Is everyone a gamer?

[McMarbles]

I don't think this is rocket science. If games are a significant part of your life then you might want to call yourself a gamer. If not, then I doubt you'd even use that term. This seems like an excuse to justify the shit said in GAD articles, which like it or not, was an attack on ALL gamers.

I didn't feel attacked.

We're all entitled to our feelings.

Unless we're "not gamers", apparently.

Says who? You didn't FEEL attacked, you get to feel however you want.

Well, yeah. I'm not a hypermasculine manchild. I wasn't the target of the article. I assume you're not one either. You're not the target of the article.

 

[LostTrigger]

The question you should be asking isn't "Is everyone a gamer?" The question you should be asking is "Why the hell does it matter so much to me?"

its an identity that is important to me that alot of people would rather it cease to exist or stretch it so that it covers people who dont even identify as a gamer

That sounds like a personal problem to me. You don't own the concept of gaming. You don't get to make the distinction.

I think this is the basic issue. Group identity is determined by a group, and the group of people playing video games now is huge. It happened pretty quickly too, so I understand why some who were left in the cold are upset.

As you say though, it's clearly a personal problem. Having a hard time or really wanting to control something doesn't make it so.

how is it a personal problem? its an identity for millions of people. making a gamer anyone who plays games isnt doing anything for the people who dont identify as a gamer. gamers are trying to stretch the word not none gamers.

The fact that only a few thousand of those millions are having a fit answers your question.

that doesnt mean the millions who arent complaining are aware or care. silence =/= agreement.

 

[LostTrigger]

The question you should be asking isn't "Is everyone a gamer?" The question you should be asking is "Why the hell does it matter so much to me?"

its an identity that is important to me that alot of people would rather it cease to exist or stretch it so that it covers people who dont even identify as a gamer

That sounds like a personal problem to me. You don't own the concept of gaming. You don't get to make the distinction.

the distinction has been made already, people are trying to change it

Who made the distinction, and who gave them authority to make it?

someone made it, mostly everyone liked the idea. thats all that matters. the fact that there are articles saying "gamers are dead" shows that there was a clear distinction that "gamers" was used for gaming enthusiasts. what gives you the authority to try and change that? there wouldnt be a push to make gamer anyone who plays a video game if they was already the prevailing definition.

 

[BarryMcCociner]

No, OP. Does watching movies make you a film buff? Does listening to music make you an audiophile?

 

[McMarbles]

The question you should be asking isn't "Is everyone a gamer?" The question you should be asking is "Why the hell does it matter so much to me?"

its an identity that is important to me that alot of people would rather it cease to exist or stretch it so that it covers people who dont even identify as a gamer

That sounds like a personal problem to me. You don't own the concept of gaming. You don't get to make the distinction.

the distinction has been made already, people are trying to change it

Who made the distinction, and who gave them authority to make it?

someone made it, mostly everyone liked the idea. thats all that matters. the fact that there are articles saying "gamers are dead" shows that there was a clear distinction that "gamers" was used for gaming enthusiasts. what gives you the authority to try and change that? there wouldnt be a push to make gamer anyone who plays a video game if they was already the prevailing definition.

Really. Were there meetings? Was there some sort of committee? Was there a proposal? Was it voted on? I don't remember being contacted about it.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

No, OP. Does watching movies make you a film buff? Does listening to music make you an audiophile?

Considering the major markets focus on, well, non-movie buffs and non-audiophiles in their respective industries, that's an interesting comparison.

Really. Were there meetings? Was there some sort of committee? Was there a proposal? Was it voted on? I don't remember being contacted about it.

Sorry, my bad. See, I was supposed to send out some more invites and whatnot but the poser went out for a few days.

There should've been like, 6-7 more GAD articles.

 

[the_dramatica]

I find throwing another adjective in front or behind the term is effective enough to note your level of passion for the hobby. I usually get my point across to people by saying i'm a "big gaming dork."

 

[Lufia Erim]

Not everybody, but anybody.

Often in threads like this we get a variation on this comment:
`If anyone who plays games is a gamer then that means my [insert female relative here] who plays [insert mobile game here] is a gamer! Hah!`.

And I'm kind of like.... okay?
I don't think we lose anything by being more inclusive with the term gamer. I use it to refer to anyone who plays games fairly regularly.
Sure, it's not a very useful term outside of that, but it doesn't really need to be.

I mean, I am definitely someone who has spent all night on WoW (too many times) and I don't mind being put in the same category as someone who is really into Candy Crush. Good for them, let's all play fun games.

A label that includes everyone is a useless label.if everyone is a gamer then no one is a gamer. It's pointless to have. Id everyone and their dog is a gamer (because my dog can play catch) then what's the point of describing yourself or anyone as a gamer?

For gaming and creating to become an art form ( which not everyone wants it to be mind you) then
Defining what is and isn't a gamer is important. Just like not everyone who can draw a stickman is an artist. Or anyone who can play a few keys on instrument is a musician.

