Poll: Conservative and Liberal Gamers

[Sud0_x]

I think your definitions are wrong flawed.
Furthermore, by making those particular divides, I'm inclined to believe that you have some kind of agenda.

This feels misguided at best

I like games.

 

[viranimus]

I give you kudos for trying but I dont think this will work.

I know me myself and I I apparently by the cited examples I am both conservative and liberal

I hate WASD with vehement passion,

I love 3d and new tech, Even buying bad games for no other reason to see where the industry is going.

I hate DRM as I can see its ineffectual and useless.

I love indie games like minecraft and usually finding bugs and glitches are some of the most enjoyable experiences in a game.

Thing if it is, I get the feeling if each gamer looks hard enough, they could find a way they identify with Conservative gaming and a way they identify with liberal gaming.

 

[zehydra]

There is more than just conservative and liberal. An actual political graph has four areas. I would guess I'm a libertarian gamer, I play what I think is fun and I encourage development but love the classics as well.

I realize that my system is one-dimesional, but this was more or less an experiment. The reason an actual political graph has four areas, is because the two dimensions are the two most important political issues in determining political alignment: Economy and Society. In this poll I only see one issue that differentiates between the two: Change in Real-World experience.

You ultimately wouldn't call yourself a Libertarian anyway, since Libertarianism is a philosophy based upon freedom as the most important value. There is no value of freedom in this context.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

There is more than just conservative and liberal. An actual political graph has four areas. I would guess I'm a libertarian gamer, I play what I think is fun and I encourage development but love the classics as well.

I realize that my system is one-dimesional, but this was more or less an experiment. The reason an actual political graph has four areas, is because the two dimensions are the two most important political issues in determining political alignment: Economy and Society. In this poll I only see one issue that differentiates between the two: Change in Real-World experience.

You ultimately wouldn't call yourself a Libertarian anyway, since Libertarianism is a philosophy based upon freedom as the most important value. There is no value of freedom in this context.

DRM is a matter of freedom. As is the freedom to choose between games in the matter. So yes, there is freedom at stake here.

 

[-Dragmire-]

I personally have a strong mix of the 2 categories and can't place myself with either one.

I hate any DRM that's more work/pain than a cd key. Always online DRM feels like a rental because of a limited server life. I sometimes replay games back on my SNES, it's not unreasonable to expect people to want to play a game 10-20 years later.

the 'standard' controller from the snes(wii classic controller, dualshock and xbox controller followed this basic design) is my fav control type(mouse/keyboard for rts)

Motion Controls have their place (pretty much sports games but their could be others) but it really annoys me when motion controls are given a function that would be better used with a button. ex. Mario Galaxy - Mario's spin thing.

I have no problem with Indy Games (playing Terraria now) and encourage them to innovate in ways a multimillion dollar game can't risk.

I have no problem with graphics. As long as the art style and aesthetics are good the graphical quality doesn't bother me. Legend of Dragoon is still fun regardless of current standards for graphics.

3D is distracting and doesn't add anything to gameplay or immersion. I may change my opinion if something comes out that changes that(Sony's split screen without splitting the screen just might do it for me but a $6000-$10000 tv for that function is way out of my price range)

The way I see it, I'm kind of in the middle of your Liberal Conservative split.

 

[6_Qubed]

I will answer your question, but in lieu of a frankly still constricting set of choices, I will answer by telling you my primary strategy when I play the Hitman series: I will accomplish my task with as few deaths as possible, restarting if I feel I could have taken a more efficient course of action. However if I acquire any witnesses, civilian or otherwise, they die. I do not knock them out with chloroform or sedative syringes, they die. My most used weapon is a silenced pistol, with my garrote wire a close second. I prefer to keep my kills surgical, as quick, clean, and low-profile as possible.

 

[AtheistConservative]

Something tells me this thread is going to be incredibly one sided. But whatever, I'll bite.

I guess I'm sort of mostly a Conservative gamer myself. I'm not really into motion controls myself, but I don't see why they would be harmful to the gaming industry. Just so long as it doesn't replace traditional gaming I'm fine with it.

Motion controls are harmful to this generation because the money spent by Sony and Microsoft on motion controls means that either they'll have to extend the life of some fairly old consoles or, they've spent money that could have pushed for better systems or cheaper prices on their next consoles.

 

[HassEsser]

Third option: independent. Liberals and conservatives are equally hypocritical. They give their votes on things before they even know what they're voting on; that, to me, is the definition of idiocracy.

