Yes, They're Gamers, Too

[ZippyDSMlee]

Gamer use to mean something, akin to hobbyist or enthusiast... now adays it sadly means consumer. Nothing less nothing more.

And consumer means brain dead zombie as far as I am concerned you people have the numbers to force the industry to focus more on qaulity but you are to busy to give a damn even if it means mainstreamization brings us more pissed down crap....

Ya ya hate me because I am a media nazi...not because I am incoherent....oh wait!!



PS:Mega man died 5osh years ago the series is stagnant...ALL of them.... take bits of lost planet and Soylent...er... Bionic comando with Mega man legends(or metroid prime) with some good FPS options so you can play 3P or FP. THis is a game I would pay 100$ for..well...as long as its at elast 20 hours long........get it done capcom..... we are waiting.....


we are........we....are......there is another........ bbrraaiinnnsssssss......

 

[Ericb]

Where down the line was the term "gamer" became synonym with "professional videogame performer" exactly?

Unfortunately humans like to promote segregation which supplies artificial superiority. "Gamers" don't like being part of the social mainstream, much like punks or goths don't.

Well, I agree with the view of the article. But I also have a theory about why people do this: they need to feel superior.

Let's just get rid of the word ''Gamer'' from now on.

Do we have a name for people who watch TV or movies? No.

Well, that saved me some typing time. Thank you.

If you play Tetris, you are a gamer. There is no game more hardcore or awesome than Tetris.

Particularly because the Tetris god is a harsh and cruel deity.

Why do half the people in here sound like angry old men who've just had a complete stranger walk into their favorite bar? Sheesh.

Because like drunken bitter old timers, the "hardcores" tend to be very protective of their self-denominations.

Same for old punks and metalheads. Particularly annoying people when they start to age, surprisingly. As a kid, I always thought they would be the cool old people of the world.

Funny how things turn out...

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

It's kinda funny that you mention WoW in the article as an example of what people would list as a requirement to be a gamer. Not even a year ago we were having a brief discussion while getting a raid set-up. I forget exactly what the conversation was about because I was drifting in and out while setting-up some other things, but I remember coming in at one point to hear one of my RL friends remarking with shock at how someone would call a person who only plays WoW a gamer. I guess I'm not really sure where he had set the quota, but the idea of someone being considered a gamer for only playing one game was completely alien to him.

Over-all though, I have to agree with the article. A gamer is a gamer. Now, if someone wanted to say that they're a hardcore gamer and their entire catalog basically consisted of Farmville and a few Popcap games, then I'd have to argue against him, but just plain "gamer" is a very broad term. It's like when people try to argue that games can't be art just because they don't usually conform to one strict definition of a term with dozens of definitions.

 

[LordZ]

I'm reminded of the following.

Spoiler: VGCats within

[http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=282]

I'm glad someone had the sense to link that. Anyone who is offended by that is obviously not a gamer.

That said, I've never cared about the title gamer. I've only cared about who's a n00b and who's not. A n00b is someone who knows squat about games and doesn't care to learn. They're only there to be a pest to everyone else who was already having fun. I make sport of ruining their day. They are as much of a cancer on gaming as the corporations that pander to them. Instead of quality games, the companies pump out over-hyped crap for the morons who don't know and don't care about what quality even is. They(n00bs) just throw money at these companies so they can mash buttons and watch the pretty pictures.

Thanks to them, we get a flood of mediocre at best games that have pretty graphics but gameplay and story that don't even compare to the quality of games made 10+ years ago. Occasionally, you get lucky and a game escapes mediocrity and is actually something worth playing. It wont win any awards since the fanbois are always too busy praising the latest iteration of over-hyped crap to hit the 360 but those of us who know what quality is get some relief. The immense popularity video games has enjoyed over recent years has caused nothing but pain for people with a sense of taste.

What ever happened to quality control? Not only do we have to suffer stories that look like that were written with all the inspiration of a 5 year old on Prozac but the characters are paper thin, control schemes that look like they were designed by Lucifer himself, bugs that crash and destroy, poor to no support, nickled and dimed for every piece of the game possible and many more atrocities have been visited upon those of us who can only look back in longing at the days when games were made by gamers for gamers and not by greed for greed.

I don't hate the corporations for pandering to the n00bs(that much) but I hate the n00bs with every fiber of my being.

