No Right Answer: Are Gamers Dead?

[Therumancer]

It's like this. There is a difference between a "gamer" and "someone who plays games". While technically those things mean the same thing, it's one of those cases where society and culture has given the term "gamer" on it's own a very specific meaning. A gamer is someone who is into games as a primary interest, a major focus for their life. It's sort of like how an "Athlete" is someone who plays a sport seriously and as a result their entire life from their social network, to what they do while not playing (like say working out constantly). Technically it can be said someone who plays an occasional game of football with their friends, or does softball on the weekends is also an "athlete" but overall when you talk about "athletes" as a defining trait you mean someone who is really, really, serious about it.

At the end of the day a gamer is someone who finds it reasonable to say put 20 hours into a game just to get started and figure out if it's going to be any good, and spend hundreds of hours potentially to get everything out of it, and might even spend an hour or two just to get one mission done. In comparison someone who is not a gamer might play occasionally and doesn't expect that kind of invested interest and effort. It's also possible to go from being a gamer to just someone who plays games, or vice versa. For example with some people you'll notice they get upset when their lack of commitment is pointed out and how they go off with "hey, I have a life, I can't put two hours into one mission in a Grand Theft Auto title anymore". Basically gamers are those who expect games worthy of the time and commitment and which can't be enjoyed by anyone else, while those who simply play games do it expecting to be entertained, receive immediate gratification, and be able to succeed at games and finish them with comparatively trivial effort. It can be argued that unless you happen to be with someone who is equally passionate about games and most of your relationship involves conversations across a room you have your computers set up with, you can't really be a gamer and have much of a social life, family, romance, etc.... because by definition that means all of your time is not being dedicated to your craft (so to speak).

The whole "basement dweller" thing comes from the fact that a lot of "gamers" are the result of a skipped generation. Basically people who never had the opportunities to succeed in any major way due to their parents generation not aging to the point of infirmity due to medical advances as quickly as other generations and thus being skipped. This means a lot of people from "Generation X" and "Generation Y" continued living at home especially if the parents could afford it and understood the problems, because there was literally nowhere else to go. With all the decent jobs in the same hands they were in to begin with held by people who didn't retire as the new generation was coming up, huge portions of Generation X and Y simply couldn't afford housing, and simply booting the kids out of the nest wasn't going to be the lesson needed to get them going and increasing numbers of people knew that. Of course when you wind up with increasingly old people living at home, there are fewer prospects for dating (yeah, your going to meet girls saying your living in Mom's basement) and of course raising a family. What low-end jobs these guys land however aren't sufficient to support the holders in their own homes, but DO mean with room and board taken care of, usually for at most a trivial investment, they have money to spare. This means expensive hobbies like gaming. This in some respects can cause a degree of resentment among those who "have lives" who actually make more money, but seemingly have less because they invest most of it in things these other guys can't, and don't have. You might say wind up with some 30 year old dude who doesn't date and yet can spend thousands of dollars annually and hundreds of hours a week playing video games. The guy with a life who might want to game tends to get resentful of that, especially when you consider that guy outspends him by a substantial margin and winds up being the primary audience games are created for as a result.

Right now the thing is that there are enough "casuals" in gaming via things like phones and the like that for once the gamers are not the biggest economic concern. Furthermore this is leaking back to things like computers and consoles. The comment about "gamers being dead" I think is more a matter of saying that in an environment where the gaming companies only cater to the biggest possible market, and that's casuals (which include FPS players) and produce very few games overall, the people making the decisions don't care anymore.

When it comes to politics, I don't think gamers have ever really been associated with being misogynistic. The stereotype is more "desperate and horny" and easily lead around by girls. The thing is though that with casuals outnumbering the serious gamers things like political correctness become more important since those are mainstream political concerns among those with jobs and such, and indeed being politically correct and generating controversy by doing so is a marketing tool that works well on a more mainstream, casual, audience. What's more by say claiming that guys who defend fantasy artwork and such are misogynists it gets attention, and since the gaming industry isn't catering to that group it's easy to slap them around for attention.

The odd thing is though that there are a surprising number of gamers, while outnumbered by casuals, the gamers still represent a LARGE minority group, and as a general rule such groups do not go quietly, what's more gamers still have money to spend disproportionate to those numbers... enough so where some of the clashes can be interesting, which is why you've seen such bitterness and the whole "Gamers are Dead" thing in #Gamersgate seems to largely have happened because some people were unhappy about how playing the PC card didn't just stop the opposition cold, gamers still have enough oomph in their own territory to not be easily silenced. What's more I suspect there is some concern among casuals that gaming will diversify more, believe it or not... and one of the first niche groups that will be catered to are the gamers since they have the numbers and the deepest pockets, and the content will likely be a matter of "what's entertaining" more than "what's PC" which will irritate those who have increasingly been bringing politics into the gaming arena.

That's my thoughts at any rate, I don't expect a lot to agree with me though.

