Is everyone a gamer?

[Nielas]

This is why we had that whole "casual" vs. "hardcore" gamer thing crop up and why the former are still considered "gamers." The "casual" gamer may be filthy, but they still spend a lot more time interacting with or playing games than the vast majority of people who have, at one point or another, fucked around with Angry Birds for five minutes on the bus or who occasionally pop open Solitaire for a quick round or two while their files transfer.

I've been in many hardore vs casual debates and there are plenty of "hardcore" who would happily argue that the "casuals" are not real gamers. The irony is that many of these discussions were among MMORPG players where even the "casuals" are pretty hardcore compared to other genres.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I've been in many hardore vs casual debates and there are plenty of "hardcore" who would happily argue that the "casuals" are not real gamers. The irony is that many of these discussions were among MMORPG players where even the "casuals" are pretty hardcore compared to other genres.

Yeah, admittedly, I've seen some of that before as well, but I'm just operating under the assumption that this sort of crap is inevitable in any community. Ie. "Pfft, that guy only writes a dozen pages a month? I write at least fifty! He's not a REAL writer!" It's a seemingly common sentiment.

But neither of those people in the above example would refer to that guy who wrote a paragraph that one time as a "writer."

They've still retained the monicker over the years, in spite of that sort of elitism, mainly because the 'average' gamer sees it for just that; elitism. MMOs are especially well known for that kinda behavior too, so it's really no surprise.

 

[DarthSka]

I consider gamer to be the equivalent of enthusiasts of other hobbies: book worm, gear head, film buff. So to me, just because one plays games, or even one game, they don't necessarily fit the definition. I read books from time to time, take care of my vehicle, and enjoy movies, but I'm not a book worm, gear head, or film buff. I'm a book reader, a driver, and a movie goer. When it comes to video games? I play games for hours, look up numerous reviews, follow the development process, read the wikis, follow different gaming personalities, keep myself knowledgeable on the practices of different developers and publishers, etc. It's my main hobby, which I feel is what really makes someone a gamer. A lot of people are video game players, but not all of them are gamers, at least in my opinion.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

It happens frequently enough in circles not as much gaming-focused as forums such as this one.

I believe you can tell if someone thinks games matter by the manner in which they conduct themselves regarding them. You may not be able to tell for sure that there IS passion (and nobody is trying to determine that) but you can, most definitively, tell when there isn't passion.

I legit have read reviews docking points from visual novel/Srpg games due to the fact that if the player skips the cutscenes (in a VISUAL NOVEL game) they will miss things and thus end up not having an enjoyable time. They were saying it like it's new information. The review was taking for granted that the average player would just skip the text, not caring about the story.

It's a bit more widespread than you may think lol.

You can say anything is a sign of not having passion and argue it the other way.
You can say that skipping cutscenes means a lack of passion, someone else could say it just shows that the person wants to get back to the game.
Someone could say me not caring about who uses the label gamer means I'm not passionate about my hobby, others could say me not caring about the label means I'm passionate because I want everyone to be able to enjoy the things that I enjoy without any gatekeeping.

Like I said, it's not something you can measure.

I'm sorry, that's untrue. When the game is a visual novel and there's hour-long segments of story without any gameplay, you can't say you're "getting back to the game". Visual novels are games where the game IS the story. When the game is 80% story and 20% gameplay, skipping the story is a pretty big freaking deal.

This is like, a higher amount of cutscenes than metal gear or something. That much. The point of playing it is getting the story.

 

[runic knight]

Yet when were talking about gamers we never refer to just anybody who plays games.

Cyclist.
Poker player.
Writer.
Programmer.
Skier.
Bowler.

We seem to get that there's a spectrum in a great many hobbies and jobs, and the terms are generally used to describe someone who 'does it a lot' rather than, well, everyone who's done it at least once.

This tends to sum this discussion pretty well I think. We define so many other hobbies in such a fashion based on those who do it a lot, or see it as part of their identity, yet when it comes to gaming, things get weird. People seem to want to be included in the definition, which is all well and good, but without the whole "do it a lot" part that defines it as a hobbyist in the first place. So there seems to be two uses of the word now, the traditional definition of "someone who does thing (plays games) a lot as a hobby" in the same vein as the other words above, and the newer, more inclusive "someone who has played a game" that removes the hobbyist nature. I wonder if there is some correlation to the definitions used and the view of gaming as simply interactive movies in terms of being a consumable media.