So, it's not really about whether you're a pro gamer, casual gamer, newbie gamer, etc. It's all about whether you're a total waste of oxygen called a n00b or not.

 

[Mantonio]

I refuse to believe that Farmville is an actual game.

Farmville is the digital equivalent of banging two rocks together to pass the time.

 

[boholikeu]

tl;dr - nobody wants "dumbed down" games. Gamers don't want their intelligence insulted, and nobody else wants to be forced into some kind of game just to "unlock" all the chapters in a story they want to see, all the legos in the kit they bought, or to keep a virtual pet from suffering some horrible fate.

Woah, sorry i kinda lost track of your point around the whole "toy store" analogy there, so I'm mainly going to reply to your summary.

Not every game is made for "challenge" gamers. There are some games made for people that like stories. There are some games made for socializing. etc.

You are right that challenge can frustrate some of these other gamers, and well, that's why some games are getting easier. Contrary to what you seem to be arguing though, this is actually good design. If the main focus of my game is on story, why the heck would I want to make my game so hard that only 20% of it's audience reach the end?

Believe me there are PLENTY of good games on the market. If you can't find any it's more a result of your prejudice against "casual" games than the imaginary decline of the industry.

Believing doesn't figure into this. Last year has been a very poor year and 2008 wasn't much better.
There were *some* games in 2009 worth buying, like dragon age and tropico3, but not enough.
A promising game like asscreed 2 turned out to be way too easy, while games like demons souls and dragon age actually got criticized for being "too difficult". Even game reviewers are becoming casual.
When the real gamers shut up, the only games the industry poops out will be simple enough for drooling idiots.

You're only affirming the comment I said in my last post (especially if you think Assassin's Creed was bad because it's "too easy"). After all, if difficulty were really the main draw for every game then you'd only see reviewers talking about how challenging the game was instead of mechanics, story, etc.

Personally, I think the casual influence has actually helped the game industry much more than it hurt it. It directly led to games having better learning curves, UI, pacing, storylines, and presentation. If "real gamers" hadn't become the minority we'd probably still see idiotic mechanics like grinding or trial-and-error learning.

 

[veloper]

Believe me there are PLENTY of good games on the market. If you can't find any it's more a result of your prejudice against "casual" games than the imaginary decline of the industry.

Believing doesn't figure into this. Last year has been a very poor year and 2008 wasn't much better.
There were *some* games in 2009 worth buying, like dragon age and tropico3, but not enough.
A promising game like asscreed 2 turned out to be way too easy, while games like demons souls and dragon age actually got criticized for being "too difficult". Even game reviewers are becoming casual.
When the real gamers shut up, the only games the industry poops out will be simple enough for drooling idiots.

You're only affirming the comment I said in my last post, especially if you think Assassin's Creed was bad because it's "too easy". After all, if difficulty were really the main draw for every game then you'd only see reviewers talking about how challenging the game was instead of mechanics, story, etc.

Challenge is what I want from games. Challenge also happens to be what seperates casual gamers from gamers.

Story is a nice extra. When I simply want a story I'll read a book or watch a film.

The mechanics is how a game achieves both difficulty and fairness. A good challenge is hard but fair. This is the main draw of gaming. It's what we want from our games.

With game reviews, you need to know where the author is coming from and what audience they have. So yes, you see game reviews where points are deducted for games that have a reasonable difficulty. Those reviews are not for us.

 

[alexelric]

I think the whole point of the "gamer" thing is just the badge some players like to brand themselves with... I consider myself a gamer because games (video games, pen and paper RPGs, etc) always have been a part of my life as a means to spend my free time. If you make the decision to spend your time playing something because you enjoy it, you are a gamer. the whole "hardcore" vs. "casual" is the same thing in my opinion; it doesn't matter what you play on what system or format or whatever, we're all in it to enjoy ourselves.

I think most of the issue comes from people who sees it either as a merit badge (the "you're not a gamer unless you have finished battletoads/mega man/halo on legendary/insert game and difficulty here" population) or as a negative remark (the "gamers are filthy useless geeks who live in their mom's basement and I'm above all that kid's stuff/games are evil" crowd)

 

[boholikeu]

Challenge is what I want from games. Challenge also happens to be what seperates casual gamers from gamers.

