Should gamers have control over gaming culture?

[Wintermute_v1legacy]

What makes a person a gamer anyway? Do I have to wear a "geeky" t-shirt that shows I play videogames? Do I have to like Halo? Am I allowed to say I'm not a fan of the Souls games, or is that an automatic ban from the gamer culture? Can I play games on the easiest difficulty and not be called a "casual" because omg, what a tragedy, I suck at videogames?

Also cultures change over time, so if there is such a thing as "gaming culture", you don't get to say "but you're not a part of it unless you can do this and this in that and that game, casual noob fake gamer girl!" if that's what you mean by "gamers" controlling "gamer culture", because things aren't the way they were years ago, there's a lot more people now and they probably want games that cater to them too. If half naked girls are getting new clothes in games now, that's just another thing that's changing, maybe they'll come back in 10 years or so wearing even skimpier outfits, who knows.

 

[Catnip1024]

We do... thats kind of how it works.

I suppose the argument is similar to things like Comic cons, where the actual Comics and nerds have taken a back seat to lucrative gaming displays, advertising and whatnot. Your original comic book nerds no longer have much of a say in matters.

But it does depend on your definition of gamer.

 

[DefunctTheory]

What makes a person a gamer anyway? Do I have to wear a "geeky" t-shirt that shows I play videogames? Do I have to like Halo? Am I allowed to say I'm not a fan of the Souls games, or is that an automatic ban from the gamer culture? Can I play games on the easiest difficulty and not be called a "casual" because omg, what a tragedy, I suck at videogames?

I'd say a 'gamer' is someone who's aware and interested in games beyond just picking up a controller and having fun, whether that be an interest in the industry as a whole or in the 'meta' of how games are constructed and how the mechanics of a game work. Much like I'd call someone who's interested in the NFL as a whole a Football enthusiast, while someone who just puts the game on during Thanksgiving is not. It has nothing to do with ones opinion on the matter, or what games they like - Just an awareness and interest in such things.

Which isn't a critique of 'casuals' or anything. Though it would be nice if everyone paid more attention to things beyond simply playing (Or in the case of Football, watching), it's perfectly fine not to.

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

In this day and age, what the hell does the word "gamer" even mean anymore now that playing video games has become mainstream? The best way to describe it is by pointing to the people trying to exclude the newcomers, whose actions have turned gamer into a title with connotations about as pleasant as "Hooligan". How dedicated do you have to be to gaming to be a gamer? How many games do you have to play, how often, how many hours per week/month/year, how much knowledge of the history of games do you need. According to the aforementioned gatekeepers, certain political views are forbidden to express within the realm of gaming, certain aspects are forbidden to criticize or mention, and you are not a "true gamer" if you didn't join sufficiently long ago, don't play the right games and don't understand them sufficiently. Honestly, it seems easier to become grand master of the free masons than meet the minimum qualification for becoming a "gamer" as defined by "hardcore gamers"

 

[Avnger]

They (we) are. Despite the attempts of the rabid gatekeepers on reddit and the chans, gaming is universal from everyone such as my mom playing a random mobile game occasionally on her commute to the hardcore WoW raiders to the people who enjoy "walking simulators" and visual novels. Everyone needs to get off whatever height horse they might be on and realize that we all shape the gaming ecosystem that gamers, developers, publishers, and journalists live in regardless of how much one relies on videogames to prop up their sense of identity.

Pro-tip: If your sense of identity revolves around you being a "gamer" to the point that you try to exclude others, you really need to seek professional help. It's not healthy. (generic you)

 

[RedRockRun]

There is more than one kind of gamer and more than one culture. The idea of a singular, "Gamers," is a nice meme spread around by people who haven't played a game in their life that isn't on a phone

 

[American Tanker]

There is more than one kind of gamer and more than one culture. The idea of a singular, "Gamers," is a nice meme spread around by people who haven't played a game in their life that isn't on a phone.

Thank you for explaining what I was trying to say better than I ever could have.

 

[Erttheking]

Can anyone point out any point in history when someone having total undisputed control over anything ended well? Because this whole "gamers having control" thing smells a wee bit of No True Scotsman to me.

 

[kitsunefather]

Who.. who else would be in control of "gaming culture", if not for the people who participate in it ("gamers")?

How about we give control over to the Juggalos, I think they could take gaming culture in an interesting direction

Hm.. this could lead to some potentially interesting ideas.

I'll agree to it if we can give control of college culture over to metal fans.