It's sort of like the term "RPG" (Role-Playing Game) it has a very specific meaning, but as time goes on certain people have chosen to interpet it differently based on what they want it to mean, as opposed to what it actually means. But that's another entire discussion which isn't going to win me many popularity points.

 

[kael013]

I still can't believe this is a thing.

Reader: A person who reads a book, magazine, newspaper, etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reader

Filmgoer (or Moviegoer): A person who often goes to movies or who is at a particular movie.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/filmgoer

Gamer: A person who plays games and especially video or computer games.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamer

The definition tells us how gamers will die: when no one is interested in playing games.
The definition tells us when gamers will die: the same time as readers and filmgoers. [i/]Never[/i]. Sure, the label may die - I don't know anyone who calls themselves a moviegoer - but the subculture won't.

Side note: apparently videogames didn't create the label "gamer". It's been a word since around 1630. Just a lil' tidbit I found interesting.

 

[irishda]

"Gamers" as an identity should be dead. If your identity is based around an entertainment identity, it doesn't speak well for your life as a whole. When games are seen as a part of your identity, the any perceived attack on games becomes an attack on you. Any attempt to change games (for better or worse) is seen as attempt to change you. When you graft something to yourself, it becomes a part of you, and it's sad to see when that something is as trivial as video games.

I'm not against people playing video games. No one is (*ahem* people that made a joke that they're alive so therefore gamers can't be dead). What me and others are against is the hyper-consumerist class that buys every DLC then bitches about buying DLC. The class that believes those who play facebook games or shooters are somehow stupider than the people that had to get a special import for their JRPG because it wasn't getting an American release. The class that believes companies should be sued for false advertising because a game didn't live up to their expectations. The class that laments how stale video games have become only to cheer when another sequel to THEIR favorite IPs is released. That's what I want to see go away.

Something tells me the people that don't care about the term "gamer" going away aren't a part of that class.

 

[Redd the Sock]

I have and always will support the term "gamer" as an enthusiast at the least. I mean, we all cook, but no one calls themselves a chief unless it's their job, or won't even claim it as their hobby unless they did it with at least some passion over cooking your daily meal. I don't know why terms devoted to the enthusiasts, the experts, the devoted, the master, etc threaten so many people as to me, they give me something to shoot for. But I guess there are people you can't say no to because they get to have everything and heaven help you if you tell them no.

I mean, I get where the negative picture came from. It got attached to every other nerd stereotype as it was just another child's pass time we were supposed to outgrow but didn't. While we largely outgrew it, we got another problem or 5 years back. New people started coming in and wanting things changed. When there was resistance, these people needed a boogeyman. Something evil and twisted they could paint what was being done with to deflect that (just for a few) were being judgmental of the games others played and how they played them, felt entitled to what others saw as rewards to be earned, and demanding of input into creative content. They need the villain of the piece or they might have to face how often they're jumping around going "ME ME ME THINK ABOUT MEEEEEE!!!!" They call it exclusive, and to a level it was true, but not in the "no girls, coloreds or queers allowed" so much as a church not waving commandments or other doctrine for those that don't want to follow them.

Of course gamers aren't dead. The infamous articles wouldn't have been run if it were true. It was a combo emergency effort / wishful thinking that the lesson of the wii was no longer true: that the game industry wasn't as dependent on those of us spending hundreds if not thousands on gaming per year. A different time, different circumstances and you know, not all at once, the claim that the demographic was shifting might have had more validity. As is stood, it came off very much like people whose half truths and omissions were in danger of coming to light desperately tired mass stereotyping and vilification before the thought took hold.

World out great didn't it?

 

[mmiki]

But they aren't. Abuse is a shitty thing being done by shitty people. It has nothing to do with gaming or gaming culture. When a radical feminist abuses someone on twitter (and oh boy there's plenty of them), you don't see me decrying all feminism to be abusive. It's a dumb argument that ,if anything, got me questioning my life choice of reading Gamasutra.

If you read through the whole article you'd see the point the author is making, and that it has everything to do with gaming culture. This is the face of gaming, because gaming culture has yet to create anything more. The void is filled by the asshole behavior. The author doesn't blame all gamers as being abusive, she blames gaming culture for being so hollow that the only thing of significant attention it creates is assholes being assholes. Swatting, online harassment campaigns, and a high volume of toxicity online that most people respond to negatively whenever a developer or forum tries to curb it because how dare they take away the player's right to call somebody an asshole.

Thats not to say that gaming culture is entirely negative, as good things do happen all the time, including Child's Play, at the forefront. However, the culture is relatively stagnant despite its massive growth.

For one, the article does not make any kind of distinction. Gaming culture is hollow and toxic, gamers are maladjusted males. Second, that argument is completely off the rails. It's not 'hollow gaming culture' that is making people act like assholes, it's being anonymous. Give people power without any responsibility and that's how they'll act. I've seen it happen in all sorts of places from football fandoms to forums about music and especially religion and atheism. Here, religion and atheism deal with non-hollow and meaningful things, why do they get so many abusive people?