Well by that definition a whole lot of game developers aren't even gamers. =)

Again, the industry is changing, and just because games are no longer mainly catering to your demographic doesn't mean they're only fit for "drooling idiots".

 

[spacepope22]

I done all those things before, but I think of myself as a gamer for completely different reasons, and everyone else most likely considers themselves gamers for different reasons as well.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

Woah, sorry i kinda lost track of your point around the whole "toy store" analogy there, so I'm mainly going to reply to your summary.

Not every game is made for "challenge" gamers. There are some games made for people that like stories. There are some games made for socializing. etc.

You are right that challenge can frustrate some of these other gamers, and well, that's why some games are getting easier. Contrary to what you seem to be arguing though, this is actually good design. If the main focus of my game is on story, why the heck would I want to make my game so hard that only 20% of it's audience reach the end?

The bold part is what I disagree with. Challenge doesn't frustrate gamers. Challenge is the reason that people who like games (not in the "videogames" sense) get out of bed in the morning.

Anybody who thinks otherwise is welcome to their opinion but I don't think it's in their interests to try and get in on the group-hug under the "gamer" label... not just because of GET OFF MY LAWN, but also because game developers would be given a shot at actually catering to other groups' interests if there were people playing videogames who identified themselves properly instead of saying "oh! me! me! I'm a gamer too!" and hating what you get when you the software assumes you love solving linear optimization problems, memory challenges, etc.

Even for me, I play a lot of games that I think would be 100% better if they didn't try to be "games". Burnout Paradise, Uncharted, Sim Animals... they all take away from the overall experience by adding a "game" to toy cars, an adventure story, and a petting zoo respectively. Even for me, and I love being challenged in games.

 

[Magnalian]

Those required measures to be a true gamer are beyond Bizzaro.

A game is a game. You can call it what you want, but when a person plays that game it's now an act of gaming, making them a "gamer".

And don't worry Susan. Everyone else sucks at Megaman too.

Megaman was made to be sucked at.

... did that come out wrong?

It did, didn't it?

 

[Magnalian]

I have died more times than I have lived in Megaman, I've never played Braid, nor will I ever play it, and the Playstation will always be like a distant land to me.

And still I call myself a gamer.

 

[boholikeu]

The bold part is what I disagree with. Challenge doesn't frustrate gamers. Challenge is the reason that people who like games (not in the "videogames" sense) get out of bed in the morning.

Anybody who thinks otherwise is welcome to their opinion but I don't think it's in their interests to try and get in on the group-hug under the "gamer" label... not just because of GET OFF MY LAWN, but also because game developers would be given a shot at actually catering to other groups' interests if there were people playing videogames who identified themselves properly instead of saying "oh! me! me! I'm a gamer too!" and hating what you get when you the software assumes you love solving linear optimization problems, memory challenges, etc.

Even for me, I play a lot of games that I think would be 100% better if they didn't try to be "games". Burnout Paradise, Uncharted, Sim Animals... they all take away from the overall experience by adding a "game" to toy cars, an adventure story, and a petting zoo respectively. Even for me, and I love being challenged in games.

The bolded statement really interests me because it seems like the same argument I'm trying to make here. Certain experiences are just better without the "game" part, and yet as developers figure this out and lessen the challenge, "gamers" complain that the industry is being dumbed down. It's not being dumbed down. These are simply games that aren't meant for the "challenge" gamer. Story-based games, for example, need to be beatable by everyone simply because why would you bother spending development time creating an engaging story if you don't expect everyone to experience it.

Edit: ahhhh nevermind, I think I see your point now. Basically you don't mind the existence of non-challenging games, you just don't think their fans should be called "gamers", right?

Well, I still think the general usage of the term "gamer" seems to refer to "one who plays video games". In my experience when people talk about challenge gamers they usually say "hardcore gamer". I suppose you can try to argue against the general usage of the world, but anyone that's taken linguistics 101 knows that this is a pretty futile endeavor.

 

[veloper]

Challenge is what I want from games. Challenge also happens to be what seperates casual gamers from gamers.

Well by that definition a whole lot of game developers aren't even gamers. =)

Again, the industry is changing, and just because games are no longer mainly catering to your demographic doesn't mean they're only fit for "drooling idiots".

Possibly. Game devs don't HAVE to be gamers, they can also be casual gamers or maybe even interested only in one aspect of gaming, like gfx,music or coding.

