What is a Gamer?
A gamer is a person who labels themselves as a gamer and integrates it's self into gaming society. Usually not casual gamers but someone who usually averages out at an hour a day.
What is the gamer ideology (Its thinking)?
That whatever content is shown should be free. That censorship shouldn't occur due to how graphic it is. It's also about being accepted no matter what views you have on computer gamers on a whole. You like Halo? Sure. World Of Warcraft? Go ahead! D&D? Why not? Why does your sexuality, your race, your personal appearance, your religious views and other factors matter? Why does it matter if a white thin gay metal head wants to play Counter Strike Source or if a fat black Muslim wants to play a sports game? As long you enjoy computer games and don't hold any views that may become questionable to others (not even Gamers want to hear about pro-Nazi views), you're in the club really.
There's also a focus on a community. That people don't rip each other off on the products. That ethical barriers in business practice must be kept. Companies that work with the community, with gamers, usually receive the higher praise because we become involved with what will be ours.
I think there's a lot to it and I know I will forget some.
How has the gamer subculture evolved over the years?
I think it's become more mainstream, a lot more. Once upon a time, it was uncool to enjoy video-games. The stereotype, the vision, of the average gamer was an over-weight middle-class nerd who partook in D&D games often. Now, you just think of the average teenager and bingo. The stereotype. Sure it's become a lot more ignorant, but that's only occurred because it's gone mainstream. You'll always have the ignorant non-extremist people hanging around in mainstream.
Not only that, but I think it's partly because ignorance is now getting exposed. Before, gamers could scream Fag at each other all day, but now it's getting recognised as generally offensive due to a homosexual community now establishing it's self around computer games (e.g. Gaymer.org is a website dedicated to gay gamers). So now it's being shoved into the spot light and shunned. Things like this is leading to more diverse game-play and characters. Now there are gay relationship paths, there's black main characters and different countries involved as the good guys (e.g. some of the good guys in Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem aren't American. One is Canadian, some English and other different countries).
How are gamers treated by people outside of the group?
Usually, without a care. It's too mainstream.
Do you think the Media has such a fear of games? Why?
Oh yes, because murders are happening and the only clear link is computer games. However, they fail to notice other factors in the mix. The media tends to want to take the quick and easy way out, blaming a concept or an activity over poor parenting or a bad school. It's a lot easier.
They usually back it up with some moralistic view or statistics, which serve to boost support for anti-computer games, but at the same time make the argument more laughable since moralistic views are usually silly and anyone can twist statistics to make them say whatever they want.
Who are the members of this group?
People who label themselves as gamers.
What would someone have to do if they wanted to become a gamer?
Label themselves as gamers and play computer games.
Why do you think people become gamers?
A sense of belonging to a hobby they enjoy taking part in.
How do gamers interact?
Besides playing games on-line? Well, they interact the same way everyone else does. Using language, which some phrases are unique to their sub-culture, and speech.
How has this group been stereotyped/ How has the general public been mislead about gamers?
They've been misled by moralistic idiots and the media. There's all the concerned parents who think that all the violence they're witnesses will turn their child into a monster, and the media plays upon it like a puppet master. Who cares if the statistics are skewered or if the technique is only valid at face value? To the media, it's all about money, not about publishing a story that matters.
When the Columbine School Shooting occurred and the V-Tech School Shooting, people didn't blame poor parenting, a bad school or a traumatic and abusive childhood. This is because things that like are hard to fix. It's hard to fix bullying out-right or stop parents taking little to no notice of their child. It's hard for them to try making the child happy. More importantly though, it's hard for society, as a whole, to shrug our shoulders and say "well, all these people died, but it's a one-off. These things happen", even if the statistics suggest that. Instead, we must blame something, and it's easier to blame something that can't defend it's self like a concept. So games usually get into the firing line. They get the worst depictions of computer games as evidence that computer games fuelled the murder or spree killing. They even tried to pin the blame of V-Tech down to Counter Strike, making Jack Thompson send a letter to Microsoft. That's how clueless the anti-games side is.
Anyway, that's probably long enough for your homework. Good luck with it.