EDIT: I jumped the gun, mistook OP's point. I guess that makes me a hypocrite as well. No matter, I guess I'd be a conservative gamer, I prefer WASD+Mouse over all and forever.

 

[Bags159]

Your conservative gamer description fit me 100% except for the DRM part. I've had no issues with DRM so I can't hate it.

 

[Mid-Boss]

I don't agree with your definition of conservative and liberal gamers.

It has always been to my understanding that Conservative has meant small circle of comfort and fear of change. Thus anything and anyone new and different is met with open hostility. Liberal has been... well pretty much the opposite.

So a Conservative gamer would believe: Games are not art, they should not be anything more than what I'm use to, and it should not be main stream and anyone who thinks otherwise is over thinking or a hipster.

Sadly, we live in a world of constant change. Trying to force things to remain the same only causes them to stagnate a die.

 

[Kevin7557]

There is more than just conservative and liberal. An actual political graph has four areas. I would guess I'm a libertarian gamer, I play what I think is fun and I encourage development but love the classics as well.

I realize that my system is one-dimesional, but this was more or less an experiment. The reason an actual political graph has four areas, is because the two dimensions are the two most important political issues in determining political alignment: Economy and Society. In this poll I only see one issue that differentiates between the two: Change in Real-World experience.

You ultimately wouldn't call yourself a Libertarian anyway, since Libertarianism is a philosophy based upon freedom as the most important value. There is no value of freedom in this context.

But you are wrong.
Libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the organizing principle of society. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating minimization of the state and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom. (Wikipedia)

The big corporations in gaming have shone to be quite destructive (EA, Activision, Blizzard) forsaking the customers in exchange for profits. That is a good libertarian issue right there.

On the other hand Statists would argue that the big corporate games are good.

Libertarian would be indifferent to owe this is old, this is adventurous and care about the game itself. If it is new and fun, Yippy, if it is old school and fun Yippy. So yeah it is an option.

Also your descriptions of Liberals and Conservatives is lacking for one political identity probably in all likely hood has nothing to do with your preference in gaming. It boils down to individualism and personal preferences.

 

[zehydra]

I don't agree with your definition of conservative and liberal gamers.

It has always been to my understanding that Conservative has always meant small circle of comfort and fear of change. Thus anything and anyone new and different is met with open hostility. Liberal has been... well pretty much the opposite.

Yes, which is what I based my definitions around. Those who hate DRM hate it because it's getting more and more invasive. They also hate motion controls because it is different from what they're used to (3D has a plethora of reasons, including medical ones). Conservative Gamers also prefer high-end graphics, because that is what they expect of the industry. Graphics have always become "better and better", and conservative Gamers expect that from the industry. I included Minecraft as an Indy game that Conservative gamers may not like, because it has low-res graphics, and to them, that would be seen as backwards

I am not making up any of these opinions, I am simply trying to categorize them, since many of them seem to fit together.

 

[scorptatious]

Something tells me this thread is going to be incredibly one sided. But whatever, I'll bite.

I guess I'm sort of mostly a Conservative gamer myself. I'm not really into motion controls myself, but I don't see why they would be harmful to the gaming industry. Just so long as it doesn't replace traditional gaming I'm fine with it.

Motion controls are harmful to this generation because the money spent by Sony and Microsoft on motion controls means that either they'll have to extend the life of some fairly old consoles or, they've spent money that could have pushed for better systems or cheaper prices on their next consoles.

Hmm. Good points. It's been a really long time since I've heard anything about what's going to happen for next gen consoles. Besides the Wii U of course.

 

[Glerken]

Where do Libertarians fit in?

Regardless, I'd say that politically, I'm more conservative, and that as a gamer, I'm also the same.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy focused on freedom. Freedom is not really an issue in this context.

Well, you have conservatives and liberals, why can't you let us in?

If I had to say, gaming Libertarians enjoy all forms of gaming, but detest "inovation" that comes from the top without practical application.

They want gaming to be free to evolve, but without the "suits" messing things up

My definitions come from a combinations of pre-existing definitions and people that I have observed. I get the relation of the second part of your definition, but why do Libertarian Gamers enjoy all forms of gaming?

Because they are more relaxed and don't view gaming as something that needs to be all about competition. The idea is that they don't bind themsleves to one single gaming idea.

My point is that they want to see things evolve, but think that far too often, it does so in the wrong way. So they?re willing to support the correct way when it happens in order to give incentive.