In any case, I don't agree that gaming culture is hollow, or that this is the face of it. This is the face that she has chosen to argue with to further her points and supposed moral superiority.

You completely ignored the whole part of the article that I quoted that was filled with insults directed at gaming and gaming subculture. Someone who says those kinds of things loses the right to tell other people that they shouldn't be douchebags. It's an article that laments the tone of the conversation while engaging in insults and the worst of the re-hashed stereotypes. And that doesn't strike you as the least bit hypocritical?

No, they were aimed at douchebags within the gaming subculture. Quite the distinction. The entire article is about how hobbyist gaming and gaming as a passion is bigger than ever before, yet the culture is still hollow consumerism doing its best to appeal to the demographics from fifteen years ago, and how some individuals in that demographic are kicking and screaming whenever that type of catering is questioned.

No, that's you filling in the blanks. I've cited the relevant part twice and it never makes a distinction between gamers and abusers.

I don't have the patience to get in an argument about "hollow consumerism", but it was inevitable that it was going to become consumerist as soon as it entered the mainstream. What else was it going to be? Has any form of entertainment that generates this much money went another way?

There is a bigger chance now than ever for doing something different. If you can find enough people to market it to, who cares if people are snarky about your Mountain screensaver disguised as a game? (I'm being facetious)

And I'm sorry, but the journalists writing those articles have miscalculated. They all operate in a market economy and not a hipster paradise where they are the people that get to decide what's cool this week. The market ultimately decides what is dead and what isn't.

Obviously not, if even Call of Duty is struggling to put up consistent numbers. In less than five years, Minecraft became the second-biggest game of all time, and if it continues at this rate, it will be #1.

Yes, but it was not because some gaming journalist proclaimed CoD dead and Minecraft alive. It's because there was a need for that kind of game.

And who owns the Minecraft brand now? You can be certain that the reason it went for so much money is that it gives access to a whole generation of consumers.

If you want to talk about something beyond graphics and gameplay and look for actual meaning, do it, but it's not a duty of your audience to be interested in what you want to talk about or what you personally find interesting.

Doesn't explain all the people who ***** and while about opinions they don't like. Nobody is forcing anybody to watch Anita Sarkeesian's videos, and if some backwards, infantile members of the community didn't have a hissy fit that somebody dared have a different opinion than them, how many of us would have ever watched her Tropes vs. Women in Videogames videos? How many of us would've even known about it if some people got in a fuss about somebody daring to have a different opinion?

How does bitching and whining intrude on your right to watch whatever you want?

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to say what you want without a reaction. As long as it's not threats, people are free to throw tantrums and suffer the consequences, like it happened with the Gamasutra article. Intel is not run by idiots.

It also doesn't explain the personal gripes about all the articles discussing things they don't care for. I'm an athiest and fall under the LGBTQ banner, but I don't go to online communities for religious homophobes and complain and say that it shouldn't exist. If you don't want to read the article, don't. Don't like Jim Sterling's opinion? Don't watch or read any of his stuff. Moviebob? Same thing. Same applies to every single internet personality out there. Unless a personality you don't like is causing a tangible harm to a person, you should just ignore, not stomp around that somebody dare likes their content.

I'm not a fan of toxicity either. Outside of heavy moderation I have not seen many effective ways of dealing with this, but this heavy moderation has often descended into censorship. Reddit is the most infamous for this, with 99% of the drama that happens there being the result of moderators going completely off the rails.

But I digress.

Don't see the part where the writer calls all people who play games "socially inept lonely kids who are consumerist zombies".

Lets have it one more time because you missed it the first time around:

I didn't miss it, it just didn't say what you claimed it did. If you're identifying yourself as a consumerist zombie, thats your problem because you don't value gaming as anything more than being brainless toys. If you identify as a jerk resisting having to share a medium with somebody else, then thats your problem because, well, you're likely a jerk that doesn't want anybody to interact with games differently than you do and/or anybody who isn't like you to interact with them. And if you aren't either of those things, but are still upset by it, then you should realize that the article isn't talking about you.

You are again reading things that aren't there. And even if I am enjoying brainless toys, that's none of your business. That's you having a problem with how I interact with my games. So practice what you preach and leave my brainless toys alone.

Personally I don't get much enjoyment out of brainless toys but I'm kinda getting sick of the hypocrisy.

I have no idea who or what you are arguing with. Maybe you should find those people who have problems discussing artistic merits of a game and argue with them rather than bringing that baggage into this discussion.

I'm not dragging that baggage in, thats who the article is talking about.

The article is a stream of abuse directed at gamers and gaming culture, followed by author's lamentations that said culture out there enjoys things she doesn't. It's followed by a clear division of us vs. them, the evil hollow gamers that enjoy empty consumerism, vs. us, the new wave, Gamers 2.0, that enjoy inclusive games (I mean seriously, Leigh Alexander and inclusive in the same sentence?), setting herself up as a curator in this brave new world of gaming she was going to lead us off to, if it wasn't for those meddling kids.