 

[Silence]

Yes, if they're not a worker.

And you would not want to be a worker, would you?

 

[lastcigarette]

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.

Pretty much this right here. If the person playing Mario Kart on their DS is as enthusiastic as an MMO raider or FPS clan member, they're a gamer.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

It happens frequently enough in circles not as much gaming-focused as forums such as this one.

I believe you can tell if someone thinks games matter by the manner in which they conduct themselves regarding them. You may not be able to tell for sure that there IS passion (and nobody is trying to determine that) but you can, most definitively, tell when there isn't passion.

I legit have read reviews docking points from visual novel/Srpg games due to the fact that if the player skips the cutscenes (in a VISUAL NOVEL game) they will miss things and thus end up not having an enjoyable time. They were saying it like it's new information. The review was taking for granted that the average player would just skip the text, not caring about the story.

It's a bit more widespread than you may think lol.

You can say anything is a sign of not having passion and argue it the other way.
You can say that skipping cutscenes means a lack of passion, someone else could say it just shows that the person wants to get back to the game.
Someone could say me not caring about who uses the label gamer means I'm not passionate about my hobby, others could say me not caring about the label means I'm passionate because I want everyone to be able to enjoy the things that I enjoy without any gatekeeping.

Like I said, it's not something you can measure.

I'm sorry, that's untrue. When the game is a visual novel and there's hour-long segments of story without any gameplay, you can't say you're "getting back to the game". Visual novels are games where the game IS the story. When the game is 80% story and 20% gameplay, skipping the story is a pretty big freaking deal.

This is like, a higher amount of cutscenes than metal gear or something. That much. The point of playing it is getting the story.

Then I'd be there asking why you're so concerned about labeling someone else's leisure time.

That is already answered in my previous posts. This isn't an attempt to label anyone as anything, this is a reaction to people labeling themselves wrongly. Nobody's asking people to prove they're gamers. Just calling out obvious mischaracterizations. If people don't label themselves wrongly there's no issue. Hell, in the end, if they didn't label themselves at all it'd all be easier.

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.

Pretty much this right here. If the person playing Mario Kart on their DS is as enthusiastic as an MMO raider or FPS clan member, they're a gamer.

Oh but this is exactly what I also said. I just used the term "passion" instead of "enthusiastic".


It's really easy to tell when someone's apathetic about gaming. Those, those are not the gamers.

Nobody's trying to say enthusiastic mario kart fans are not gamers.

 

[Karadalis]

Well its pretty simple.. a gamer is someone who spends a significant amount of his free time gaming. Who is interested in everything that surounds gaming, their creation, new innovations and technology, news from the industry... all that stuff.

Compare that to someone who plays a round or two of candycrush or just casually plays games but isnt interested into getting deeper into the hobby and you can see the reason why people differntiate.

While they use the same medium in some cases they are two distinct different industries that should NOT bleed into each other.. as recent history has shown, mobile "gaming" mechanics (cash milking) can and will ruin games for gamers.

However using the word "casual" as an insult? Get out...

 

[veloper]

Okay, here's the deal: you can call everyone who's ever played a game once, a "gamer", if you're also consistent and call everyone who's ever swallowed a bacterium, a "killer".

Narrow definitions are more useful.

 

[Naldan]

Okay, here's the deal: you can call everyone who's ever played a game once, a "gamer", if you're also consistent and call everyone who's ever swallowed a bacterium, a "killer".

Narrow definitions are more useful.

Definitely. A runner is someone who runs. A marathon runner is someone who runs marathons. A professional runner is someone who runs professionally.

That the term Gamer was useful once to identify traits was because it was a novelty in general. Pong would be defined as being pretty casual nowadays, some wouldn't describe those people who play it once in a while as a gamer. Now, "everybody" plays some games the one way or the other, and it has lost its novelty and usefulness.

From a descriptive perspective, it simply doesn't make any sense anymore. The industry itself even refered to those dedicated to gaming as "core audience". This audience itself has also grown, and as well is, I THINK, what people here simply describe as someone who is a gamer.

