Don't Use the Word "Gamer"

[Ipsen]

My turn to be the opinionated ass.

Yes, it is going too far to disagree with his world view and how he sees himself (unless you just state your disagreement honestly and simply). Since you need clarification on what youre attacking him on, you're attacking his personality, as far as I can see. His views were not touched upon much/understood well enough.

 

[gilgamesh32]

But only gamers care about whether they are called gamers...

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

*ponders the matter*

I wish you the very best of luck in your campaign, however, I am inclined to believe that it is a matter of great futility. To attempt and deny groups of people the basic heuristic tools necessary to strengthen, 'in group/out group,' mentalities, is to deny them something inherently human. I can argue that this is both a good and very bad thing, but it seems somewhat moot, as I consider some human behaviors to be quite immutable, this one included.

Oh, and I have seen attempts at this in the past fail, if I may provide context for my skepticism. Instances in which an organization, field of science, or general population group change their name in an attempt to break the associations involved, it appears inherently pompous, insecure, and unnecessary.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

I can see what Yahtzee's trying to do here, but the use of the word gamer isn't a problem and despite what he says, Ben Croshaw is a gamer and when you:

-Make your living from video games.
-Play a new video game, every week.
-Open a bar, that's inspired by video games.
-Wrote a book, inspired by a video game.
-Made a TV pilot, that was a video game show.
-Occasionally appears on a podcast about video games.
-Was a keynote speaker at a conference about video games.

Then you are more than a guy who plays video games, don't try to separate yourself from the nerd in the basement because you two most likely have the same amount passion. Don't try to deny it, be proud of it, besides there wasn't a secret meeting that decided that we're all gamers.

I know he won't read this but it had to be said.

But the problem is that 'gamer' is a nice parasol that the losers can crawl under and hide from the harsh rays of reality. If there was a separate phrase for 'people who play games' and 'losers who play games to hide from a reality they don't understand' then I'd be happy to be a gamer.

The problem with websites like this is that they give people in a self-destructive lifestyle some form of validation. "I hate the outside world, but so do these people so that's ok." If we're going to try and insist that gamer doesn't mean loser we need to be frank with ourselves and realise that in a lot of cases yes it does. I really like playing games, by any reasonable criteria I'm an enthusiast, but compared to some people on here I'm as casual as my grandmother.

And she's dead.

You can see it on here, people play games to escape life and we need to stop encouraging it because it's not the image we want. Either we need to accept that gamer will always mean loser or we need to evict the losers.

I respectfully disagree.

Every group has an inherent level of variance, ranging from the exemplars to the dregs. How the group reconciles its members is an important mark of that group's skill as gathered social entities, and that group's ability to be an effective community.

 

[DanP]

Sorry i know i should write this on the "specially designated forum" which doesn't exsist (at least the link is broken) and you likely don't care but for the ZP viewers choice awards who the hell picked the "top 64" videos?? i don't see either the Tomb Raider or Uncharted on there which were by far the best i've seen, i mean not even the Breautal (i can't be bothered to find the umlaut) Legend video is on there. VC Fail!!

 

[Fensfield]

*sighs* I wrote this long and eloquent post about how I agreed in most part but refused to accept that the playing of, experiencing, and discussion of games is not important. Then my damn internet went through one of its spats and lost all three paragraphs.

Well, whatever, yes, the gamer stereotype needs to end. But I will never accept that the playing of games and the discussion of those experiences and our feelings about them is not important. No, it's no more important than a single person reading a book, or watching a film, or looking at a painting, and then talking about it with other people, but those things change us in some small way, and change the people around us.

Yes, it's something very small, but these clusters of tiny changes are how cultures shift over time. As such, to claim they have zero importance is complete rubbish. No, it isn't anything to scream from the rooftops, but similarly, to completely dismiss the experiencing of games, and discussion thereof, as completely without import is just complete rubbish.

Now I'm not saying every game is a masterwork we need to discuss and write essays about - some are the equivalent of B-Movies and children's crayon scrawling (though these in their own way have elements can be learned from). But then, others..

 

[YourCriticism]

I agree with the entire article, bar the part when he said something like "And maybe stay in and play Modern Warfare. I am normal."

 

[Pivo]

i love mc chris

 

[Sjakie]

I dont agree. I simply would disagree also because it's a poor rant, but let me offer something more substantial.
You want 'us gamers', to change our language because apparantly the public has issues with forming a welinformed opinion. Instead you want them to hang on to their snap-judgement based opinion and reform 'us' while 'they' lack the correct decission making brain to overcome the stereotyping they are guilty of.
Ofcourse there is more to a gamer then just the tag and the stereotype. But not being able to call yourself a gamer is like saying that parents should not call themself mom and dad: because there is more to a person then a tag. As for the attention whoring 'gurlll-gamerzz', well, you also have good and bad parents and it's the same with gamers!
You offer the substitute of 'people who also play videogames'...are you serious? Just the idea rieks of polical-correct-language-abuse that politicians (ofcourse) use.
Which makes me wonder if that Aussie brain of yours is getting infected by it's goverments censorship in a subtile way, hmmm?
Leave the term as it is, with all the stereotypes that come with it, the general public will catch up eventually because: we, the public, are gamers!

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

I respectfully disagree.

Every group has an inherent level of variance, ranging from the exemplars to the dregs. How the group reconciles its members is an important mark of that group's skill as gathered social entities, and that group's ability to be an effective community.

But is it worth reinforcing negative lifestyles in order to bulk out our group? Frankly we can't argue that gamers aren't losers if they are can we? Anyone'll see through that in a minute!

Gamers differ from other groups of 'geek culture' enthusiasts in that our hobby requires no skills really, nerds are socially inept but frequently have a useful specialisation whereas we as a group have nothing useful. We can either fight a losing battle for acceptance or we can admit that some behaviour shouldn't be accepted without question and that some people really do use gaming as a crutch.

Frankly I don't identify as a gamer because it suggests that I view gaming as the most important thing in my life and that I feel some fraternity with other gamers. I do neither, I have the definition of gamer (loser) forced on me when I am a person that really likes games.

Secondly are gamers really a viable community? Can gamers really operate as a complete community when so many are rejects from other communities? A few are kicked into the pile by choice but some are dysfunctional and harmful to a group. The misanthropes, the obsessives, those with no people skills and those who live in deep depression. Should we really encourage the perception that these people don't have problems? That it's the world that needs to change to accommodate people who plain can't function in healthy society? Think of it like those repellent sites for anorexics offering tips and validation, do we really want to trick losers into thinking they don't need to change?

I do not see it as a matter of, "bulking," our group. Gamers have no overarching agenda, besides the enjoyment they get from their recreationalization so numbers have no real meaning. That aside, I am missing your definition of loser, perhaps you could reiterate it for me? You mentioned behaviors that should not be accepted without question: what are those behaviors, and how do you propose we cull those individuals from our ranks?

I would agree, in part, to your assessment that many Geeks/Nerds have valuable skill sets. However, there are many forms of recreation that have their own "Nerd," following. To make any overarching statements about the entire gamer community, or those outside of it would be inexorably difficult.

I would end by saying, Yes, Gaming IS a viable community. This website is a testament to that fact. However, it appears, increasingly, that you and I may not be coming to a common ground on the matter, and that is fine. I would like to thank you for your calm commentary in this discussion, and for keeping your comments on topic.

 

[heyheysg]

First time poster on Yatzhee's forum.

He's 27? Seriously?

How cynical can someone get at 27?

 

[Socken]

I think it's wonderful how despite the notion in the article, the comments here really do prove his point.