Here's a hint: gaming has always been inclusive. It always had its share of idiots and misogynists too, but it was way more inclusive than other hobbies like sports were. We were all anonymous behind the screen and it never mattered what you were, girl, boy, LGBT, what your skin color or culture was. It wasn't often depicted that way in mainstream gaming but it has gotten better over the years and it especially got better since the barrier to entry into making games was lowered.

I don't believe her one minute when she says she's about being "inclusive". You only need to do a little digging to see why, if you even care. It has always been about pushing a political agenda. Games are no longer about fun. They should be judged on whether they have the right message rather than their merits. I can't imagine a worse gaming hell than one curated by people with these kinds of views.

Errant Signal gets idiots in his comments (I've been watching his videos for years so I know that). Newsflash, everybody gets idiots in their comments. Totalbiscuit turned off his comments ages ago, and yet no one started a culture war over that. YouTube comments system is horrible, and Google doesn't seem to be interested in making it better. And that's not limited to gaming, just mention evolution or climate change in a video and you'll get an injection of crazy that you never thought was possible.

I'm not talking about Youtube comments, I'm talking about everywhere within gaming culture. This was posted, completely unironically, on these forums earlier today.

"On the proper topic, relevant gamer girls are probably like Vi/v/ian James and just want to play games without outside politics."

And? Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if you think they are wrong.

I don't pretend to know what gamer women want, but personally I've had too much politics in my gaming lately.

Comments like these are everywhere. Its not "just Youtube" (not that its a viable counter in the first place), it exists on critiques, on opinion articles, in user-created threads specifically meant to discuss something in-depth. Anita Sarkeesian is relevant only because of people who feel, and act, this way - she's living proof of the phenomena. There are people who want to keep gaming culture exclusively for them. I don't get upset when somebody values a game for any reason. I don't see much of value in the GTA franchise. I don't enjoy racing or fighting games. I don't piss on other people's parade. Its really not that hard to do, especially given that people who do have to go out of the way to do so usually. Yet people do it because they can't stand the thought of somebody else liking the things that they don't like, or disliking something that they like.

So your problem is that people get annoyed when you like something they don't and vice versa? I think that attitude is juvenile but you know...Earlier you made an argument "if you don't like it, don't watch/read it".

 

[JohnFei]

The reports of Gamers' death are greatly exaggerated.

snip

Good luck discussing with Gamers who you proclaim to be dead.

 

[mmiki]

Just for the sake of argument, these are the games that I played the most for the last few months:

-X-Com Enemy Within with Long War Mod. The closest you will get to a AAA title on this list. The mod is simply brilliant and brings it closer to an authentic X-Com experience than the vanilla ever was.

-Wasteland 2. Old style RPG, the kind that big publishers told us isn't viable. Not perfect but I got what I wanted out of it.

-Endless Legend. Brilliant 4x game. If it wasn't for Civ: Beyond Earth coming out it would be the best strategy game of the year in my book. This way, I'll have to wait to see if the new Civ is any good.

-Europa Barbarorum 2 mod for Medieval 2: Kingdoms. A total remake of the ancient world around 270 bc made by actual historians (and not wikipedia like the Total War games). 7 years in the making, it's still in beta and missing a lot of stuff but early signs are very promising.

-Sunless Sea - still in Early Access. Impressed me enough that I dropped money on it even though I never did on something that's in early access before. I got into Fallen London, the browser game that is it's predecessor and it's awesome. They both are actually, although I would wait with purchasing Sunless Sea as it's missing too much story to be truly enjoyable.

-TOME (Tales of Maj'Eyal) - tactical rpg roguelike, game I invested 1200 hours in. It's always getting new stuff. There's DLC announced that I'm very excited about.

-DCSS (Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup) - recently got a new version, it got more streamlined which I approve of.

Behold, the horrible world of filthy consumerism. Where there's so much interesting non-AAA stuff to play our gaming backlogs now have an index page.

 

[Louzerman102]

I find sports fan(atic)s to be much more rabid when it comes to opinions than the average gamer but socially being a fan of sports is more acceptable than being a someone who enjoys and plays video games. Sports fan and gamer is the same thing for different mediums. It's a broad term that says this person enjoys this. Sports fans watch whatever sport is in season and has a favorite out of all the teams and gamers play many different games and has favorites. There is no difference except what they are fans of. And yet being called a gamer is used as an insult by people who do not play games and used as some badge of honor by many who do.

Saying "I am a gamer" should be the same as "I am a sports fan". It should mean I enjoy playing games for my entertainment just like the other says I enjoy watching sports for my entertainment. It should never be used to define who you are as a person and yet it is used that way.

How can you compare the two activities!? Fanatic sports fans riot after wins, they also kill under-performing player in after game mobs, while video-gamers say mean things to women on the internet occasionally! The menace of the video-gamer must be stopped! MORE EXCLAMATION POINTS!! Think of the children!