I get wanting to be inclusive, and thats fine, but thats not, in my opinion how a medium grows and matures.

 

[Metalmacher]

No, OP. Does watching movies make you a film buff? Does listening to music make you an audiophile?

That's a stupid comment...Audiophile is not defined as "someone who listens to music", and a film buff is not a term for "someone who watches films". Gamer is, as defined by dictionaries, "someone who plays games". It's dishonest comparing those terms.

Anyway, I think that the lexicon definition is faulty. The correct definition for Gamer should be: Someone who plays video games excessively. That means that someone who plays chess is not a gamer, nor is someone who plays board games or DnD or other stuff like that.
Beyond that, there's no need to create a distinction between Casual Gamers and Hardcore Gamers, since as their term implies, they're both gamers. Someone who plays casual games on his phones exclusively, is still a gamer, because his habits match the definition. What's there more to say...?

 

[Phasmal]

A label that includes everyone is a useless label.if everyone is a gamer then no one is a gamer. It's pointless to have. Id everyone and their dog is a gamer (because my dog can play catch) then what's the point of describing yourself or anyone as a gamer?

For gaming and creating to become an art form ( which not everyone wants it to be mind you) then
Defining what is and isn't a gamer is important. Just like not everyone who can draw a stickman is an artist. Or anyone who can play a few keys on instrument is a musician.

I get wanting to be inclusive, and thats fine, but thats not, in my opinion how a medium grows and matures.

Well, to be fair, it is a pretty useless label anyway. It tells you pretty much nothing other than someone plays games and considers that fact noteworthy about themselves.

And no, defining who is and isn't a gamer has absolutely nothing to do with games being art, as gamers (in general) do not make games, they play them. Playing a game is not the same as making a bit of art. Making a game maybe, but not playing.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but gaming is already becoming more mainstream which will naturally lead to it being more inclusive. Which in my opinion will help it mature.
What will not help it mature is pushback against things that are already happening, or telling others that they can't or shouldn't identify as gamers.

 

[BarryMcCociner]

No, OP. Does watching movies make you a film buff? Does listening to music make you an audiophile?

That's a stupid comment...Audiophile is not defined as "someone who listens to music", and a film buff is not a term for "someone who watches films". Gamer is, as defined by dictionaries, "someone who plays games". It's dishonest comparing those terms.

Anyway, I think that the lexicon definition is faulty. The correct definition for Gamer should be: Someone who plays video games excessively. That means that someone who plays chess is not a gamer, nor is someone who plays board games or DnD or other stuff like that.
Beyond that, there's no need to create a distinction between Casual Gamers and Hardcore Gamers, since as their term implies, they're both gamers. Someone who plays casual games on his phones exclusively, is still a gamer, because his habits match the definition. What's there more to say...?

Immediately after calling my comment stupid, the very line under it you prove my fucking point.

I'm sorry, but I'm compelled to laugh at you.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Super late reply lol, somehow lost track of this topic.

And apathy = not a gamer? C'mon.
You never played a game in which you just wanted to get through it?
I dunno man, the whole thing seems too judgy to me, and it often needs to go off of assumptions.

I agree people SHOULD have somne passion, but can you really say someone who does nothing but play games but does things you think are apathetic is not a gamer?

Pardon me if this is getting annoying, I'm not super invested, just interested in the reasoning.

First of all this is not annoying at all so no worries!

I generally stop playing the game if I feel this way and then begin playing a different game I really care about until I feel that way again about the former one. I think it is to miss out on the full fun you could have had with a game if you experience it in this way and as someone who cares about games and wants them to be experienced in the best way possible I'd never play a game like that. I feel it is a pity.

In your hypothetical they would be a gamer, sure, though they'd also be the exception to the rule. I don't really think there's someone who doesn't care about games but plays them all day. Usually the people who don't care barely play if at all and do so more due to non-game-related reasons at that.

Yeah, but wouldn't you feel like a dick if you made a mental note that someone was not a True Gamer or whatever and then you were wrong?

I remember talking about games at my old job and there was a guy there who was asking me what I was playing at the time.
Me: Well on my handheld at the moment I'm playing Pokémon
Guy: (Looks at me like I just wiped my snot on him)
Me: And on my Xbox I'm nearly finished with Dark Souls
Guy: (All of a sudden wants to be my best friend)

I suppose if you don't judge people outwardly then it's fine, but sometimes people can tell.

I don't mind feeling wrong, the joy I would feel when I realized that this person actually cares would far outweigh the guilt for judging them unfairly. It's like a cynic being surprised by something genuinely good, it's special!


Oh and pokemon can be REALLY competitive and indepth if you get into the IV and EV training stuff, more so than any souls game. Also you have to memorize what are the stats of basically every pokemon if you wanna do well, never mind the type interactions and what each of the hundreds of attacks do. It's a different kind of difficulty than that of Souls games but if you underestimate it you're in for it. I may wanna make a mental note about that guy if I ever meet him lol.