Of course you are. When I was a kid and my mam bought my games I was still a gamer. So by this logic it would mean that my mam was a gamer and I was not. Though she did love playing Sonic, so she was (and is) too.
Question of the Day, May 19, 2010
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
I'm honestly amazed that the whole 'what is the definition of gamer' debate keeps coming up. It's one of those charged words that means something different for everyone, and as such is essentially worthless without that context of personal meaning.
My own definition of 'gamer' is a hobbyist who has a definite interest in video and/or computer games. As these free-to-play games become ubiquitous around the internet, playing them doesn't create any particular distinction. I recall a while back here on the Escapist - I believe it was an actual article, but I don't remember exactly - a comparison was made to movie buffs. Someone who sees a movie every so often isn't given any particular distinction, because virtually everyone watches movies - it's only when they treat their movie watching as a hobby, showing interest and making a significant investment in watching movies, that you'd call them a 'movie buff'. The same thing applies to games - someone who plays free online games at work just to kill time, or picks up a new game every few months, isn't a gamer by my definition, because they're treating it like just another way to kill time. It's at the hobbyist level, when that significant investment of both time and interest are made, that the distinction has any meaning.
So no, as 'a person who plays games' is no longer out of the ordinary, it is no longer enough to warrant the distinction of 'gamer', just as 'a person who watches movies' doesn't have a special name.
My own definition of 'gamer' is a hobbyist who has a definite interest in video and/or computer games. As these free-to-play games become ubiquitous around the internet, playing them doesn't create any particular distinction. I recall a while back here on the Escapist - I believe it was an actual article, but I don't remember exactly - a comparison was made to movie buffs. Someone who sees a movie every so often isn't given any particular distinction, because virtually everyone watches movies - it's only when they treat their movie watching as a hobby, showing interest and making a significant investment in watching movies, that you'd call them a 'movie buff'. The same thing applies to games - someone who plays free online games at work just to kill time, or picks up a new game every few months, isn't a gamer by my definition, because they're treating it like just another way to kill time. It's at the hobbyist level, when that significant investment of both time and interest are made, that the distinction has any meaning.
So no, as 'a person who plays games' is no longer out of the ordinary, it is no longer enough to warrant the distinction of 'gamer', just as 'a person who watches movies' doesn't have a special name.
If you play a game and enjoy it and support it (even if you never paid for it) you still count as a gamer. This was my case for the longest time, till I bought a 360.
It's definitely not the same relying on free versions and demos. Demos are designed to whet the appetite of the gamer and coerce them into buying the full product. In my opinion, only playing demos is cheating both the industry and yourself.
I'd rather avoid adding 'true' infront of anything, it never leads to anything good and is just a way to divide people into opposing groups.
As for if the people playing free games/demos rather than AAA products. Why not? If its less of a game if it doesnt come with a price-tag?
As for if the people playing free games/demos rather than AAA products. Why not? If its less of a game if it doesnt come with a price-tag?
I will vote depends on the game because I am an avid player of League of Legends (LoL) which is a completely free game. However they sell points which you can then use to buy things in the game which is how they make their money from it. I consider people who play that to be gamers although that is a free game.
My first thought was "one who plays games is a gamer". You can be an honest gamer, and buy your games... or, you can be a dishonest gamer and get them illegally.
But, the more I think about it, the more I think of a gamer as someone that devotes him/herself to gaming. That being said, it's hard for me to think of someone devoting themselves without investing their resources in it -- and not just time.
On the other hand, there were a few threads this week regarding those that outright can't afford to buy games, or don't have games readily available in their region. Is someone in such a situation any less of a gamer because they have to limit their play strictly to freeware games or demos? Does their dedication to the pastime despite their financial circumstance make them MORE of a gamer?
Admittedly, I dismissed this question as a no-brainer at first, but this is the first QotD where I actually find myself thinking. Well done!
But, the more I think about it, the more I think of a gamer as someone that devotes him/herself to gaming. That being said, it's hard for me to think of someone devoting themselves without investing their resources in it -- and not just time.
On the other hand, there were a few threads this week regarding those that outright can't afford to buy games, or don't have games readily available in their region. Is someone in such a situation any less of a gamer because they have to limit their play strictly to freeware games or demos? Does their dedication to the pastime despite their financial circumstance make them MORE of a gamer?
Admittedly, I dismissed this question as a no-brainer at first, but this is the first QotD where I actually find myself thinking. Well done!
You could still play Warsow? (It's free and the opposite of casual stuff.)
Anyone who plays a game is a 'gamer' per se, but you have occasional, average or rather below average players, and 'hardcore' gamers which in societies view of us 'nerds' can already start at 1 or 2 hours a day.
Anyone who plays a game is a 'gamer' per se, but you have occasional, average or rather below average players, and 'hardcore' gamers which in societies view of us 'nerds' can already start at 1 or 2 hours a day.
I reckon if you enjoy gaming, regardless of whether you pay for the game/demo/whatever or not, then you're a gamer. Are you still a gamer if you pirate games? Yes. Are you a cheap asshole if you pirate games? Probably.
Why does everybody suddenly think there's some kind of mystical scroll of rules and a cult initiation before you can be a gamer?
Do you play games? Yes? You are a GAMER!
Do you play games? Yes? You are a GAMER!
People who enjoy playing games in their spare time are gamers. People who enjoy watching birds are twitchers even if they go to places that are free, people who play a sport are considered to be fans of the sport even if they dont pay for a field to play on. There are so many free games on the internet now that you can be a gamer without ever paying for a game. MMOs, Indy games, retro remakes.
Also to be honest most people who consider themselves gamers nowadays should go back and play the roms of all the old games that designed this generation of games to be an actual gamer. Theres plenty of people around who are classed as gamers but spend most of their time on MW2 and havnt even played a Mario or Sonic game
Also to be honest most people who consider themselves gamers nowadays should go back and play the roms of all the old games that designed this generation of games to be an actual gamer. Theres plenty of people around who are classed as gamers but spend most of their time on MW2 and havnt even played a Mario or Sonic game
Oh thought this was about pirates... yeah provided the games they play are not stolen/pirated. Other wise kids who are to young to work (legally) or don't have allowances who get games given to, borrowed or rented for wouldn't be able to be called gamers or some one older who plays on a friends console but never bought a game in there life.
You do not have to purchase things to be interested in them. That shows a rather calous disregard towards people whose interest lies outside of what they can buy. I was a fan for 40k for years, played theoretical games all of the time, and I hadnt bought a single box until about a year ago. I played D&D for years as well without having to pay a dime. Does this not make me a gamer? a fan of the sport?
Just seems sad, really. There will always be elitist who may scoff at letting others into their clique, but that's the way all groups work.
Just seems sad, really. There will always be elitist who may scoff at letting others into their clique, but that's the way all groups work.
Can I just point out that when I voted on this poll (my vote being a No, btw) it showed that 32% of people had voted yes. Is it conicidence that 33% of gamers don't pay for their games and nearly the same amount think its okay?
I say no, i think it kinda removes some of the "gamer" thing if there aren't any games laying around and such.
The term "Real" or "True" Gamer irks me somewhat since its like saying you're not a real athlete unless you spend a lot of money on equipment. It just seems ridiculous to me. I thinkey are gamers. They play games so they are gamers. However there is one exception to that and it is people who play Farmville and only Farmville/similar games. They're not gamers. I can't say what they are...but they're not Gamers.