Also, there are these curious cases: Your dad who plays Football Manager or Anno like it's his second job. At least with a lot of passion. Now, these games aren't even that casual. Especially in the late 90s, there were a lot of simulations with extensive complexity. But these "dads" have mastered them, more or less. And also, they only play these games. Now, are these persons no gamers? Or are they gamers? Are they core gamers? Don't they count?

I have to deal with language professionally. And also, I have a passion for certain languages. In German, it most likely would be clear that (the equivalent of) Gamer would be insufficient to describe someone with a passion for gaming, besides that sometimes, the equivalent (Spieler, Zocker) is often connotated with the addiction itself. But that also gets less and less frequent, since it simply fails to deliver the information properly in a conversation, since video gaming is more and more on the rise into mainstream society.

So, if you want to be precise, everybody who plays games is a gamer. If you need to differenciate, you need to be precise by describing properly, like defining with adjectives/adverbs or coining new terms altogether. If you simply want to defend the term that is associated with an identity, then also you have to realize that there are now different identities as well, all also ill-described as the same with the term "Gamer", even though it is indeed appropriate but insufficient, imo.

I personally think that everybody who plays games is a gamer. Those, who play games with a passion are core gamers. Those, who play complex games, but these complex games only are niche gamers. Those, who play casually, are casual gamers. But all are gamers.

Language can be identified as a lot of things. But it always, always is an appointment, an agreement on what means what. So, I'm certainly not saying and not even believing that my personal method is the best. But language will be defined by the majority that uses it. Dictionaries, authorized by the gouvernment, come in if you *need* clearity. And if the majority (that should also be represented by the gouvernment) agrees to use the dictionary, it's fulfilling its purpouse. So, rape still means rape. But if "everybody" would disagree that gamer has the given definition, it would need to change.

 

[Mangue Surfer]

So what's the point? Is the idea create a social game pyramid? I say we, the retrogamers, should be put on top because we are guardians of the gaming history.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Yet when were talking about gamers we never refer to just anybody who plays games.

Cyclist.
Poker player.
Writer.
Programmer.
Skier.
Bowler.

We seem to get that there's a spectrum in a great many hobbies and jobs, and the terms are generally used to describe someone who 'does it a lot' rather than, well, everyone who's done it at least once.

This tends to sum this discussion pretty well I think. We define so many other hobbies in such a fashion based on those who do it a lot, or see it as part of their identity, yet when it comes to gaming, things get weird. People seem to want to be included in the definition, which is all well and good, but without the whole "do it a lot" part that defines it as a hobbyist in the first place. So there seems to be two uses of the word now, the traditional definition of "someone who does thing (plays games) a lot as a hobby" in the same vein as the other words above, and the newer, more inclusive "someone who has played a game" that removes the hobbyist nature. I wonder if there is some correlation to the definitions used and the view of gaming as simply interactive movies in terms of being a consumable media.

I think it is a "me too!" situation. Gaming culture is pervasive and strong. Bowling culture is not, so one one cares the word bowler. So people want to be a part of gaming culture and well intentioned individual want people to be able to be part of gaming culture. And these well intentioned people think working to change the term gamer to mean anyone who wants it to apply to them is being more inclusive and accepting. But changing words is not the same thing as changing reality, no matter how much people wish it to be. This push to including everyone under the label gamer is at best linguistic pedantry.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Yet when were talking about gamers we never refer to just anybody who plays games.

Cyclist.
Poker player.
Writer.
Programmer.
Skier.
Bowler.

We seem to get that there's a spectrum in a great many hobbies and jobs, and the terms are generally used to describe someone who 'does it a lot' rather than, well, everyone who's done it at least once.

This tends to sum this discussion pretty well I think. We define so many other hobbies in such a fashion based on those who do it a lot, or see it as part of their identity, yet when it comes to gaming, things get weird. People seem to want to be included in the definition, which is all well and good, but without the whole "do it a lot" part that defines it as a hobbyist in the first place. So there seems to be two uses of the word now, the traditional definition of "someone who does thing (plays games) a lot as a hobby" in the same vein as the other words above, and the newer, more inclusive "someone who has played a game" that removes the hobbyist nature. I wonder if there is some correlation to the definitions used and the view of gaming as simply interactive movies in terms of being a consumable media.