 

[Shjade]

I'm a gamer. To me a gamer is someone who plays games, and who plays games and is a BIT more interested in the medium than playing farmville once a month.

I dont think the term is dead, but I dont think the term is very meaningful either. Its about as meaningful as "swimmer". Whats a swimmer all about? Living in pools and only drinking water and wearing trunks all the time?

One has to divide a person from a term. You cant sum up a person with one word. Its even hard to sum up a culture with one word. When I say gamer I guess a lot of people think about raging xbox kiddies or frothing cod players. They exist, but thats barely a subculture. In fact its even just a small part of a subculture. Gamers are just people. As diverse in any direction as any people with a particular hobby.

This is more or less the conversation I tried to have with someone on Twitter the other day re: the Leigh Alexander article. I'm a gamer, and I knew almost immediately that she wasn't talking about me. "Gamer" is not a term that exists in a vacuum; it's a descriptor of one aspect, one interest a person has, and a wide variety of people have that tag attached to them.

Honestly if this thing had started out as #HaterGate instead it would've been a lot clearer for everyone involved, if you ask me. More direct, more on point and less confused by the issue of who/what constitutes gamers and their extremely disparate interests and opinions.

 

[Silence]

Look. All this wouldn't be a problem if these articles were written in a way that says

"We shouldn't let trolls take over gamer culture"

and

"Trolls need to die"

Nobody would have cared. But if you give up the term "gamer" without a fight at all? Well, the people who still think they are gamers (and don't find themselves in the "I give up" definition) will feel insulted. Especially because most of them had long, long fights against mainstream media. You really can't blame someone to get emotional then.

You can't change the definition of a term while people identify with the term and expect no backlash. You just can't.

If someone would go out of their way and say "Metalheads is now a synonyme for Nazi, if you like Metal please use another term for yourself" they would get hate. Especially if it was written BY the people who write for metal magazines.

 

[Moosejaw]

The SJ approach to situations like these where you have a minority of people - individuals - engaging in terrible behavior is well documented and the result is the same. It appears to me that their idea is that we have some people who call themselves gamers being douchebags, so we will assign responsibility for the actions of individuals to this entire group. We will shame them via insulting the entire community and implying that it is the community's responsibility to police every single member that they have and that it will remain terrible until they do.

Here's the problem: this is the equivalent of punishing everybody in class when one kid breaks something and nobody will fess up to it. I guess the idea is that everybody will come down on the kid that did it and correct their behavior, but it's exactly as unfair and stupid when applied to adults in general society as it is in a classroom. If you attack an entire group, people will take it as an attack on them personally. Of course the SJs always have the caveat if you question them 'well if you aren't the person doing these things I'm not talking about you', but will continue to attack the 'gaming community' and never use phrases like 'some', 'a few', or even 'many'. Or they'll just mock you by responding with #notallgamers.

When you attack the 'gaming community' instead of the trolls, you will piss off some people that consider it an attack on them for something they didn't do and then they will attack you right back. That is the SJ operating procedure and they think it works, but all I think it'll do is make people really dislike SJ people. They are engaging in a messaging failure by refusing to quit generalizing the behavior of all gamers together or specifying they just mean the trolls, or they are engaging in collective punishment by attacking everybody and hoping they clamp down on the trolls.

 

[Elijah Newton]

"When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you?re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum. That?s what?s been happening to games."

(http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php)

I dug that article - that line jumped out at me when I read the article.

(I mean seriously, Leigh Alexander and inclusive in the same sentence?)

I don't believe her one minute when she says she's about being "inclusive". You only need to do a little digging to see why, if you even care. It has always been about pushing a political agenda. Games are no longer about fun. They should be judged on whether they have the right message rather than their merits. I can't imagine a worse gaming hell than one curated by people with these kinds of views.

Ugh. Dude or madam, discrediting like this "I don't believe...", "You only need to do a little digging..." is a lazy tactic. You're leaning on the trust of your readers because.. you're an anonymous source? C'mon. You or your stance has got to deserve better than this*. Cite your sources, please. Convince us she is not inclusive with quotes from the source (her).

For instance, I've liked quite a bit of what she's written and haven't found Ms. Alexander to not be inclusive. Her writeup about how she got into Netrunner ( http://www.shutupandsitdown.com/blog/post/test/ ) is one of my favorites and describes an kind of experience I wish more folks would have when starting new games. The arc goes from "it?s just a goddamn card game" to ?I want to learn not to freak out when I?m losing, and to work hard at things even if they grind me down? and ends with "It's a great feeling to have a hobby that looks so bizarre, yet to have so much fun that onlookers become jealous."

* FWIW, I've got no quarrel with you saying that's you "can't imagine a worse gaming hell." That's your opinion.