Whatever they may be, when the developers turns to easy games for casual gamers (idiot or otherwise), the real gamers get left out.

We are a minority now, even though there's more gamers now than in the 90s. If we do not label the casual gamers, but instead pretended to be part of the same group, then the industry would ignore us for no good reason.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

The bolded statement really interests me because it seems like the same argument I'm trying to make here. Certain experiences are just better without the "game" part, and yet as developers figure this out and lessen the challenge, "gamers" complain that the industry is being dumbed down. It's not being dumbed down. These are simply games that aren't meant for the "challenge" gamer. Story-based games, for example, need to be beatable by everyone simply because why would you bother spending development time creating an engaging story if you don't expect everyone to experience it.

Edit: ahhhh nevermind, I think I see your point now. Basically you don't mind the existence of non-challenging games, you just don't think their fans should be called "gamers", right?

I totally object to non-challenging games. The whole point of a game is to present a challenge. When you set the bar so everyone can jump over it, the "game" part of an experience is just hours of your life you'll never get back as you sit between story segments.

If developers don't want the "game" sections to get in the way of their title's accessibility, they should replace them with a completely different form of interaction instead of just watering them down. It's hard to imagine what it would be like because videogames so rarely go there, but look at The Sims. There are no value judgements, no game over screens, just a bunch of virtual people and whatever you want to do with 'em.

That's my problem with this article taking the more inclusive stance, calling everyone who plays on a computer a "gamer" glosses over how the majority of people want virtual companions or virtual toys, interactive stories, and amusing simulations. Even if the word sticks maybe the point will get out anyway.

 

[boholikeu]

Possibly. Game devs don't HAVE to be gamers, they can also be casual gamers or maybe even interested only in one aspect of gaming, like gfx,music or coding.

Whatever they may be, when the developers turns to easy games for casual gamers (idiot or otherwise), the real gamers get left out.

We are a minority now, even though there's more gamers now than in the 90s. If we do not label the casual gamers, but instead pretended to be part of the same group, then the industry would ignore us for no good reason.

No need to label the casual gamers because there already is a label for you: hardcore gamers. Calling yourselves "real gamers" is just as elitist as arthouse film geeks calling themselves "real moviegoers".

I totally object to non-challenging games. The whole point of a game is to present a challenge. When you set the bar so everyone can jump over it, the "game" part of an experience is just hours of your life you'll never get back as you sit between story segments.

If developers don't want the "game" sections to get in the way of their title's accessibility, they should replace them with a completely different form of interaction instead of just watering them down. It's hard to imagine what it would be like because videogames so rarely go there, but look at The Sims. There are no value judgements, no game over screens, just a bunch of virtual people and whatever you want to do with 'em.

That's my problem with this article taking the more inclusive stance, calling everyone who plays on a computer a "gamer" glosses over how the majority of people want virtual companions or virtual toys, interactive stories, and amusing simulations. Even if the word sticks maybe the point will get out anyway.

Hm, I don't quite get your point. You say you object to non-challenging games, yet you seem to be supportive of The Sims and such. Is it just that you don't like calling such titles "games"?

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

If developers don't want the "game" sections to get in the way of their title's accessibility, they should replace them with a completely different form of interaction instead of just watering them down. It's hard to imagine what it would be like because videogames so rarely go there, but look at The Sims. There are no value judgements, no game over screens, just a bunch of virtual people and whatever you want to do with 'em.

Hm, I don't quite get your point. You say you object to non-challenging games, yet you seem to be supportive of The Sims and such. Is it just that you don't like calling such titles "games"?

You know role-playing games where you've got some awesome hero, but you need a key from an innkeeper and he won't give you the key until you go into his cellar and kill 10 rats? It's that kind of ridiculous hoop-jumping I take issue with. Press the attack button a bunch of times, maybe heal... why do game developers do that? I think everyone could agree that it's a pointless waste of time, if for different reasons.

For me it's because I enjoy abusing the rules of the combat system and fights that don't demand it are really dull. All the game developers need to do is swap those rats with zombie sorcerors, and I'm good to go. That's old-school gaming.

