Gamer identity: what is a "gamer"?

pyramid head grape

[Game-Over]
Feb 4, 2011
21,907
0
0
I personally think a gamer is one that "games" to an unhealthy decree! I myself game hours at a time.
Unhealthy as it is I can't seem to stop! I just love the friendly banter! ^_^
 

DarthSka

New member
Mar 28, 2011
325
0
0
I'd say it's someone for who video games are a regular hobby. I consider it the equivalent of book worms, cinephiles, gearheads, and the like.
 

Superlative

New member
May 14, 2012
265
0
0
Stephen St. said:
madwarper said:
It's time to go over some ABC's.

What is an actor? Someone that acts.
What is a baker? Someone that bakes.
What is a choreographer? Someone that choreographs.
What is a dancer? Someone that dances.
What is an editor? Someone that edits.
What is a fisher? Someone that fishes.
So, now you want to know "What is a gamer?" Anyone with a lick of sense and pattern detection will be able to tell you, Some that games.
But these are all descriptions. I was wondering about "gamer" as an identity, something you identify with. Not something other people use to describe you, but something you consider an important part of who you are.

All these "gamers are dead" articles certainly didn't use the term as merely descriptive of what a person does with their free time. There was someone else in those, and I wonder what it is. I also wonder how this identity reconciles all the bad sides of gaming, namely what a massive time-sink it can be.
I think you are putting too much import on what is really a tiny sliver of what a person is. the term Gamer isn't a big massive deal because its a small piece of a person's identity. I play games, I love games, I am a gamer. I have done Nuzlocke runs, beaten Suikoden II, and even messed around on DDR. That being said, I am also a poet, bookworm, metalhead, foodie, and occasional musician.

A gamer is a person who plays games and considers themselves a gamer.

Seriously y'all, its not a big deal.
 

ron1n

New member
Jan 28, 2013
401
0
0
StriderShinryu said:
Enthusiast as in level of interest, not as in level of knowledge or education. It's really not that complicated.
Ok then. What is the 'level of interest' required to be considered an enthusiast gamer? One mans enthusiast is another mans casual.


I'm not saying you can't use these words and terms, they are shortcuts. Just pointing out that when you analyse these words, they don't have any solid meaning. Not to mention the word 'Gamer' is more often than not, used as a buzzword to promote outrage or paint a vast and varying number of people (in a negative light as of late).
 

Aurion

New member
Dec 21, 2012
79
0
0
Stephen St. said:
Aurion said:
Nope. The perception/"identity" that goes along with being called a "gamer" that you mention is externally imposed.

I really don't care very much what someone thinks of me characterizing myself as a gamer (I enjoy video games, sue me), as cold as that may sound. If they want to stereotype me, that's their problem.
Well, it might have been externally imposed for the longest time, but hasn't that changed recently? Many people seem to want to take this identity and turn it into something positive for themselves.
And to that I shrug.

When I started gaming, "gamer" was generally a pejorative term that to most people implied you were a socially inept loser among other things. Since games have gone mainstream people have tried to start categorizing people into "core/hardcore", "casual", "games enthusiast", etc... or indulged in good old get-off-my-lawn style crap. But my perception's probably always going to be colored by that initial influence; I decided a long time ago to not give a flying fuck if someone thinks less of me for enjoying games and being willing to talk about them.

There are still more than a few people who do use the term as a pejorative- i.e. some of the more noxious anti-gamergate types have come out with views along those lines; noxious pro-types are more likely to use a no true scotsman argument.

I mean, if you say something fucking cuckoo like I'm a misogynist for being a gamer, then we might have a bit of a problem. So far, the only people saying things like that are people whose opinions I already had excellent reason to ignore.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
DizzyChuggernaut said:
I know that they ARE strawmen. Strawmen constructed by both sides of the dichotomic gamers vs journalists "controversy" that has been going on. That's why people are characterising it as "misogynists vs SJWs" or even more ludicrously, "left wing vs right wing" (and this has happened). I'm just mocking the fact that countless discussions have been ruined by one side or another stereotyping their opposition to avoid dealing with more complicated questions.

And I welcome jokes at my expense. It'd probably hurt my feelings to be called a "tranny" or whatever but most of anything else is fair game.
You're one of the people who complains about the "gamers are dead" articles and rants about things that are absolutely false. You got. Offended. At. Untrue. Things. Nobody. Said.

But it's okay for you to do it, apparently.

Gamergate: one standard for us, another for everybody else.
 

SamTheNewb

New member
Apr 16, 2013
53
0
0
DizzyChuggernaut said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Which were strawmen to begin with. Which are a part of your overreaction. Which is a double standard.

You won't take a "joke" like that from others, why would you make it yourself?
I know that they ARE strawmen. Strawmen constructed by both sides of the dichotomic gamers vs journalists "controversy" that has been going on. That's why people are characterising it as "misogynists vs SJWs" or even more ludicrously, "left wing vs right wing" (and this has happened). I'm just mocking the fact that countless discussions have been ruined by one side or another stereotyping their opposition to avoid dealing with more complicated questions.