 

[Elijah Newton]

Hm. The flow of this thread seems to be to sweep this under the carpet - even me, by blaming trolls. While most of the gamers I know are good people, I would say the preconception of the gaming community as not being welcoming is valid. The environment in most multiplayer games is pretty toxic.

That probably has more to do with human nature and less to deal with 'being a gamer'. We like winning and we hate losing.

Sorry, but I can't accept that. Gamers play chess, monopoly, poker, and [insert various modern board games]. None of those gamers, in those games, accept toxic behavior which you're suggesting is just part of "human nature" when video games become the game medium.

I find sports fan(atic)s to be much more rabid when it comes to opinions than the average gamer but socially being a fan of sports is more acceptable than being a someone who enjoys and plays video games.

How can you compare the two activities!? Fanatic sports fans riot after wins, they also kill under-performing player in after game mobs, while video-gamers say mean things to women on the internet occasionally!

This is what I mean by gamers covering for trolls. When Louzerman102 writes "mean things to women on the internet" he or she is trivializing really egregious stuff. I hope I'm wrong - Louzerman102, please pipe up and clarify for me what you meant if I'm missing the point and "mean things to women on the internet" doesn't include rape and dismemberment threats, and all the etc etc that I'd like to move past as much as anyone else.

Except gamers keep covering for it.

_Gamers_ don't do these things. Trolls do these things.

Why are we (gamers) covering for trolls?

 

[VVThoughtBox]

Gamers are not dead: people are still choosing spend some money on a console and games to play for fun. They're just not choosing to purchase or play the indie games that critics love to gush about like "Gone Home" or "Depression Quest" because they're not interested in. I think game critics need to understand that people have different tastes in games just like they have different taste in food, clothing, and music.

 

[Louzerman102]

I find sports fan(atic)s to be much more rabid when it comes to opinions than the average gamer but socially being a fan of sports is more acceptable than being a someone who enjoys and plays video games.

How can you compare the two activities!? Fanatic sports fans riot after wins, they also kill under-performing player in after game mobs, while video-gamers say mean things to women on the internet occasionally!

This is what I mean by gamers covering for trolls. When Louzerman102 writes "mean things to women on the internet" he or she is trivializing really egregious stuff. I hope I'm wrong - Louzerman102, please pipe up and clarify for me what you meant if I'm missing the point and "mean things to women on the internet" doesn't include rape and dismemberment threats, and all the etc etc that I'd like to move past as much as anyone else.

Except gamers keep covering for it.

_Gamers_ don't do these things. Trolls do these things.

Why are we (gamers) covering for trolls?

At the time all I wanted to do is make a smart ass remark aka tongue in cheek remark on the internet. There wasn't that much of a point I was trying to get across, however there is an interesting topic to be had on spin and perspective here.

Personally I have always been interested by how a person skillful with words can twist tone and meaning into whatever they want, but that is a whole different conversation.

Anyway, I was comparing a pastime/activity/way of life called sports, something people have been killed over, to toxic behavior on the internet. Again I will stress, actually killed people to the threat of violence. Dead bodies to words. Words that are possible because the inherent structure and anonymity of the internet makes it the perfect environment to say hurtful words without follow-through. Gaming is in the middle of a moral panic, sexism on the internet existed before this and will exist after this. Most of the arguments I have seen focus entirely on gaming, ignoring that human sexuality is a massive issue in the film industry (along with racism), comics, and corporate business. My point is not to trivialize or cover for trolls it's to point out as a realist "how do I control the actions of people I don't even know?" is a really stupid question. I would also like to point out that you bit the bullet pretty hard on my smart ass comment, overlooking my point that people have died for sports to target the line about sexism, in a comment that joking trivialized death to focus on sexism.

Why are we (gamers) covering for trolls?

Why is it my duty to be a sword and shield for other people?

 

[Elijah Newton]

Louzerman102, please pipe up and clarify for me what you meant if I'm missing the point and "mean things to women on the internet" doesn't include rape and dismemberment threats, and all the etc etc that I'd like to move past as much as anyone else.

Except gamers keep covering for it.

_Gamers_ don't do these things. Trolls do these things.

Why are we (gamers) covering for trolls?

At the time all I wanted to do is make a smart ass remark aka tongue in cheek remark on the internet.

Personally I have always been interested by how a person skillful with words can twist tone and meaning into whatever they want, but that is a whole different conversation.

Before I go on, Louzerman102, I
a) dig that you were going after a tongue in cheek remark, a quick dig, and didn't mean anything by it.

and

b) that by reframing what you said I made it sound like you were saying something you hadn't meant. I've no doubt you're a good person who wouldn't tolerate rape and dismemberment threats in face to face conversation.

And I appreciate that you took the time to clarify your position. You didn't have to and you did, and that was really cool to have done.

Anyway, I was comparing a pastime/activity/way of life called sports, something people have been killed over, to toxic behavior on the internet. Again I will stress, actually killed people to the threat of violence.

