DELETED

[purplemonkey555]

I don't see a problem with it. I refer to myself as a gamer all the time, "labels" and "connotations" be dammed. I play video games very often, I'm a gamer. Anybody that sees a problem with me because of that, well, I've got a few terms for them with way more negative connotations.

 

[JazzJack2]

Gamers have never embraced the cultural reality of gaming, which has left them stunted in their self-perception and unable to defend themselves against criticism. Almost all of the interesting work on the reality of gaming is coming from outside gaming, such as by comedians http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5O9x7aL7QE, while gamers are left to ignore reality as much as possible.

Gamers have no problem critiquing *games*, but when it comes to analyzing gaming itself they are effectively silent.

I don't know what this mythical 'cultural reality' is that we are all apparently ignoring and unaware of, perhaps you could spell it out? What I do know though is that if you think analysis of gaming culture by people within said culture is lacking you are clearly aren't looking hard enough or in the right places.

 

[Abomination]

I'm becoming less and less happy with the word primarily due to more people, especially those involved in gaming, now trying to refer to "gamers" as a whole. Saying it's "gamers" fault that such and such group that contains gamers are dicks, ect ect. It's annoying to have people try and guilt trip such a large diverse group just because some people are dicks when every large group contains some dicks.

Thanks, couldn't quite explain the feeling I had about being called a gamer. Or rather I couldn't put the negative connotation into words. If someone's going to accuse a group of behaving in a certain way and there's no way to disprove them I won't call myself a member of that group.

Besides, it's just a name. But the association is what is important.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

To me the word "gamer" is synonymous with "spoiled brat" so I refuse to describe myself as such.

 

[maxben]

2. It is a self-identified label, and we shouldn't be allowed to label ourselves (for whatever reason).

I'm not quite sure I understand what this statement is supposed to mean

Personally I don't like putting labels on myself, and there are others who are uncomfortable with it too. It is an expansion of what they say in Fight Club, you are not your job. You are also not your hobby. If someone asks what you are and you say "gamer", just like saying "electrician", its just ridiculous. I am me, and my hobbies don't define me. I like video games, I am not a "gamer". Gamer assumes some kind of identity by virtue of liking video games.

Now, one can say that what separates a gamer from someone who merely likes games is a stronger understanding of the history and minutia of video games. Hence we have words like cinephile/movie buff for those who are more than people who enjoy movies and immerse themselves in movie culture and trivia. So someone like this may agree with said label for that reason. I personally don't as I just love history and random trivia. I can talk about the development of emo music for hours, but I generally dislike music let alone emo music.

 

[DementedSheep]

I don't feel anything about it really. It just means "someone who has video games as one of their main hobbies" to me. That's it. Calling yourself a gamer isn't putting yourself in box or saying you're only a gamer. I wouldn't put it on a t-shirt or introduce myself as a gamer but I don't really have an issue being called one (cause I am).

I would likely feel different if gamer was used as insult or carried a lot of negative connotations where I live which it doesn't as far as I know. Although I tend to be a weirdly shy about stuff I like (I don't know why. I'm not even comfortable telling people what books or music I like and only really talk about anything I like if someone else has already bought it up. I probably come across as the most boring person in the world) so it is possible I just don't notice cause I hardly ever talk about games to people who aren't close friends or on a gaming forum.

Edit: although the term "gamer girl" dose have negative connotations since it's usually used to mean "fake, attention whore who only pretends to like games or sucks at them".

 

[Nazulu]

It doesn't offend me, and everyone I know doesn't use it in a negative way, but it just 'sounds' like a stupid word (gaimurr). I don't like to use it in my vocabulary.

 

[Lyri]

Ugh, no.

I'm not a gamer, I play a lot of games but am I a gamer? no, that isn't all that I am or do and not something I would use to define myself in anyway.
If I was a professional at it then sure, but as for something I do in my leisure time then no.

 

[Realitycrash]

If we by 'gamer' mean 'Someone who plays videogames' and NOTHING ELSE, with no requirements on how much the play, or what kind of games, or if they are 'hardcore' or not, then sure, I am all for it.
Otherwise I dislike the term. It carries negative connotations of elitism in my mind, especially when it comes to the 'You aren't a true gamer because you don't play X' kind.

 

[Abomination]

It doesn't offend me, and everyone I know doesn't use it in a negative way, but it just 'sounds' like a stupid word (gaimurr). I don't like to use it in my vocabulary.

I am not a homosexual elf, thank you.

 

[Sarge034]

One of my friends, who plays video games on a regular basis, said that he doesn't like using the term gamer to describe himself because of the "negative connotations" that it carries and because he doesn't like "putting labels" on himself.

Not trying to sound like an ass, but your friend sounds a little hipster. I see the title "gamer" simply describing that a person plays games. Much like how "runner" describes people who run, "surfers" surf, ect, ect. The word itself has little meaning other than as a descriptor. How the descriptor is used is another issue entirely. If the connotation is dismissive as in, "Don't worry about him/her/them, he/she/they is/are just (a) gamer(s)." Then yea I take issue with the usage, not the meaning. Cus hey, I do play me some games...