And I welcome jokes at my expense. It'd probably hurt my feelings to be called a "tranny" or whatever but most of anything else is fair game.
Strawmen are a intentional or unfair misinterpretation or mis-reconstruction of somebody else's argument in order to plant logical missteps or fallacies in them to prove that their CONCLUSION is invalid (the arguments are just a tool, the conclusion is the purpose). I don't think either side of this 'debate' have legitimately used strawmen (in an actual argumentative way). From my understanding (I have not specifically read any of the "gamer are dead" articles") the "gamers are dead" articles are EDITORIALS/opinion on how the games media journalists/and members should target their content for their audiences. They use a loaded definition for "gamer" that people disagree with (that is motive for discussing the meaning of "gamer" in this thread). Using a false or loaded definition of a word, however is not a strawman, per-se. Saying "gamer" means x, while it may be false, isn't specifically trying to discredit somebody else's argument, conclusions, or ideas. It is simply a bad premise. So we can say that the "gamers are dead" articles are based on a faulty premise, and they should be refined and corrected to rectify the issue.

Here is the thing, these articles shouldn't be considered a waste and an affront to video games writing. They are not irredeemable. They do not specifically exist to reinforce an incorrect definition of gamer. The articles, themselves are an attempt to re-define the term "gamer", but it seems that that point is completely missed in the discussion. These articles pronounce gamer as dead, not to defames anyone who associates with the label, but to throw off the (potentially false) cultural perception of the term "gamer" and to allow the term to be re-defined by the press and the community. This is the meat of the articles. This is the point of the articles. And there is something to note about their arguments. The original, or current, definition of "gamer" is an irrelevant point to these articles. One shouldn't fixate on how they currently see the term, because they are arguing against it's current use.

What is everybody arguing about now? People are arguing that the premise of these articles, is wrong. That "gamer" means what the articles are saying. I won't call the discussions against these articles strawmen. That would give them too much credit for actually understanding the conclusion of the original articles in the first place. They simply miss the point, they argue about one of the premises (which is a legitimate way to discount a piece of writing), however they completely miss the conclusion and intent of the original argument. Nobody is calling the conclusion of these articles false. The conclusion, that we want to ignore the negative perception of "gamers" and that we must continue in a fashion that allows us to disregard the negativity, is something we, in fact, all agree with. We have simply gotten caught up on how these articles have framed the term "gamer" in order to come to their conclusions. Some people may disagree on how poorly the mainstream defines "gamer", but that is besides the point. The idea that we need to rip away negativity with the term is universal amongst all members of this community.

The articles aren't perfect either. These articles would have been better written with the premise "'gamers' is dead" to reinforce the use of 'gamer' as a label, the use of "are" instead of "is" is a grammatical error (when we consider the actual intent of the phrase). Using 'are' means that you referring the a plurality using the label, and using 'is' clearly indicates a reference to the label itself. I imaging that most are talking about the label, but simply fall into a grammatical error because they follow what sounds correct while forgetting that they are using the term in an abnormal way. Some of the articles do seems to go into way more details about what gamers are than necessary too. And that just makes the article a long rambling statement without focusing enough on it's own conclusion. It is just poor writing in general, but maybe they have a word count quota (which is also a terrible thing, because writing should be about making arguments and conclusions, not about filling a piece of paper with words) to fill. Perhaps this very post has too many words and padding, but I assure you, that I don't intentionally write long posts, I'm probably just a bad writer that needs more practice in being concise (This very sentence in itself is tangential padding, but I just want to disclaim that I may be a hypocrite for decrying bad writing while writing poorly myself). These faults, do make the articles seem anti-gamer, and for that I can sympathise with people who feel attacked, but I want to also give the benefit of doubt to these writers. I don't want to discuss how the articles poorly addresses the issue on the definition of "gamer", but how they can contribute to the discourse.

'Gamers' is dead.
It may sound grammatically wrong, but it isn't. It is a declaration that we will no longer accept the negative connotations of the label "gamers".
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
You're one of the people who complains about the "gamers are dead" articles and rants about things that are absolutely false. You got. Offended. At. Untrue. Things. Nobody. Said.
I was offended because many of them had a condescending "we don't need you" tone. What's "you"? I believe the term should be defined on an individual basis. If you call yourself a gamer that's great. If you don't, that's also good. I don't personally call myself a gamer because I don't think playing games is a part of my identity. Sure I've designed games before and I've written academic essays and a dissertation about game design theory but I've had the same level of influence and involvement with music production which I also don't believe defines me enough to be able to label myself.