I'm with you as far as the insanity of sports fans, by the way. Comparing violence in sports with civility in gaming seems a bit apples and oranges to me, though they are both game-related. I think it's possible to recognize both as undesireable behavior, but blah blah blah I'd be lying if I didn't see the humor in what you posted. Certainly I can't write a joke to save my life, so I'm not throwing stones about humor.

My point is not to trivialize or cover for trolls it's to point out as a realist "how do I control the actions of people I don't even know?" is a really stupid question.

Why are we (gamers) covering for trolls?

Why is it my duty to be a sword and shield for other people?

Whoa whoa whoa. You've got a couple assumptions going on there that I'm pretty sure I didn't say. I'm not trying to get you to control the actions of people. Nor am I exhorting you to protect others.

This is about us, you and me. Gamers.

If mass media rightly or wrongly equates gamers with trolls... shouldn't we, as gamers, stand up for ourselves and say, boldly! and with one voice, "Um, no."

And then shuffle our feet a little before clarifying, "You want the trolls, they're completely different. We think that shit's crazy out of line."

You could've said anything about gamers in your statement, but you specifically went to "say mean things to women on the internet." C'mon, man/ma'am, can't you see how that reads as specifically trivializing threatening and sexist behavior? Trivializing that stuff covers for trolls.

Which we, as gamers, really ought not be doing.

I would also like to point out that you bit the bullet pretty hard on my smart ass comment, overlooking my point that people have died for sports to target the line about sexism, in a comment that joking trivialized death to focus on sexism.

Touché, inasmuch as my response was an elaborate reaction to a small comment. I don't feel so badly about moving the discussion back towards sexism and away from death in sports as the 'gamergate' thing (which prompted the "Are Gamers Dead?" discussion) had more to do with the former than the latter.

Anyway, look. This is waaaay more than I write about anything almost ever. I appreciate you letting me get this off my chest and I apologize for singling you out - your quote just happened to catch my eye. At this point, for what it's worth, you're welcome to the last word on the topic. The floor is yours.

 

[Louzerman102]

Louzerman102, please pipe up and clarify for me what you meant if I'm missing the point and "mean things to women on the internet" doesn't include rape and dismemberment threats, and all the etc etc that I'd like to move past as much as anyone else.

Except gamers keep covering for it.

_Gamers_ don't do these things. Trolls do these things.

Why are we (gamers) covering for trolls?

At the time all I wanted to do is make a smart ass remark aka tongue in cheek remark on the internet.

Personally I have always been interested by how a person skillful with words can twist tone and meaning into whatever they want, but that is a whole different conversation.

Before I go on, Louzerman102, I
a) dig that you were going after a tongue in cheek remark, a quick dig, and didn't mean anything by it.

and

b) that by reframing what you said I made it sound like you were saying something you hadn't meant. I've no doubt you're a good person who wouldn't tolerate rape and dismemberment threats in face to face conversation.

And I appreciate that you took the time to clarify your position. You didn't have to and you did, and that was really cool to have done.

Anyway, I was comparing a pastime/activity/way of life called sports, something people have been killed over, to toxic behavior on the internet. Again I will stress, actually killed people to the threat of violence.

I'm with you as far as the insanity of sports fans, by the way. Comparing violence in sports with civility in gaming seems a bit apples and oranges to me, though they are both game-related. I think it's possible to recognize both as undesireable behavior, but blah blah blah I'd be lying if I didn't see the humor in what you posted. Certainly I can't write a joke to save my life, so I'm not throwing stones about humor.

My point is not to trivialize or cover for trolls it's to point out as a realist "how do I control the actions of people I don't even know?" is a really stupid question.

Why are we (gamers) covering for trolls?

Why is it my duty to be a sword and shield for other people?

Whoa whoa whoa. You've got a couple assumptions going on there that I'm pretty sure I didn't say. I'm not trying to get you to control the actions of people. Nor am I exhorting you to protect others.

This is about us, you and me. Gamers.

If mass media rightly or wrongly equates gamers with trolls... shouldn't we, as gamers, stand up for ourselves and say, boldly! and with one voice, "Um, no."

And then shuffle our feet a little before clarifying, "You want the trolls, they're completely different. We think that shit's crazy out of line."

I was did something I should not have done with this control line here. I used your response to talk about my opinion on the entire discussion instead of making a response to you specifically. I am also talking around your point a lot by driving at what I consider one of the main issues here. Louzerman102 is obviously not my real name, so what is the benefit of good behavior when it applies to a removable internet persona?

What you are suggesting is proper social etiquette which is good and would be used at all times in a proper world. The issue is the "gamers are dead" articles all had a specific bias, and gaming itself is struggling against an ingrained stereotype. A large amount of people are stating "the actions of the Trolls do not represent us" and have been saying that for years. Those people were deliberately ignored to spin the situation, and ties back into my spinning of words point earlier. To me the groups that want to argue Gamers are terrible people will continue that argument regardless of the actions of the whole group. To be fair, I personally dislike that those articles were written, however I also understand the authors believed they were stating "we are better than this" to a certain extent.