 

[kitsunefather]

Can anyone point out any point in history when someone having total undisputed control over anything ended well? Because this whole "gamers having control" thing smells a wee bit of No True Scotsman to me.

That's a fair point.

In my mind, I think of it as a "every person is responsible for their own behavior" and the combined behaviors of members of a certain group is its "culture".

You're right though; it could easily be used to feed into the idea of the "not a gamer" mindset, on all sides.

 

[Souplex]

Gamers do, a gamer does not.
We are not a monolith.

 

[Marik2]

Somewhat.

The industry knows that most people want violence and shooting games.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Much like motorcycle clubs, bridge groups, and bowling leagues, "gamers" are a group of individuals bound loosely together by a shared hobby, no one more responsible than the rest.

However, like motorcycle clubs, bridge groups, and bowling leagues, gamers collectively can nudge their hobby's culture in interesting ways, and can make gains or loses in specific areas.

For some reason, a lot of gamers seem to miss that fact.

 

[Hawki]

"Gaming culture" makes me cringe. Not trying to be glib, there's just something about the title gamer I've always had a distaste for. Even though I would consider myself someone who takes games semi-seriously (card carrying member of the 1440p 144hz PC Master Race over here) I do my best to distance myself from the "culture" surrounding gaming. Mostly because it comes across as immature at best and screeching intolerance at worst.

This.

Also, to answer the OP, "no." In the sense that culture is an amorphous concept that is in a constant state of flux as ideas are added from within or without, and old ideas are removed when they become outdated. So, acting as gatekeepers isn't a good idea on any level.

 

[FalloutJack]

You don't have a culture. You're sold shit that convinces you you have a culture.

Culture is defined by what people do in their lives. This is a rather nebulous concept, and I can understand it being hard to narrow down or even undesirable at times, but the things people do with their money and media is part of cultural identity. Human beings created culture, ergo to buy entertaining things and play is human and a part of that.

That said, 'control' is a bit hard to do with something so ever-changing. 'Influence' is probably the better term.

 

[Benpasko]

Who.. who else would be in control of "gaming culture", if not for the people who participate in it ("gamers")?

How about we give control over to the Juggalos, I think they could take gaming culture in an interesting direction

You ever played Backyard Wrestling: Don't Try This At Home? It's a juggalo wrestling / fighting game in the vein of Def Jam. And it's actually really good.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

The problem is that people think of "gamers" and "gamer culture" as a singular monolithic entity, that all gamers are the same. We're not. There are many genres, and genres that appeal to one person won't appeal to everyone. For example, I call myself a "thrill junkie gamer", and I gravitate towards racing games and shooters while avoiding things like simulators and hidden object games because they bore me to death.

There are groups that gravitate towards simulators, others that focus on role-playing and other story-driven games, and yet others that are like me and just want excitement. Yet when the media, and most other outsiders, look at us, they don't see the differences in what we like, they just see "gamers" without seeing the interests of the various different kinds of gamers that are out there.

There's a game for everyone, if they know where to look. And there's always the choice to play single-player rather than play online. You just need to look deeper than first impressions. Otherwise, you won't know what you're looking at or how individual gamers can be very different from each other.

There is what the greek chorus is for, I mean sure you can a game that sells thanks to critics shilling about how provoking the story is or how it how it tackles certain themes too uncomfortable for the average pleb. But the average gamer who uses steam or metacritic is a creature of comfort. So long you give them their tits, bloodshed and try not too hard to make them scream in rage as you kill the likable character they are content. Thats why you see them huddle around companies like Tamsoft and Neptunia, because it provides a sense of escapism western gaming has been distancing themselves from on average.

The critic is the opposite, they want Oscar bait for games, see Bioshock infinite, see Last of Us, see Gone Home, see Telltale Games' tv to game adventure adaptations. They actively shun anything that is delivers an escapism to the gamer and work actively towards dictating what scores well and what doesn't and what isn't scored at all after being pissed off too many times.

There is games for everyone, and then there is games that shares a sense of unity between critic and gamer and quite frankly I haven't seen that lately with western games.

They (we) are. Despite the attempts of the rabid gatekeepers on reddit and the chans, gaming is universal from everyone such as my mom playing a random mobile game occasionally on her commute to the hardcore WoW raiders to the people who enjoy "walking simulators" and visual novels. Everyone needs to get off whatever height horse they might be on and realize that we all shape the gaming ecosystem that gamers, developers, publishers, and journalists live in regardless of how much one relies on videogames to prop up their sense of identity.