Libertarianism doesn't really fit in gaming, as it just doesn't make sense.

"They want gaming to be free to evolve, but without the "suits" messing things up"
Politically, this can be a philosophy. It doesn't really make sense with gaming, as there is no "suit" that muddles with the development of a game. The developers have complete control over the game they're making.

"Because they are more relaxed and don't view gaming as something that needs to be all about competition" Also, I don't see how this fits in with Libertarianism at all.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Where do Libertarians fit in?

Regardless, I'd say that politically, I'm more conservative, and that as a gamer, I'm also the same.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy focused on freedom. Freedom is not really an issue in this context.

Well, you have conservatives and liberals, why can't you let us in?

If I had to say, gaming Libertarians enjoy all forms of gaming, but detest "inovation" that comes from the top without practical application.

They want gaming to be free to evolve, but without the "suits" messing things up

My definitions come from a combinations of pre-existing definitions and people that I have observed. I get the relation of the second part of your definition, but why do Libertarian Gamers enjoy all forms of gaming?

Because they are more relaxed and don't view gaming as something that needs to be all about competition. The idea is that they don't bind themsleves to one single gaming idea.

My point is that they want to see things evolve, but think that far too often, it does so in the wrong way. So they?re willing to support the correct way when it happens in order to give incentive.

Libertarianism doesn't really fit in gaming, as it just doesn't make sense.

"They want gaming to be free to evolve, but without the "suits" messing things up"
Politically, this can be a philosophy. It doesn't really make sense with gaming, as there is no "suit" that muddles with the development of a game. The developers have complete control over the game they're making.

"Because they are more relaxed and don't view gaming as something that needs to be all about competition" Also, I don't see how this fits in with Libertarianism at all.

Not just game development, dear reader, development of hardware and liscensing. What about cool games that got the axe in development because they didn't think they would sell well?

As for the second point, a more relaxed view is more Laissez Faire, which is central to Libertarianism. I'm simply stating that a libertarian is less likely to say "I only play JRPGs" or "I only play shooters" because they want things to change without too much ouside medeling. That is libertarianism

 

[Helscreama]

I'm conservitive when it comes to gaming but I like my indie games. I HATE motion contols....

 

[Flailing Escapist]

I like my game setup conservatively.
-I enjoy my computer/mouse and controller the way it is. And I'm definately not a fan of DRM.

But...
I like it when the story aspects of a game are taken liberally.
-I love indie and arcade games. And I embrace new/different story telling ideas when I can.

I wouldn't say its 50/50 in any sense tho. But I always think change is a good idea if it is better than the idea that is already in place.

 

[Kevin7557]

I don't agree with your definition of conservative and liberal gamers.

It has always been to my understanding that Conservative has always meant small circle of comfort and fear of change. Thus anything and anyone new and different is met with open hostility. Liberal has been... well pretty much the opposite.

Yes, which is what I based my definitions around. Those who hate DRM hate it because it's getting more and more invasive. They also hate motion controls because it is different from what they're used to (3D has a plethora of reasons, including medical ones). Conservative Gamers also prefer high-end graphics, because that is what they expect of the industry. Graphics have always become "better and better", and conservative Gamers expect that from the industry. I included Minecraft as an Indy game that Conservative gamers may not like, because it has low-res graphics, and to them, that would be seen as backwards

I am not making up any of these opinions, I am simply trying to categorize them, since many of them seem to fit together.

'
I can honestly say the reason I hate DRM has nothing to do with its invasiveness. It has everything to do with the fact that when I put down 60 dollars for a game I want to own what I just paid for. It doesn't stop piracy it just screws me the customer over.

Seriously I love Minecraft. It has nothing to do with Graphics, it is all about gameplay. We aren't talking about art.

 

[Dusk17]

While I like the idea of progress I don't want cheap gimmicks like motion control or bad 3D. I will give up gaming before I use motion controls regardless of how good they are.

 

[TheEldestScroll]

i do not fit in either but i stray toward conservative. i think gaming is down to a formula that doesn't need to be messed with, therefore i do think of motion controls and 3D as a gimmick. but thats purely because it cuts down immersion. the ideal game controller in my opinion is putting a chip in your brain and injecting yourself with morphine to minimize the stimulus from the outside world. until that happens, i think we're good with controllers/mouse and keyboard.

but i don't care about graphics either. indie games and AAA games are fine with me as long as they're fun and immersive.