gam·er (from Merriam Webster's dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamer)
noun \'ga-m?r\
Definition of GAMER
1: a player who is game; especially : an athlete who relishes competition (not relevant to this topic)
2: a person who plays games; especially : a person who regularly plays computer or video games (relevant to this topic)
3, unlisted: A term I no longer really use, in large part because of how loaded it is, as if there's anything more to it than the fact that some people like to put a controller or keyboard and mouse in their hands every so often and use them to make 2d or 3d images move around. (central to this topic)
Gaming is something I enjoy. A lot. I've enjoyed it since the 90s, I have two consoles right now and I've been known to hit Steam up every time they have a sale. I post on a website largely about games and read several others. I'm interested in games of all types on nearly all platforms. By and large they tend to be entertaining to me and useful to kill time or to shoot the breeze with others who like to play whatever game I'm playing. That's all there is to it for me. I didn't sign a contract or swear an oath of loyalty to 'the community' the first time I picked up a controller, or even the 5000th.
While I wrote an earlier, much shorter article six months ago linking two people I have almost no respect for in the industry and an interview between them, if that happened today I don't think I'd have bothered. I think one of them is a joker who runs a boring, pointless awards show/promotional jag where nearly all of the categories each year are foregone conclusions, and the other is an idiot who runs what I see as a bottom-of-the-barrel web show whose primary purpose is to mug for the camera and get by on artificial anger, his self-proclaimed 'hero of the people' status and his own planet sized ego. Stupid as they both are, why should either of them be worth any more emotional investment than what people would already freely give? It's understandable, but I don't see why it would be a requirement. Is it not enough not to watch the VGAs? Is it not enough for an individual to think critically about what games are worth their time rather than have it dictated to them either by the industry or some self-proclaimed 'representative of the true gamer'?
According to most believers in the designation being talked about, there is a list of things that a 'real gamer' must do to qualify as such. If you were to press twenty people for information, chances are you would very likely get twenty distinct, equally irrelevant answers. My goal here is to talk about some particularly common myths.
1. The myth of platform/company loyalty and the reality of smart consumership
There's no need to care about console wars or 'PC vs console' dick-waving contests or brand loyalty or enmity beyond whether or not what a company is doing is affecting the quality of their games or their system. Gaming corporations aren't your friend or your enemy. They have a product. The consumer considers buying it if they want it just like any other product of interest. Company X may have made a ton of games that a person liked and bought but they don't have to feel especially -grateful- about it. They don't owe anything to them beyond whatever money they pay for whatever game they want to buy -after deciding to do so-. Sony have recently shown they don't know how to keep their system safe from threats and don't really care, so that's a pretty good reason to kill one's interest in buying one of their systems and solidifies them as not really being good to their customers. However, they aren't 'the enemy'. They're just largely incompetent, like a guy that manufactures a door with a busted lock. Buying the door wouldn't be a good idea and it'd probably be worth advising others to avoid their products and why they need to be avoided, but are Crappy Doors Inc really worth any grudge. Being angry is more than understandable when you've been swindled in any way, but one's withheld business from a crappy company and cautionary advice to others about why they're crappy is more effective than a novel's worth of curse words and insults, justified or otherwise. I'm not saying you can't do both, but the former is what matters in the end.
2. The myth of gaming orthodoxy and the reality of critical thinking
There's no need to worry about a canonical list of games one must enjoy or not enjoy except the list -that each person makes-, based on what they know about whatever game, its price, whether they feel it's worth their time and money, and most of all -whether it's fun.- For everyone who would think I'm an idiot just because I bought and enjoyed Blue Dragon or a friend of mine is a moron solely because he bought and enjoyed Duke Nukem Forever or Infinite Space or Final Fantasy XIII or Call of Duty, there are a ton of others who'd say that about -any game- you could name, or dumber still, that someone's a fool for -not- buying any particular game. Letting shame from others dictate one's personal purchases or non-purchases is ridiculous. Disgust about a game needs to come from each person individually based on an understanding of the game, not from other peoples' guilt. People in this hobby need to use their own brains, figure out for themselves what makes a game interesting or boring to them at a subjective level and what makes a game better or worse on an objective level and act on that. Buying a specific game doesn't make one 'stupid'. A foolish gaming purchase would more likely be one made solely due to things that have nothing to do with what makes a game fun to play, brand loyalty, taking one person's or even several people's reviews as gospel, or 'just because you can'. It doesn't make them bad or stupid PEOPLE per se and it -certainly- doesn't disqualify them from the hobby. What it does is represent an unwise decision as a consumer, and the need to become more informed as one. Critical thinking about this, just like any other non-essential product, can only benefit players (especially as consumers).
