Poll: Do you know the definition on gamer?

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Specificity is inherently gonna exclude some people because for something to be one thing it is inherently not being another thing. The thing is that...this happens due to reasons. Due to valid reasons, if I may say so.


Gamer as a notion came to be from an age where casual gaming the likes of which can be had on modern phones and facebook didn't really exist. It didn't really cover stuff like that. It is simply inaccurate to broaden the scope of the term for the sake of being inclusive. Yes, we do indeed become more inclusive that way but we also become less accurate in our terminology. This inaccuracy causes conflict, confusion, alienation, arguments and a whole lot more trouble than being not as inclusive as possible would.

The problem with being more specific with a term such as gamer is pretty much described in this thread- nobody can agree on a definition BEYOND `plays games`.

It IS a broad term. I kind of fail to see how it would cause conflict, confusion, alienation OR arguments. Why would it?

The only reason I can think is if you meet another person who defines themselves as a gamer in a different way than you do, and then you just move on. It's not particularly upsetting.

If you peel back the irrelevant layers I only see two definitions. Either everyone's grandmother who once played wii sports is a gamer just as much as people who win millions of dollars on DOTA or someone who fits the profile of a serious hobbyist is a gamer.


Any other opinion is either easily filed under these two definitions or too uncommon to be able to be ascribed to a big demographic with any degree of success. Of course, it sucks for those who do genuinely hold those opinions which indeed fall outside of that binary scope but it doesn't change anything with regard to this topic. Nobody is gonna go after them, people just go after the other side of the binary opinion I describe above, whichever that "other side" happens to be with respect to their own view. Therefore, I think focusing the discussion around just these two reigning views is most prudent.

 

[hermes]

No, I don't. And neither do you. Because everyone gets to define themselves, not others.

If you're going to give it a different meaning other than - someone who plays games - you're just trying to exclude people. And I have no idea why. Let people call themselves gamers if they want to, and not if they don't.

If someone tells you they are a gamer and you immediately start quizzing them to see if they play the `right games` or `real games` the problem is you.

Game and let game.

Specificity is inherently gonna exclude some people because for something to be one thing it is inherently not being another thing. The thing is that...this happens due to reasons. Due to valid reasons, if I may say so.


Gamer as a notion came to be from an age where casual gaming the likes of which can be had on modern phones and facebook didn't really exist. It didn't really cover stuff like that. It is simply inaccurate to broaden the scope of the term for the sake of being inclusive. Yes, we do indeed become more inclusive that way but we also become less accurate in our terminology. This inaccuracy causes conflict, confusion, alienation, arguments and a whole lot more trouble than being not as inclusive as possible would.

On the other hand, at the time, the term could apply to someone that played mostly Tetris and Doctor Mario on their gameboy. However, most people here would resist to include those that play similar games on facebook or mobile.

If this has to be a definition, it has to stand the test of time. It has to be about the experience, not the device, and it can't be changed with every device that enables that experience. It would be like saying only those watching movies on the cinema gets to be called "cinephile", thus excluding people that watch DVDs; or only those that played the games on their original form to be called gamers, thus excluding emulators.

 

[zehydra]

Basically, there is no definition of the word "gamer". Based on my own experiences with the word, it appears to mean a person who plays/enjoys (video) games.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

No, I don't. And neither do you. Because everyone gets to define themselves, not others.

If you're going to give it a different meaning other than - someone who plays games - you're just trying to exclude people. And I have no idea why. Let people call themselves gamers if they want to, and not if they don't.

If someone tells you they are a gamer and you immediately start quizzing them to see if they play the `right games` or `real games` the problem is you.

Game and let game.

Specificity is inherently gonna exclude some people because for something to be one thing it is inherently not being another thing. The thing is that...this happens due to reasons. Due to valid reasons, if I may say so.


Gamer as a notion came to be from an age where casual gaming the likes of which can be had on modern phones and facebook didn't really exist. It didn't really cover stuff like that. It is simply inaccurate to broaden the scope of the term for the sake of being inclusive. Yes, we do indeed become more inclusive that way but we also become less accurate in our terminology. This inaccuracy causes conflict, confusion, alienation, arguments and a whole lot more trouble than being not as inclusive as possible would.

On the other hand, at the time, the term could apply to someone that played mostly Tetris and Doctor Mario on their gameboy. However, most people here would resist to include those that play similar games on facebook or mobile.