 

[Astoria]

I don't mind being called a gamer. Here where I live it's a negative thing if you're a teenager because people think it means you spend all day on COD abusing people but if you're a bit older like I am people just think it means you play games a lot. I don't like being called a girl gamer because of all the fakes out there so I think it means they assume I just play Candy Crush.

 

[joshuaayt]

I use it. My sister's a bookworm, I'm a gamer- It's just what we do. It's more than just "This is a hobby", it's the blanket under which all our hobbies lie. Nothing wrong with assigning a label to something that important.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I don't really use it. There's no Spanish for "gamer". Or rather, there is ("jugador"), but that's mostly associated with actual sports and not games. So instead most people around here borrow the word "gamer" to identify people who play videogames. But by borrowing a word in a foreign language, it carries all the connotations in that language - mostly negative ones.

 

[TheMann]

I don't mind being called a gamer. In fact I refer to myself as such when asked if I play a lot of video games. It's no different than calling someone a bookworm if they are heavily into literature, calling someone a gearhead if they're into cars, or calling someone a metalhead if they love to freakin' rock.

I don't see anything derogatory about the term "gamer", it denotes a person's hobby or enthusiasm for a type of entertainment. I thnk people who really get their panties in a twist over that term really need to get over it.

 

[deleted139124]

DELETED

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I don't mind being called a gamer, but when being one suddenly makes me a member of the "gamer community", which I neither asked to join nor want to join, then the term does bug me.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

Eh, I know a lot of people that don't view the term "gamer" as a type of insult. I guess that it could be used by one, but the general gaming community in general has embraced the term as a sense of identity.

 

[Ender910_v1legacy]

I think the term is used far too broadly, and I don't mean that in an elitist sort of way. What I mean is that there are honestly a lot of different kinds of gamers. Gamers who may prefer certain kinds of games, certain devices, or may have a certain kind of playstyle. Simply calling anyone who plays games a "gamer" takes away from some of what makes us unique in our love for games, and homogenizes us into a very broadly defined cultural group, yet sticks us all with stereotypes that probably don't really fit. Which is especially bothersome the label and the stereotypes associated with gaming are used by the general media.

Not sure if I really worded that properly, but I think you get the general idea.

 

[briankoontz]

Gamers have never embraced the cultural reality of gaming, which has left them stunted in their self-perception and unable to defend themselves against criticism. Almost all of the interesting work on the reality of gaming is coming from outside gaming, such as by comedians http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5O9x7aL7QE, while gamers are left to ignore reality as much as possible.

Gamers have no problem critiquing *games*, but when it comes to analyzing gaming itself they are effectively silent.

I don't know what this mythical 'cultural reality' is that we are all apparently ignoring and unaware of, perhaps you could spell it out? What I do know though is that if you think analysis of gaming culture by people within said culture is lacking you are clearly aren't looking hard enough or in the right places.

I've frequented two messageboards - Quarter to Three and The Escapist and there's minimal analysis of gaming itself in either place - though plenty of analysis of games. Some very good novels have been written, including Masters of Doom, Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution, and Jacked: The Grand Theft Auto Story but they cover only a small part of gaming.

Extra Credits is good but mainly focuses on games, not gaming. Gamasutra can be good but is focused on profit-making in gaming.

Gaming has a long history of a lack of self-examination, which it makes worse by focusing on the worst possible external critiques. We all remember the "Dungeons and Dragons as Satanic" craze of the 1980s, and the reason we remember it is that gamers themselves want to trivialize and demonize all dissent, so they highlight and focus on the stupidest critique possible. The exact same thing happened in the 2000s with Jack Thompson. So gamers clearly learned absolutely nothing over those two decades and there's no reason to believe they've learned since.

A confident person highlights the BEST criticism of him, in order to improve himself and to show his own faults. A terrible person highlights the WORST criticism of him, because he's too scared to face the reality of who he is. This began at the very dawn of modern gaming, with nerds demonizing their enemies the jocks for being "mindless brutes", who obviously aren't intellectually capable of criticizing the "more highly evolved" nerd. The "nerds" therefore established a clubhouse for members only (the D&D roundtable populated by daring rogues and noble knights) with everyone else looked down on for being "normal" by which the nerds meant "stupid and useless".

"Cultural reality" means the basic reason why something exists and all related issues. It examines the value that gaming has for us, and the aspects of gaming that devalue us. For example, what psychological effect does the reload function have in gaming, as opposed to a game designed to enforce consequences for in-game actions?

Games are generally not designed to benefit people, they are designed to make money. "Cultural reality" also examines the reasons why gamers play games. Are they trying to benefit themselves, or are they trying to be addicted?

What are games? Are games toys, drugs, art, and/or something else? What *should* games be, and why?

What is the significance of the plasticity of games, that games are so malleable, much more so than any other art form?