3. The myth of gamer purity and the reality of the modern gaming audience
Why worry about what a 'real gamer' is and whether or not you are one? You can re-read that definition at the start of this article if you want, however many times you want. According to it and nearly every objective definition of the word, if playing video games is something you do, you would certainly qualify as a 'gamer' whether or not you have any emotional attachment to the label whatsoever. Lord knows I certainly don't use it for myself even though I qualify for it. My uncle who plays Call of Duty: The Same Game With A New Setting This Year would be a 'gamer'. I'd say that he'd do well to at least look into other games and genres and see what else could interest him, but that's the case. People who just get a Wii for Wii sports and play that regularly would qualify. Why not? Furthermore, if someone says you aren't a 'real gamer', why should that bother you? Whether or not you consider yourself a 'gamer' is up to you. 'Not being one' in someone's eyes is nothing to be ashamed of and being one isn't a source of special pride. Anyone who would try to demand pride or shame of either is being pretty stupid about it, if you ask me. Don't waste energy worrying about gamer identity. Play what you honestly see as good (hell, you don't HAVE to play anything), use your own mind about it and leave it at that. Don't feel obligated to stay in the hobby if you don't want to. It's entertainment. There's no shame or pride in being part of it.
4. The myth of gaming importance and the reality of human nature
Why worry about how certain things affect the hobby's status or how people outside the industry see it? Gaming wasn't any worse when it was niche and more widely misunderstood, and it's still fun now that more people are interested in it. I mean it would be -nice- if more people got interested in the hobby or saw good things in it, but the world is no worse off if they don't. People are, by and large, going to go after the hobbies they find interesting and as long as those hobbies aren't demonstrably harmful to society or to physical/mental health, why is this a problem? At the same time, people are going to dismiss whatever hobbies they think are stupid independent of what people in those hobbies say they should feel about them. Again, why is this a problem? Is it necessary to take things one doesn't like in the industry and the hobby as though they were personal betrayals, and or to take gaming to heart as though it was essential to your identity? I'm not specifically saying 'don't take gaming seriously/passionately'. While I see why others have a strong passion for gaming and I can't take that away from people, I don't know why on earth anyone feels they should try and force any of it onto themselves (or worse, others) that they don't already have of their own free will. You are not psychically linked to the hobby. Ask yourself this question: If it dies out or your interest in the hobby fades, will you be any less of a person than you were when you started getting interested in it?
5. The myth of community loyalty and the reality of individual interest.
Why should you owe any allegiance to 'the community' that you don't either owe to the human community at large or choose to give? Like I said, this is entertainment, not a responsibility. Ideally, one's interest in the community needs to be based it giving him or her reasons to stay interested, not demands. A decrease in this interest doesn't necessarily represent a betrayal. Often enough it's just a shift from a positive stance on it more toward a neutral, indifferent one. You don't have to feel guilty if you make that shift or even a negative one.
Hell, even writing this article might have been worrying a bit too much about it, so I'll stop.
noun \'ga-m?r\
Definition of GAMER
1: a player who is game; especially : an athlete who relishes competition (not relevant to this topic)
2: a person who plays games; especially : a person who regularly plays computer or video games (relevant to this topic)
3, unlisted: A term I no longer really use, in large part because of how loaded it is, as if there's anything more to it than the fact that some people like to put a controller or keyboard and mouse in their hands every so often and use them to make 2d or 3d images move around. (central to this topic)
Gaming is something I enjoy. A lot. I've enjoyed it since the 90s, I have two consoles right now and I've been known to hit Steam up every time they have a sale. I post on a website largely about games and read several others. I'm interested in games of all types on nearly all platforms. By and large they tend to be entertaining to me and useful to kill time or to shoot the breeze with others who like to play whatever game I'm playing. That's all there is to it for me. I didn't sign a contract or swear an oath of loyalty to 'the community' the first time I picked up a controller, or even the 5000th.
While I wrote an earlier, much shorter article six months ago linking two people I have almost no respect for in the industry and an interview between them, if that happened today I don't think I'd have bothered. I think one of them is a joker who runs a boring, pointless awards show/promotional jag where nearly all of the categories each year are foregone conclusions, and the other is an idiot who runs what I see as a bottom-of-the-barrel web show whose primary purpose is to mug for the camera and get by on artificial anger, his self-proclaimed 'hero of the people' status and his own planet sized ego. Stupid as they both are, why should either of them be worth any more emotional investment than what people would already freely give? It's understandable, but I don't see why it would be a requirement. Is it not enough not to watch the VGAs? Is it not enough for an individual to think critically about what games are worth their time rather than have it dictated to them either by the industry or some self-proclaimed 'representative of the true gamer'?
According to most believers in the designation being talked about, there is a list of things that a 'real gamer' must do to qualify as such. If you were to press twenty people for information, chances are you would very likely get twenty distinct, equally irrelevant answers. My goal here is to talk about some particularly common myths.