I think it is a "me too!" situation. Gaming culture is pervasive and strong. Bowling culture is not, so one one cares the word bowler. So people want to be a part of gaming culture and well intentioned individual want people to be able to be part of gaming culture. And these well intentioned people think working to change the term gamer to mean anyone who wants it to apply to them is being more inclusive and accepting. But changing words is not the same thing as changing reality, no matter how much people wish it to be. This push to including everyone under the label gamer is at best linguistic pedantry.

It would be, but since the reality (as this thread demonstrated over and over) is that for the most part that's not what we're seeing. Instead you have some people who for reasons they haven't given much (even when asked a lot in this thread) really care about what the word "Gamer" means to people. I've read about a dozen comments that boil down to, "Ask yourself why you care so much." and I've seen very little of that introspection.

Indeed, your post actually treats the issue as though people were defending "gamer" against all of these well-meaning, but sadly mistaken people. Maybe it feels that way, but that's just language changing around you, out of your control. When you're the one arguing for the intellectual purity of the word against the overwhelming utility and common useage, you are the one engaging in pedantry.

The question is still: why?

I think you missed the point of my post hard. There is nothing to defend, and I don't see myself or anyone else as defending anything. I don't actually care if the word gamer is changed, I don't feel any helplessness about the direction of the label because I don't care about the direction of the label. I do think it is minorly annoying every time we have to go through one of these pedantic discussions and adjust our language accordingly (I have been through more than one of these sorts of things,) but beyond that I am not opposed to it in any real way. If it changes a new label will spring up that fits me and I'll just attach myself to that label instead. No skin off my back.

My post is speculation of the why for people that hold your position. What is the point? My guess is that you recognize that people want to be included and you think you are being more inclusive and accepting by insisting on the wide definition. Am I right?

You can change the word or embrace its true meaning or whatever you think you are doing, but it wont make any difference at all.

I do think it is important that people understand that they are not actually making any sort of difference in terms of inclusiveness and acceptance. So much effort is being put into something so pointless, and I believe the people putting in the effort mean well and are trying (and completely failing in every meaningful way) to make a difference. That effort could be channeled to actually help make gaming culture more accepting, inclusive, and easy to break into, but it isn't.

I guess my why is because I don't like seeing well intentioned people waste their time and energy when it could be spent to actual effect elsewhere.

P.S. But anyway, I think you know why people who actually do care about the term care about the term. It is not hard to extrapolate. Social identity is important to people, and many people have built their social identity around gamer culture and the specific language of gaming culture. When another group of people come in and start messing with the language of their culture they get defensive, especially when they mess with the label that represents the core around which they have built their identity. They strongly feel that it is their word, and that they should be the group that determines what it means. This is a very common sort of social situation. How many times have you heard the sentiment "that is our word" expressed, even if it is in humor?

 

[sonicneedslovetoo]

I know labeling is important, and I don't want to sound too snarky here, but can we start a label for people who keep antagonizing over the label of gamer? I'm seriously getting really tired of people trying to sit down and say "you've played too many mobile games today on the train so you aren't a gamer for today, but when you binge on fallout 3 you'll be a gamer again until you start slipping." Do we seriously need a ministry to sit down and argue whether or not clicker games are games and how that relates to if you're a gamer or not? The whole discussion seems kinda pointlessly dividing to me.

I mean nobody goes around trying to prove they're the biggest one direction fan, well maybe they do I don't know, but I doubt they invite other one direction fans into their bedroom to tally down which one has more posters than the other with the serious expectation that owning less than three doesn't make you a real fan.

 

[Phasmal]

I'm sorry, that's untrue. When the game is a visual novel and there's hour-long segments of story without any gameplay, you can't say you're "getting back to the game". Visual novels are games where the game IS the story. When the game is 80% story and 20% gameplay, skipping the story is a pretty big freaking deal.

This is like, a higher amount of cutscenes than metal gear or something. That much. The point of playing it is getting the story.