But there are people that find comfort in gaming and "gaming culture". They're proud to call themselves gamers. When a bunch of articles call them responsible for the harassment of Zoe Quinn or having a heteronormative, female-exclusionary attitude you'll bet that people will get upset. Now I know that the articles didn't explicitly call all gamers raging misogynist neckbeards but those that identify strongly as gamers cherry-picked the most negative and incendiary quotes (just like many of the journalists covering GG have) and used it to claim that they were being attacked.

I don't believe they were. I believe that a bunch of journalists wanted to do damage control. That's it. I was making fun of the exaggerations that were being taken as gospel.

But it's okay for you to do it, apparently.

Gamergate: one standard for us, another for everybody else.
I'm not even pro-Gamergate anymore seeing as I believe its central premise (journalism ethics must be reformed) is flawed and contrary to what they're actually fighting for.
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
SamTheNewb said:
Strawmen are a intentional or unfair misinterpretation or mis-reconstruction of somebody else's argument in order to plant logical missteps or fallacies in them to prove that their CONCLUSION is invalid (the arguments are just a tool, the conclusion is the purpose). I don't think either side of this 'debate' have legitimately used strawmen (in an actual argumentative way).
I don't believe there has even been a debate (let alone a discussion) but I have seen a lot of red herrings being used. "One of the ethical concerns involved a woman, therefore the entire backlash is misogyny" or "the people that are being biased are left-leaning feminists/SJWs therefore anyone that actively speaks out in favour of feminism/social justice are all part of a Cultural Marxist Conspiracy?".

Maybe I'm conflating "red herring" and "strawman" but the intention's the same. Avoiding the actual arguments in favour of taking pot-shots at an imaginary one. This in particular has defined most of what has been going on over the last few months.

From my understanding (I have not specifically read any of the "gamer are dead" articles") the "gamers are dead" articles are EDITORIALS/opinion on how the games media journalists/and members should target their content for their audiences. They use a loaded definition for "gamer" that people disagree with (that is motive for discussing the meaning of "gamer" in this thread). Using a false or loaded definition of a word, however is not a strawman, per-se. Saying "gamer" means x, while it may be false, isn't specifically trying to discredit somebody else's argument, conclusions, or ideas. It is simply a bad premise. So we can say that the "gamers are dead" articles are based on a faulty premise, and they should be refined and corrected to rectify the issue.
Hmm, that's a good way of looking at it actually. The articles seemed rushed (seeing as their deadline was in the same 24-hour period I'm not surprised). The fact that a dozen articles came out in 24 hours makes me extremely suspicious but I won't go as far as to call it a conspiracy or whatever GG likes to call it. Just sloppy damage control.

Here is the thing, these articles shouldn't be considered a waste and an affront to video games writing. They are not irredeemable. They do not specifically exist to reinforce an incorrect definition of gamer. The articles, themselves are an attempt to re-define the term "gamer", but it seems that that point is completely missed in the discussion. These articles pronounce gamer as dead, not to defames anyone who associates with the label, but to throw off the (potentially false) cultural perception of the term "gamer" and to allow the term to be re-defined by the press and the community. This is the meat of the articles. This is the point of the articles. And there is something to note about their arguments. The original, or current, definition of "gamer" is an irrelevant point to these articles. One shouldn't fixate on how they currently see the term, because they are arguing against it's current use.
Oh, absolutely. I think all sorts of labels open someone up to stereotyping, including the label "gamer". Had these articles come out at any other time I might have actually agreed with what they were saying (I kinda do to a degree, but the premises are absolutely all over the place). As I said, I'm not too fond of calling myself a "gamer" but if someone else calls me that, fine. I play games, I'm involved in gaming discussion, design and academia. If you think it is appropriate go ahead.

What I personally believe is that they were taking heat from the "gaming community" and instead of addressing concerns just wanted to dismiss them as fanatical or irrelevant. "Gamers don't need to be your audience" therefore "we are not responsible for discussing things with them".

The idea that we need to rip away negativity with the term is universal amongst all members of this community.
Again, I would have much preferred this if it happened at any other time. They were under scrutiny. They wanted to label that scrutiny "negativity" or "toxic behaviour" so they could dismiss it. If a film studio did something absolutely awful that caused a backlash and then said "film buffs don't need to be your audience" that doesn't mean "film buffs are a very diverse group that can sometimes harbour negativity" it means "lalalalala not listening".

'Gamers' is dead.
It may sound grammatically wrong, but it isn't. It is a declaration that we will no longer accept the negative connotations of the label "gamers".
See if the articles were written in a way with headlines like "Gamers must deal with a troublesome undercurrent in their community" at a time where gamers weren't being labelled misogynists left and right, it'd be fine. Nobody would disagree that XBLA has obnoxious spoiled brats shouting racist slurs and proclaiming their sexual proficiency with mothers. Nobody would disagree that certain Eastern-European communities have extremely lax views on ethics and as a result see nothing wrong with hacking, sending viruses and harassment, etc.

But that wasn't the context. That kinda makes me disappointed. There's some truly horrifying elements of "gamer" culture out there that are being completely overlooked.