1. The myth of platform/company loyalty and the reality of smart consumership
There's no need to care about console wars or 'PC vs console' dick-waving contests or brand loyalty or enmity beyond whether or not what a company is doing is affecting the quality of their games or their system. Gaming corporations aren't your friend or your enemy. They have a product. The consumer considers buying it if they want it just like any other product of interest. Company X may have made a ton of games that a person liked and bought but they don't have to feel especially -grateful- about it. They don't owe anything to them beyond whatever money they pay for whatever game they want to buy -after deciding to do so-. Sony have recently shown they don't know how to keep their system safe from threats and don't really care, so that's a pretty good reason to kill one's interest in buying one of their systems and solidifies them as not really being good to their customers. However, they aren't 'the enemy'. They're just largely incompetent, like a guy that manufactures a door with a busted lock. Buying the door wouldn't be a good idea and it'd probably be worth advising others to avoid their products and why they need to be avoided, but are Crappy Doors Inc really worth any grudge. Being angry is more than understandable when you've been swindled in any way, but one's withheld business from a crappy company and cautionary advice to others about why they're crappy is more effective than a novel's worth of curse words and insults, justified or otherwise. I'm not saying you can't do both, but the former is what matters in the end.
2. The myth of gaming orthodoxy and the reality of critical thinking
There's no need to worry about a canonical list of games one must enjoy or not enjoy except the list -that each person makes-, based on what they know about whatever game, its price, whether they feel it's worth their time and money, and most of all -whether it's fun.- For everyone who would think I'm an idiot just because I bought and enjoyed Blue Dragon or a friend of mine is a moron solely because he bought and enjoyed Duke Nukem Forever or Infinite Space or Final Fantasy XIII or Call of Duty, there are a ton of others who'd say that about -any game- you could name, or dumber still, that someone's a fool for -not- buying any particular game. Letting shame from others dictate one's personal purchases or non-purchases is ridiculous. Disgust about a game needs to come from each person individually based on an understanding of the game, not from other peoples' guilt. People in this hobby need to use their own brains, figure out for themselves what makes a game interesting or boring to them at a subjective level and what makes a game better or worse on an objective level and act on that. Buying a specific game doesn't make one 'stupid'. A foolish gaming purchase would more likely be one made solely due to things that have nothing to do with what makes a game fun to play, brand loyalty, taking one person's or even several people's reviews as gospel, or 'just because you can'. It doesn't make them bad or stupid PEOPLE per se and it -certainly- doesn't disqualify them from the hobby. What it does is represent an unwise decision as a consumer, and the need to become more informed as one. Critical thinking about this, just like any other non-essential product, can only benefit players (especially as consumers).
3. The myth of gamer purity and the reality of the modern gaming audience
Why worry about what a 'real gamer' is and whether or not you are one? You can re-read that definition at the start of this article if you want, however many times you want. According to it and nearly every objective definition of the word, if playing video games is something you do, you would certainly qualify as a 'gamer' whether or not you have any emotional attachment to the label whatsoever. Lord knows I certainly don't use it for myself even though I qualify for it. My uncle who plays Call of Duty: The Same Game With A New Setting This Year would be a 'gamer'. I'd say that he'd do well to at least look into other games and genres and see what else could interest him, but that's the case. People who just get a Wii for Wii sports and play that regularly would qualify. Why not? Furthermore, if someone says you aren't a 'real gamer', why should that bother you? Whether or not you consider yourself a 'gamer' is up to you. 'Not being one' in someone's eyes is nothing to be ashamed of and being one isn't a source of special pride. Anyone who would try to demand pride or shame of either is being pretty stupid about it, if you ask me. Don't waste energy worrying about gamer identity. Play what you honestly see as good (hell, you don't HAVE to play anything), use your own mind about it and leave it at that. Don't feel obligated to stay in the hobby if you don't want to. It's entertainment. There's no shame or pride in being part of it.
4. The myth of gaming importance and the reality of human nature
Why worry about how certain things affect the hobby's status or how people outside the industry see it? Gaming wasn't any worse when it was niche and more widely misunderstood, and it's still fun now that more people are interested in it. I mean it would be -nice- if more people got interested in the hobby or saw good things in it, but the world is no worse off if they don't. People are, by and large, going to go after the hobbies they find interesting and as long as those hobbies aren't demonstrably harmful to society or to physical/mental health, why is this a problem? At the same time, people are going to dismiss whatever hobbies they think are stupid independent of what people in those hobbies say they should feel about them. Again, why is this a problem? Is it necessary to take things one doesn't like in the industry and the hobby as though they were personal betrayals, and or to take gaming to heart as though it was essential to your identity? I'm not specifically saying 'don't take gaming seriously/passionately'. While I see why others have a strong passion for gaming and I can't take that away from people, I don't know why on earth anyone feels they should try and force any of it onto themselves (or worse, others) that they don't already have of their own free will. You are not psychically linked to the hobby. Ask yourself this question: If it dies out or your interest in the hobby fades, will you be any less of a person than you were when you started getting interested in it?
5. The myth of community loyalty and the reality of individual interest.
Why should you owe any allegiance to 'the community' that you don't either owe to the human community at large or choose to give? Like I said, this is entertainment, not a responsibility. Ideally, one's interest in the community needs to be based it giving him or her reasons to stay interested, not demands. A decrease in this interest doesn't necessarily represent a betrayal. Often enough it's just a shift from a positive stance on it more toward a neutral, indifferent one. You don't have to feel guilty if you make that shift or even a negative one.
Hell, even writing this article might have been worrying a bit too much about it, so I'll stop.