If this has to be a definition, it has to stand the test of time. It has to be about the game, not the device, and it can't be changed with every device that enables that experience. It would be like saying only those watching movies on the cinema gets to be called "cinephile", thus excluding people that watch DVDs.

Here's the thing. The gameboy was a gaming device. Tetris, super mario, these things were WHY you got the gameboy. Someone who would just only play tetris on gameboy was still invested enough to spend money in order to become the owner of the gameboy and of the games. This more than qualifies their commitment to the medium, even if they don't like that many games.


Nobody buys a phone for candy crush, nobody makes a facebook profile for farmville. The games are tangential "extras" just like the million other features. Taking advantage of a tangential extra that you get for free or near free is not the same as buying a gaming console which does nothing else other than gaming so that you can play tetris.


Someone who watches DvDs with equal attention to how one watches at the movie can be a cinephile, someone who watches snippets of a movie being played on the background while out at a bar, while drinking, flirting and having a good time shouldn't be. This second definition is closer to how much of the "casual" demographic consumes their games.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Do you run and interact with a piece of software sold in the "Video Games" section of your store of choice?

Congrats, you're a gamer.

 

[hermes]

No, I don't. And neither do you. Because everyone gets to define themselves, not others.

If you're going to give it a different meaning other than - someone who plays games - you're just trying to exclude people. And I have no idea why. Let people call themselves gamers if they want to, and not if they don't.

If someone tells you they are a gamer and you immediately start quizzing them to see if they play the `right games` or `real games` the problem is you.

Game and let game.

Specificity is inherently gonna exclude some people because for something to be one thing it is inherently not being another thing. The thing is that...this happens due to reasons. Due to valid reasons, if I may say so.

Gamer as a notion came to be from an age where casual gaming the likes of which can be had on modern phones and facebook didn't really exist. It didn't really cover stuff like that. It is simply inaccurate to broaden the scope of the term for the sake of being inclusive. Yes, we do indeed become more inclusive that way but we also become less accurate in our terminology. This inaccuracy causes conflict, confusion, alienation, arguments and a whole lot more trouble than being not as inclusive as possible would.

On the other hand, at the time, the term could apply to someone that played mostly Tetris and Doctor Mario on their gameboy. However, most people here would resist to include those that play similar games on facebook or mobile.

If this has to be a definition, it has to stand the test of time. It has to be about the game, not the device, and it can't be changed with every device that enables that experience. It would be like saying only those watching movies on the cinema gets to be called "cinephile", thus excluding people that watch DVDs.

Here's the thing. The gameboy was a gaming device. Tetris, super mario, these things were WHY you got the gameboy. Someone who would just only play tetris on gameboy was still invested enough to spend money in order to become the owner of the gameboy and of the games. This more than qualifies their commitment to the medium, even if they don't like that many games.


Nobody buys a phone for candy crush, nobody makes a facebook profile for farmville. The games are tangential "extras" just like the million other features. Taking advantage of a tangential extra that you get for free or near free is not the same as buying a gaming console which does nothing else other than gaming so that you can play tetris.


Someone who watches DvDs with equal attention to how one watches at the movie can be a cinephile, someone who watches snippets of a movie being played on the background while out at a bar, while drinking, flirting and having a good time shouldn't be. This second definition is closer to how much of the "casual" demographic consumes their games.

I don't know... I have met people that really get into their Candy Crush stage or their farmville err... farm, to the point of actually investing real money to get an edge. That sounds pretty hardcore to me, even when the games can be rather casual. Most of the times, they are not engaging in other activities with the game as "the background"

Also, the whole "main propose" is a rather flimsy distinction. What happens to the new generation of consoles? What about the XB1 and PS3 and their whole "more of an entertainment center"? How about people that play games on PC, where one could argue that computers do a lot more things than "playing games" (some could argue those other things are the "main features", while games are tangential)? Returning to my example of cinephile, how would you define people that use their PS 3 mainly as bluray players, or netflix players? Are they not cinephiles, since they don't invest on something whose main propose is to play movies? Are they gamers, since they did invest on something whose main propose is to play games, even when they are mostly interested in the tangential extras?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

No, I don't. And neither do you. Because everyone gets to define themselves, not others.