And some people will skip those. It's not a big deal.
Ok, so someone isn't `passionate` because they skip cutscenes, that's a line for you. I bet you it isn't for many people.
Hell, I know some people who would claim that playing VN's in the first place doesn't make you a gamer.
I don't know why we're pretending there's some universal way to tell if someone is or isn't a gamer if that universal way is NOT `do they play games`.

But lets say you know someone who identifies as a gamer who you see skips cutscenes in VN's. Do you say:
`Oh I know you think you're a gamer, but unfortunately you're mistaken because you don't have this amount of passion when you are playing this game`?

Have you ever actually told someone they were mistaken in their identification? How did that go?

I know labeling is important, and I don't want to sound too snarky here, but can we start a label for people who keep antagonizing over the label of gamer? I'm seriously getting really tired of people trying to sit down and say "you've played too many mobile games today on the train so you aren't a gamer for today, but when you binge on fallout 3 you'll be a gamer again until you start slipping." Do we seriously need a ministry to sit down and argue whether or not clicker games are games and how that relates to if you're a gamer or not? The whole discussion seems kinda pointlessly dividing to me.

Personally I call them `The Nerdish Inquisition` or sometimes `The Nerd's Watch`.
And you're right. It's pointless nit-picking.

I think I manage to pass for today seeing as I just platinumed Bloodborne LIKE A BOSS. Sorry that's not really relevant I'm just really happy about it.

 

[runic knight]

Yet when were talking about gamers we never refer to just anybody who plays games.

Cyclist.
Poker player.
Writer.
Programmer.
Skier.
Bowler.

We seem to get that there's a spectrum in a great many hobbies and jobs, and the terms are generally used to describe someone who 'does it a lot' rather than, well, everyone who's done it at least once.

This tends to sum this discussion pretty well I think. We define so many other hobbies in such a fashion based on those who do it a lot, or see it as part of their identity, yet when it comes to gaming, things get weird. People seem to want to be included in the definition, which is all well and good, but without the whole "do it a lot" part that defines it as a hobbyist in the first place. So there seems to be two uses of the word now, the traditional definition of "someone who does thing (plays games) a lot as a hobby" in the same vein as the other words above, and the newer, more inclusive "someone who has played a game" that removes the hobbyist nature. I wonder if there is some correlation to the definitions used and the view of gaming as simply interactive movies in terms of being a consumable media.

I think it is a "me too!" situation. Gaming culture is pervasive and strong. Bowling culture is not, so one one cares the word bowler. So people want to be a part of gaming culture and well intentioned individual want people to be able to be part of gaming culture. And these well intentioned people think working to change the term gamer to mean anyone who wants it to apply to them is being more inclusive and accepting. But changing words is not the same thing as changing reality, no matter how much people wish it to be. This push to including everyone under the label gamer is at best linguistic pedantry.

Does make sense, and seems to be reflected in things like "fake" gamers, be it the overly aggressive cool dude schtick of the 90's marketing that seemed to evolve into the dudebro style of gamer, or the attention hungry would-be posers of the 00's as gaming was fully accepted as mainstream. Also has me thinking of the, shall we say, "cultural appropriation" that took place in subcultures like rap and punk as people wanted to be part of it and then wanted it to change to meet their expectations and desires, causing rifts within in a similar fashion. I can only suspect that much of the current issue will blow over when the next fad has bandwagoners jumping through new hoops once more.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I'm sorry, that's untrue. When the game is a visual novel and there's hour-long segments of story without any gameplay, you can't say you're "getting back to the game". Visual novels are games where the game IS the story. When the game is 80% story and 20% gameplay, skipping the story is a pretty big freaking deal.

This is like, a higher amount of cutscenes than metal gear or something. That much. The point of playing it is getting the story.

And some people will skip those. It's not a big deal.
Ok, so someone isn't `passionate` because they skip cutscenes, that's a line for you. I bet you it isn't for many people.
Hell, I know some people who would claim that playing VN's in the first place doesn't make you a gamer.
I don't know why we're pretending there's some universal way to tell if someone is or isn't a gamer if that universal way is NOT `do they play games`.

But lets say you know someone who identifies as a gamer who you see skips cutscenes in VN's. Do you say:
`Oh I know you think you're a gamer, but unfortunately you're mistaken because you don't have this amount of passion when you are playing this game`?

