I respectfully disagree.Generic Gamer 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.Gsmoove said: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.
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 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?Generic Gamer said: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!dietpeachsnapple said: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.
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 would contend that that you are referring to is not indicative of gaming but of general internet interaction. While the things you are seeing/hearing are detestable, understand that the liberating nature of anonymity allows for it to be so.Generic Gamer said:I don't propose that we 'cull' members but I do think we need to stop permitting behaviour like rampant sadism, snap judgements on two sided articles and the enshrinement of gaming as an intrinsically positive thing, frankly I've blanched at the amount of time I've wasted gaming on occasion. If we're going to be a rounded community we need to stop positively reinforcing antisocial behaviour. If you read most of the news articles on here you'll see quite a few users who are not team players to be mild about it. I define a loser as someone who opts out of society and thinks that it's a valid standpoint to only want to play games to the exclusion of everything else. I think it's wrong to let them think that that's OK because it's plain not, it's not healthy for the person, useful for society or even sustainable.dietpeachsnapple said: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?
Look at hate mail to people, people proclaiming that they'd love to torture other people, people wanting revenge for things that happened years ago and other such aberrant behaviours. As a group we should be discouraging behaviour that will hurt the group but we don't. We as a group have a warped set of values.