If you're going to give it a different meaning other than - someone who plays games - you're just trying to exclude people. And I have no idea why. Let people call themselves gamers if they want to, and not if they don't.

If someone tells you they are a gamer and you immediately start quizzing them to see if they play the `right games` or `real games` the problem is you.

Game and let game.

Specificity is inherently gonna exclude some people because for something to be one thing it is inherently not being another thing. The thing is that...this happens due to reasons. Due to valid reasons, if I may say so.

Gamer as a notion came to be from an age where casual gaming the likes of which can be had on modern phones and facebook didn't really exist. It didn't really cover stuff like that. It is simply inaccurate to broaden the scope of the term for the sake of being inclusive. Yes, we do indeed become more inclusive that way but we also become less accurate in our terminology. This inaccuracy causes conflict, confusion, alienation, arguments and a whole lot more trouble than being not as inclusive as possible would.

On the other hand, at the time, the term could apply to someone that played mostly Tetris and Doctor Mario on their gameboy. However, most people here would resist to include those that play similar games on facebook or mobile.

If this has to be a definition, it has to stand the test of time. It has to be about the game, not the device, and it can't be changed with every device that enables that experience. It would be like saying only those watching movies on the cinema gets to be called "cinephile", thus excluding people that watch DVDs.

Here's the thing. The gameboy was a gaming device. Tetris, super mario, these things were WHY you got the gameboy. Someone who would just only play tetris on gameboy was still invested enough to spend money in order to become the owner of the gameboy and of the games. This more than qualifies their commitment to the medium, even if they don't like that many games.


Nobody buys a phone for candy crush, nobody makes a facebook profile for farmville. The games are tangential "extras" just like the million other features. Taking advantage of a tangential extra that you get for free or near free is not the same as buying a gaming console which does nothing else other than gaming so that you can play tetris.


Someone who watches DvDs with equal attention to how one watches at the movie can be a cinephile, someone who watches snippets of a movie being played on the background while out at a bar, while drinking, flirting and having a good time shouldn't be. This second definition is closer to how much of the "casual" demographic consumes their games.

I don't know... I have met people that really get into their Candy Crush stage or their farmville err... farm, to the point of actually investing real money to get an edge. That sounds pretty hardcore to me, even when the games can be rather casual. Most of the times, they are not engaging in other activities with the game as "the background"

Also, the whole "main propose" is a rather flimsy distinction. What happens to the new generation of consoles? What about the XB1 and PS3 and their whole "more of an entertainment center"? How about people that play games on PC, where one could argue that computers do a lot more things than "playing games" (some could argue those other things are the "main features", while games are tangential)? Returning to my example of cinephile, how would you define people that use their PS 3 mainly as bluray players, or netflix players? Are they not cinephiles, since they don't invest on something whose main propose is to play movies? Are they gamers, since they did invest on something whose main propose is to play games, even when they are mostly interested in the tangential extras?

It's not the purpose of the system, it's the purpose for which you make your purchase decision that matters. Buying a ps3 for blue ray viewing is identical to buying a blue ray player. You still are actually investing money to get to watch blue rays. Same with games. It doesn't matter if you buy something which has other features if the feature for which you buy it is gaming. It's all pretty common sense stuff and what you're basically asking me here is for a definition of "hobbyist" if anything. Buying a phone is never done so that people can game. People buy gaming consoles for that.


People can become hooked to candy crush and spend money...and gamers spend money on games they've never played once out of how much they culturally or philosophically appreciate them on an intellectual level so that they'll get to try them out. They spend money on entire systems on the mere promise of better games down the line. Can you not see the difference? Isn't it a difference of attitude to be so into games that you'll pay for them BEFORE you find out if you like them or not, simply on a cultural level? Candy crush money-givers don't do this for every game with the match three gameplay. They're not puzzle game fans. They just happened to play one good one, like it, thus spend money. It's not being a fan of the gaming culture, it's just liking this one good game and still not giving a damn about the overarching culture all the same.

 

[McElroy]

I have a rather cool definition of gamer: someone who plays video games at least two hours per week on average AND knows the basic mechanics of most video game genres. Then you can start adding to that definition, but I'd say that's your average gamer if someone asks (like now). I actually know someone you'd call a "game enthusiast" who doesn't really play much games beyond Candy Crush or something - but she follows a bunch of YouTube-gamers and watches let's plays.