For someone else it's that fighting ANYTHING for this guy to get a key he's not even going to use is a bunch of nonsense. Supposing the inkeeper has some reason not to let the hero get a hold of this key, it's pretty intuitive (but harder to write up) how the player can get creative with convincing the guy to part with it. Appeals to his civic duty, gold, seduction, arson. Use a sandwiches to lure the old guy into a snare, then summon a giant manget and pull the key out of his hand. Oh wait, I'm getting in to Scribblenauts territory.

Anyways, when you've got two audiences who would appreciate radically different experiences, that's usually a good time to start using different words for 'em, right?

 

[veloper]

Possibly. Game devs don't HAVE to be gamers, they can also be casual gamers or maybe even interested only in one aspect of gaming, like gfx,music or coding.

Whatever they may be, when the developers turns to easy games for casual gamers (idiot or otherwise), the real gamers get left out.

We are a minority now, even though there's more gamers now than in the 90s. If we do not label the casual gamers, but instead pretended to be part of the same group, then the industry would ignore us for no good reason.

No need to label the casual gamers because there already is a label for you: hardcore gamers.

Only the specialists can be hardcore gamers. The rest of us are just "gamers". Outside are the casual gamers and non-gamers.
The biggest difference is the type of games the casual gamers prefer, opposed to gamers, including hardcore gamers.

Calling yourselves "real gamers" is just as elitist as arthouse film geeks calling themselves "real moviegoers".

There's nothing elitist about it. Casual gamers usually don't call themselves gamers. Casual gamer is a perfectly good label, that is easily understood by most, so I use it.

 

[boholikeu]

Only the specialists can be hardcore gamers. The rest of us are just "gamers". Outside are the casual gamers and non-gamers.
The biggest difference is the type of games the casual gamers prefer, opposed to gamers, including hardcore gamers.

Hm, interesting. OOC what makes you a gamer but not a hardcore gamer? Cause it seems to me you already have a pretty specialized taste in games.

Calling yourselves "real gamers" is just as elitist as arthouse film geeks calling themselves "real moviegoers".

There's nothing elitist about it. Casual gamers usually don't call themselves gamers. Casual gamer is a perfectly good label, that is easily understood by most, so I use it.

You seriously don't think there's anything elitist about calling yourself a "real" gamer? I mean, you just spent the last couple of posts talking about how games meant for casuals are only fit for "drooling idiots", and that they are ruining the industry. How is that not elitist?

You know role-playing games where you've got some awesome hero, but you need a key from an innkeeper and he won't give you the key until you go into his cellar and kill 10 rats? It's that kind of ridiculous hoop-jumping I take issue with. Press the attack button a bunch of times, maybe heal... why do game developers do that? I think everyone could agree that it's a pointless waste of time, if for different reasons.

For me it's because I enjoy abusing the rules of the combat system and fights that don't demand it are really dull. All the game developers need to do is swap those rats with zombie sorcerors, and I'm good to go. That's old-school gaming.

For someone else it's that fighting ANYTHING for this guy to get a key he's not even going to use is a bunch of nonsense. Supposing the inkeeper has some reason not to let the hero get a hold of this key, it's pretty intuitive (but harder to write up) how the player can get creative with convincing the guy to part with it. Appeals to his civic duty, gold, seduction, arson. Use a sandwiches to lure the old guy into a snare, then summon a giant manget and pull the key out of his hand. Oh wait, I'm getting in to Scribblenauts territory.

Anyways, when you've got two audiences who would appreciate radically different experiences, that's usually a good time to start using different words for 'em, right?

Well, I agree with that, but there are a couple things wrong with your solution of not calling them "games".

First of all, they are seen as games by most of the general public (and even most developers). Linguistically speaking, it'll be almost impossible to change the masses' perception of what a video game is, and even if all the hardcore gamers came out and corrected people that The Sims is not actually a game they'd achieve nothing more than making themselves look like a bunch of nit-picking geeks. I really doubt that we'll ever see computer software depts being divided into games, interactive movies, simulation, etc. sections.

The other problem is that you seem to be treating the word "games" as the title of a genre, when it really is a medium. That's why I can see "challenging games" start to become their own genre within the larger "games" medium, but I still think it's really unlikely that we'll see games about story, socialization, etc being pushed out. I mean heck, I dunno if you remember or not, but people said made the same arguments about SimCity not being a game when it came out, but lo and behold, 20 years later it's still considered a game by everyone except the most finicky luddites.