This part is rather off topic. I have always wanted but have never been able to use the question, Is Romeo and Juliet a timeless tale of tragic love or is it a horrible influence that promotes pre-martial sex, child endangerment and statutory rape? (Juliet is 14)

To get back on topic:

You could've said anything about gamers in your statement, but you specifically went to "say mean things to women on the internet." C'mon, man/ma'am, can't you see how that reads as specifically trivializing threatening and sexist behavior? Trivializing that stuff covers for trolls.

Which we, as gamers, really ought not be doing.

Trying to look at a topic from "the big picture" is very close to trivializing the topic. Talking specifically about a topic is very close to losing "the big picture." I was trying to make a joke about perspective not trivialize the act of internet threats or the hurtfulness of internet sexism. I also agree that gamers should not protect Trolls, however as Gaming increases in popularity the number of people who are toxic will increase along with the number of total people playing games.

I would also like to point out that you bit the bullet pretty hard on my smart ass comment, overlooking my point that people have died for sports to target the line about sexism, in a comment that joking trivialized death to focus on sexism.

Touché, inasmuch as my response was an elaborate reaction to a small comment. I don't feel so badly about moving the discussion back towards sexism and away from death in sports as the 'gamergate' thing (which prompted the "Are Gamers Dead?" discussion) had more to do with the former than the latter.

Anyway, look. This is waaaay more than I write about anything almost ever. I appreciate you letting me get this off my chest and I apologize for singling you out - your quote just happened to catch my eye. At this point, for what it's worth, you're welcome to the last word on the topic. The floor is yours.

I completely understand because I did the same thing, and I am not that vocal or active of a community member here, I wrote a lot more on this topic than what I expected. Also I don't really feel singled out considering the reply/quote system is kinda structured to single a post out. Lastly I just noticed I wrote joking instead of jokingly and that really bugs me.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

dose fedoras tho'

gamers, as in people who play and enjoy games, people who get really involved in the gaming industry, is not going away in the near future, i mean even assuming that all these people are meanies, there is going to be a bunch of nerds who want to know the lastest trend in games, and i knwo this because it happens in comics, it happens in film, this sort of people exist in every form of entertainment

which makes it all the more baffling when the people arguing gamers are dead, come from sites that PROVIDE information about the lastest trends in gaming

is like, if apple said people who boy iphones and ipads are a bunch of dirty hipsters

one thing that bothers me is the people who take... maybe too much pride about being a gamer, call everyone with tastes different from them non-gamers, etc. we could use a lil bit less of that

and yes im all for both sides being more inclusive, in essence i dont oppose the ideas of "diversity" of the other side, what i dont want is to see devs being shamed and insulted for their artistic decisions, and we shouldnt argue a game is bad because the character is a white straight male or something like that, instead, lets make more games, of all kinds, from the senran kaguras, to the gone homes, and the people in chargue of critizing games should be ALWAYS transparent while doing so

 

[Aesir23]

I have to admit that I find myself amused at the bit about gaming being in the basement. Primarily because I literally am a basement-dwelling gamer due to my living room being the worst place in the house to play games.

"Nerd Militant" is my new favorite title. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

*rubs eyes* Jeebus please-us, I thought I'd never see the day when I'd say this but man I wish gamers had half the social grace of goths and punks when it comes to the phrase, "[our subculture] is dead." The former saw the humor in it and laughed it off, and the latter didn't care. Both subcultures are fine (for varying values of fine). As is ours.

Everywhere I see gamers pissing and moaning. Because I self-identify as a gamer, so here's my two cents : it's not the media that I see abusing the term, it's the trolls who appropriate it that get to me. The gamers I know don't need defending. The behavior of trolls doesn't warrant defending. But for reasons which are opaque to me I keep seeing gamers defend trolls.

For me, that is the line on which 'gamer' as a word and something with which I identify. When my hobby gets linked with /4chan and not Child's Play, I don't want to be know for it.

The wailing that games might start self-censoring because the target audience widens is scarcely less off-putting. All my life I've been trying to get people to play games because I've wanted to spread the happiness they've given me. But I know not everyone's got the same taste so yeah, as more folks come to the market designers are going to shift what they're making. Some of that won't be to my taste. Fine. There will still be something for everyone.

The popularization of vampires lead to Meyers writing Twilight for the masses, but Lindqvist wrote Let the Right One In. I don't care about (or for) the former, but I'm glad the genre got big enough to give me a chance to read the latter.

As for my feelings regarding the whole matter, I'd say this sums it up much more clearly and far more eloquently than I could ever manage.

 

[Wulfram77]

For one, the article does not make any kind of distinction.

Sure it does.

The distinction made is between bad old (gamer) audience and good new audience. No distinction between good gamer and bad gamer, they all go joyfully onto the trash keep. And Ms Alexander makes it pretty clear how she defines a gamer, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with misogyny, sexism, harassment or any of that.