you have every mofo who speaks English, more or less, coming into that sphere, sometimes blurring established conveniences like for example the term gamer. That is because those people have a very, very, VERY different background, which is for example the execution of terminology. Suddenly, you have a lot of people who'd agree that the term "Gamer" is useless nowadays for those, who want to identify (other) enthusiastic gamers. That has nothing to do with the mere comprehension of a language. That has, I think, more to do with the impact, feelings, agreements and the very dealing with any language, which differs heavily from at least one native speaker to another native speaker. It even feels to me like there is a rather large difference between Brits and Americans when it comes to the very dealing of the language, not only terms.

So, if you say that the majority of people would associate the term "Gamer" solely with the stereotype of a basement dwelling neckbeard anime nerd, then I beg to differ. This is not an attack by no means, it's more a suggestion. I even give you the credit of being right in most parts in the world, but for example Japan, and even Germany isn't that conservative towards gaming, despite what the media says. The media is shit. No matter the country, it seems.

 

[veloper]

Far more common than that is the gamer understood as being the neckbeard gamer, with all the negative stereotypes surrounding the image, but an enthusiast gamer still.

That seem to depend on who you converse with. I come from Germany and have "very special" circles, that's maybe why I found more acceptance rather than evolved prejudice. Yes, there is always prejudice, but... for example: Soccer is very big in Germany. Normally, those who really are into soccer here are stereotypical blokes. That's my prejudice and that's more often a hit than not. But then again, when I was attending a school for adults, this blurred more and more. Suddenly, people who were really into soccer also were relatively good at school on average. Of course, than there are entire regions like Bavaria, where gaming is seen as being for silly neckbeards, so to speak.

So maybe it depends on where you're living. I mean heavily. It seems like, for example, that the USA is so extreme, that there is a booming gaming culture, while there also are conservatives on a witch-burning level. Ultra conservatives. And I've got the feeling that also the American gaming culture is full of people with a very conservative mindset, although, ~in my experience(!!!!)~, these people are those who calls everybody else as so much left-wing that everybody else is literally Hitler. But enough with politics, don't worry.

What I'm trying to say, is that there is a country of extremes. That is definitely the USA. Those also make up in proportion the majority of the gaming community in the english-speaking sphere, at least those who are active and providing and creating content. This US gaming culture in itself is very diverse and full of extremes. Then mix the internet into this. Suddenly, you have every mofo who speaks English, more or less, coming into that sphere, sometimes blurring established conveniences like for example the term gamer. That is because those people have a very, very, VERY different background, which is for example the execution of terminology. Suddenly, you have a lot of people who'd agree that the term "Gamer" is useless nowadays for those, who want to identify (other) enthusiastic gamers. That has nothing to do with the mere comprehension of a language. That has, I think, more to do with the impact, feelings, agreements and the very dealing with any language, which differs heavily from at least one native speaker to another native speaker. It even feels to me like there is a rather large difference between Brits and Americans when it comes to the very dealing of the language, not only terms.

So, if you say that the majority of people would associate the term "Gamer" solely with the stereotype of a basement dwelling neckbeard anime nerd, then I beg to differ. This is not an attack by no means, it's more a suggestion. I even give you the credit of being right in most parts in the world, but for example Japan, and even Germany isn't that conservative towards gaming, despite what the media says. The media is shit. No matter the country, it seems.

Hey okay, I can't speak for the German Zuckers, as I haven't even heard of that word before this thread appeared.

But let's assume the german word for gamer is worthless nowadays, just like you say, then it shouldn't be a big deal to anyone for some other German to come along and re-appropriate the word. How many words can one need to indicate roughly the same group as the word "persons" afteral?

 

[Naldan]

Hey okay, I can't speak for the German Zuckers, as I haven't even heard of that word before this thread appeared.

But let's assume the german word for gamer is worthless nowadays, just like you say, then it shouldn't be a big deal to anyone for some other German to come along and re-appropriate the word. How many words can one need to indicate roughly the same group as the word "persons" afteral?

Some suggestions:

Core gamer (that one is already used by the industry), hardcore gamer, gaming enthusiast.

All have the word "game(r)" hidden somewhere.

Now, if you'd really wanted to preserve the term gamer for someone who is really enthusiastic about games, then you could call those who play games casually only differently. Like player. But from a descriptive point of view, and from a linguistic point of view as well, at least from my pov ( DDD ), it wouldn't make much sense to call them "Players". Also, as I said, probably your opinion will be overrun by the shared opinions of others, who most likely call everybody a gamer.

The majority has become casual. They are pretty new, since the Wii or mobile games. That in turn means that the former audience got a lot of new members with different point of views. The language is always dictated by those who use it, of course. But that means that it needs to have an agreement. Now, you could go to your friends and tell them, for example "Yo, Jimmy, your mother plays Pou like a pro, but she isn't a gamer." for whatever reason you'd say that, and all your friends might agree and everything is fine. I could do the same thing in my inner circle. We have agreed on what a gamer is and isn't. But, as I said, it has shifted _hard_.
And frankly, the media did and still does a super bad job to help the community to create and evolve. All they do is to whine, rage and criticize. The latter isn't even bad, but if you have a huge audience, you have a huge potential. And most of them use it very, very negatively. That means in a destructive way, also by relying on the 3 former mentioned activities.

Instead, they could use their huge potentials to simply discuss problems and not taking a side right off the bat. They could use their journalistic connections, and even their education in something that is heavily intervowen with language and communities, to suggest alternatives. They could help the community evolve. They could be constructive instead of destructive. But they aren't, won't and don't even consider this. Well, I won't dive deeper into this.

So, what this community needs is a forum of truly diverse individuals. And none of those who want to inject other topics into this forum. YES, THEY CAN DO THIS, but in this forum, it has for this moment in time no place. It's just about the neutral discussion about the identity gamer, the term gamer, and the direction they would *suggest*. Again, ~just an example~, sexism in gaming, games, developement. Fine, talk about it, but at another time. It has its place, but this should be about where to go, not how shit it supposedly is.

For clarification: I mean an open forum, not a forum of the Escapist. Like a gathering of experts and moderators, who meet over a week or weekend to discuss a specific topic. I'm sorry to say this, bt since the media fails to do this, we would need other gathering points. And I don't even mean the Escapist. Frankly, I could even see the Escapist being a part of that forum.