Pro-tip: If your sense of identity revolves around you being a "gamer" to the point that you try to exclude others, you really need to seek professional help. It's not healthy. (generic you)

Then how do you justify your fellow allies gatekeeping a game to the point all discussion of it is banned huh? Glass houses and stones right here.

http://archive.is/NB3gJ#selection-6533.91-6533.161

Say what you want about the average gamer on reddit and /v/'s hostility toward certain games but we have never stooped to the level where we would actively ban discussion on certain games just because the mods and the hivemind don't like it.

 

[Avnger]

They (we) are. Despite the attempts of the rabid gatekeepers on reddit and the chans, gaming is universal from everyone such as my mom playing a random mobile game occasionally on her commute to the hardcore WoW raiders to the people who enjoy "walking simulators" and visual novels. Everyone needs to get off whatever height horse they might be on and realize that we all shape the gaming ecosystem that gamers, developers, publishers, and journalists live in regardless of how much one relies on videogames to prop up their sense of identity.

Pro-tip: If your sense of identity revolves around you being a "gamer" to the point that you try to exclude others, you really need to seek professional help. It's not healthy. (generic you)

Then how do you justify your fellow allies gatekeeping a game to the point all discussion of it is banned huh? Glass houses and stones right here.

http://archive.is/NB3gJ#selection-6533.91-6533.161

Say what you want about the average gamer on reddit and /v/'s hostility toward certain games but we have never stooped to the level where we would actively ban discussion on certain games just because the mods and the hivemind don't like it.

See, I don't know if you are purposely misrepresenting things, or you simply can't comprehend the difference between the two. One is banning discussion of a game on a single privately owned discussion board. The other is literally telling others that they don't belong as part of a hobby. Mr Apple, meet Mr Orange.

Again, if one's sense of identity is defined by being a "gamer,"[footnote]There's probably some kind of exemption here if one uses gaming to make their living.[/footnote] they need to seek professional psychiatric help for their own good.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

There is what the greek chorus is for, I mean sure you can a game that sells thanks to critics shilling about how provoking the story is or how it how it tackles certain themes too uncomfortable for the average pleb. But the average gamer who uses steam or metacritic is a creature of comfort. So long you give them their tits, bloodshed and try not too hard to make them scream in rage as you kill the likable character they are content. Thats why you see them huddle around companies like Tamsoft and Neptunia, because it provides a sense of escapism western gaming has been distancing themselves from on average.

...and I thought I had a low opinion of the average gamer.

The critic is the opposite, they want Oscar bait for games, see Bioshock infinite, see Last of Us, see Gone Home, see Telltale Games' tv to game adventure adaptations. They actively shun anything that is delivers an escapism to the gamer and work actively towards dictating what scores well and what doesn't and what isn't scored at all after being pissed off too many times.

Usually, "Oscar Bait" doesn't outsell "Escapist" media by an order of magnitude. Bioshock: Infinate hit 11 million sales a couple years ago, and the entire Senran Kagura series as sold a combined 1.65 million as of August. The Last of Us was the third best selling game on the PS3.

Hell, Gone Home has sold 200,000 copies[footnote]and is owned ~750.000 times[/footnote] on Steam, which is comparable to the number of copies of Hyperdimension Neptunia U and Shinovi Versus owned on Steam combined.

If the average gamer were flocking to it, it wouldn't be niche.

EDIT: Or to put it another way:

Spoiler: These are the top selling games of 2016, in order. This is what average gamers flock to. And that's not counting Minecraft

Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare (PC, PS4, Xbox One)
Battlefield 1 (PC, PS4, Xbox One)
The Division (PC, PS4, Xbox One)
NBA 2K17 (PC, PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, Xbox One)
Madden NFL 17 (PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, Xbox One)
Grand Theft Auto 5 (PC, PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, Xbox One)
Overwatch (PC, PS4, Xbox One)
Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 (PC, PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, Xbox One)
FIFA 17 (PC, PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, Xbox One)
Final Fantasy 15 (PS4, Xbox One)

And considering critics are supposedly shunning games like Senran Kagura, I'd expect scores far lower than 65-75/100. I mean, I like Estival Versus, massive tonal whiplash aside, but it's not an 8/10 game. It's a less mechanically rigorous, less expansive Dynastly Warriors with a novel hook and the simple fact that I'm not playing though the 3 Kingdoms or Sengoku periods again.