Have you ever actually told someone they were mistaken in their identification? How did that go?

Yeah the thing is, no matter what people say VNs are games, they're really old games too, they're what inspired Jrpgs. Just because people can say they're not games, that doesn't mean anything, as they're actively, provably wrong.

You must examine the reason one uses to skip. Most often is "I don't care about all this shit, I don't care about these characters, I just wanna move on". That, that is apathy. I'm sorry, it is.


You don't need to confront people for this issue, that'd be rude. Being rude is never good. You just kinda make a mental note of it so that when the person says something which depends on their credentials of passion regarding gaming, you can then use it as references for how much weight you should put on their opinion.

Basically, I would never be rude about such an issue to someone but in cases where I'm looking for information, I wouldn't go to them to ask and their opinions would hold less weight, directly due to this aspect of their behavior.

Ok, let me rephrase then:

Why are you so concerned about the labels people put on their leisure time, and who made you god of those labels?

It is the natural order of things for people to feel the need to need to right wrongs once they see them. If you see the fridge door has been forgotten half way open, even if it's not in your house and it's not your fridge, you have an urge to close it anyways, no? It's that sort of thing.

I'm not the god of the labels but that doesn't mean I'm wrong, either.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It's very strange reading conversations like this when video games form only a part of my overall gaming hobbies. Entitled video-game brats trying to hog the gamer title from all the historical miniatures collecting, board game playing, card hoarding, table-top RPG monkeys! Get your own word.[footnote]Joke, for the love of god it's a hyperbolic joke![/footnote]

Honestly though, I don't see the point of making a distinction in the first place. We've got the Ultra-hardcore, "will be replacing their 2 Titan video cards in the next two years whether they need to or not" crowd, we've got plenty of adjectives for folks who concentrate on different genres, we've got language for people who play professionally...

Why's the root word so important? Why does there need to be a mutually agreed on catch-all that not everybody can fit into? It'd be like: "Yeah, we've got Metal-heads, Punks, and Audiophiles, but we cover them all with "music-ers", and you aren't one of them if all you do is listen to the radio on the way to work."

Amusing anecdote: Back when I was a young'un, my Grandmother begged my Mom to not let us kids bring over the Gameboy when Grandma was baby-sitting us. Reason?

As soon as she sat down and popped in Tetris, she'd get nothing done that day and she was starting to develop hand cramps from playing.

She was freaking good. Better then I ever got anyway. Saw the spaceship and everything.

 

[Something Amyss]

As for the dictionary point, you were the one who brought up the common use argument.

No, I responded to your claims that the dictionary did it wrong because it didn't consider a specific definition that has meaning to you. It's false to claim this was ever the definition and flat-out wrong to accuse the people behind the dictionary of doing what you claim.

As for the rest of yoru argument, all I have to say is this: you claim inclusivity, and then go on to later indicate people are partaking in a "me too" situation. That's...the opposite of inclusiveness.

I've been "included" right out of it.

And there's really no point in saying anything else. "Gamers" can keep the term, and I encourage others to cede it to them

When have they ever enjoyed being hoisted on their own petard? If similar people in other areas are a guide, they'll be loud and in our faces until they literally die, and they are pretty young. We're the ones who have to adapt to them, in the way that science has adapted to cope with the inevitable attempts to sell snake oil in its many forms. Trying to fight against the nature of some people is a losing proposition.

Can you name another instance where such a debate has been met with the level of theatrics and histrionics "gamer" has?

Because I'm honestly reaching for one and cannot find one. Not even the music snobs I hung around with.

But I think you're wrong. We don't have to adapt to them. The only reason this has cropped up is because it's the end of an era, not the beginning of one. This is a fight against a decline of relevance, like the RIAA fighting to keep CDs alive. I'm all for Max Planck as far as science goes, but ideas in a marketplace change a lot faster as one bodies gains or loses relevance. You don't need people to literally die out, only for their demographic to no longer matter.

Tat was actually the thrust of many of those "gamers are dead" articles: the decrease of power and influence of a group almost universally perceived as caustic by anyone outside that group--even other people who engage in gaming in a non-casual sense.