This came up recently. I feel confident that I can call myself a gamer. I love video games, I have a subscription to Game Informer and the like.
but I was told by a co-worker, Im not much of a Gamer because I dont pay attention to things like LoL, DoTA or(Maybe I shouldnt have said this) I knew about nothing from E3 or pax prime, but I also dont know about half the releases on steam
But what makes someone a gamer, is there more then loving games?
Im wargamer, but I dont keep up to date with many things wargaming related. Im usually oblivious to new things coming out and so on unless I accidentally come across it.
In terms of video games, TECHNICALLY if you play any video games you are a video gamer. Just different levels of "hardcoreness".
So, if you play video games, you are a gamer. I personally would consider myself an extrememly casual gamer. I have played many games growing up, but now im older I play a very select few games for about 0-10 hours a week. My friends however spend most of their spare time playing video games and keeping up with them all. But we are still both gamers I guess.
A gamer is someone that plays a game, any game, competitively. LoL, Dota, Eve Online, WoW, COD, Halo, as long as it isn't a situation of 'oh I'm bored so I'll go play a game or two'. A recreational gamer is just someone that plays games, but a 'proper gamer' plays the game competitively. Someone can be a gamer by playing nothing but Tetris if they play it competitively.
SharkoutofWata wrote: A gamer is someone that plays a game, any game, competitively. LoL, Dota, Eve Online, WoW, COD, Halo, as long as it isn't a situation of 'oh I'm bored so I'll go play a game or two'. A recreational gamer is just someone that plays games, but a 'proper gamer' plays the game competitively. Someone can be a gamer by playing nothing but Tetris if they play it competitively.
You know, I love games. I've been playing board games and computer games and pen and paper games since I was a tiny child. I make mods for games that I love.
But I don't play competitive games. They hold no interest for me. I'm not a competitive person.
Me either. That sort of thing just makes something that should be fun into a chore. And I have a hard time thinking of the arena games like LoL as real games in the lines of AAA titles, but that's where the gamers are now apparently. I'll just stick to going pew pew on my console and call me whatever that label is instead of 'gamer'.
I've played over a thousand hours of TF2, and countless hours of other games for over two decades. Apparently, I'm not a gamer because I don't do it "competitively".
If you play games, you're a gamer. Even Farmville counts, in my opinion. It's just more people trying to act superior for no reason, same as the old PC master race gak.
The 'problem' with the term gamer is that it's about as descriptive as 'sportsperson' or 'religious'. Such groups are massive and the variance between members can be staggering. There is as much difference between a golfer and boxer as there is a Candy Crusher and DotA player, yet the term is perfectly adequate for both. That said, description that doesn't tell you anything isn't much of a description.
What a some people mean when they say 'gamer' is the more time demanding and skill intensive games- specifically non-casual games. The claim to this title I don't think is warranted. To call yourself a gamer in my eyes you need only have an interest and desire to play. You don't even have to- life gets like that- but you have to be interested in and want to play.
If you like games your a gammer, and I say we leave it at that. If we want to start putting qualifiers and conditions on it, then things will get really complex really fast.
i think you co-worker has difficulty distinguishing between a casual gamer, gamer and hardcore gamer.
You can say your co-worker he is not a gamer because he doesn't play more communication with sonico and doesn't know about Tokyo Game show like the game SOB said "entitled gamer much?"
If you play games you are a gamer. If you play games competitively you are a competitive gamer. If you just play FarmVille and angry birds on your phone you are a casual gamer. Either way still a gamer,
A gamer is someone who would want to be a gamer, no? I mean, my Dad has occasionally played Bejewelled. He wouldn't call himself a gamer. My mother has played a colour-matching game on her phone a few times. She wouldn't identify as a gamer. I don't think being a gamer is something you do by association, or by some arbitrary 'amount' of games or time spent playing games. It's a choice.
Kojiro wrote: The 'problem' with the term gamer is that it's about as descriptive as 'sportsperson' or 'religious'. Such groups are massive and the variance between members can be staggering. There is as much difference between a golfer and boxer as there is a Candy Crusher and DotA player, yet the term is perfectly adequate for both. That said, description that doesn't tell you anything isn't much of a description.
What a some people mean when they say 'gamer' is the more time demanding and skill intensive games- specifically non-casual games. The claim to this title I don't think is warranted. To call yourself a gamer in my eyes you need only have an interest and desire to play. You don't even have to- life gets like that- but you have to be interested in and want to play.
Also, I don't consider the "hardcore", "casual", or "competitive" prefixes to the label "gamer" to have any real value. They're so poorly defined even amongst people in this thread that someone could be all three at the same time and even though they're supposed to somehow be exclusionary.
I played CoD4 for 1 year and three months over the course of 4 years. I think that qualifies as Hardcore.
And I played with the team lead from [Ghosts], so I guess that makes me competitive.
But then I find most people only throw those words out when trying to deny (or trivialize) someone else membership as a Gamer, not as some kind of description of their own habits. I fail to see what's wrong with playing games casually, or how being a casual player means someone isn't a gamer. If playing games is a hobby someone has the term seems apt to me, regardless of what adjectives you throw in front of it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: This came up recently. I feel confident that I can call myself a gamer. I love video games, I have a subscription to Game Informer and the like.
but I was told by a co-worker, Im not much of a Gamer because I dont pay attention to things like LoL, DoTA or(Maybe I shouldnt have said this) I knew about nothing from E3 or pax prime, but I also dont know about half the releases on steam
But what makes someone a gamer, is there more then loving games?
Elitest jerk.
Seriously 'gamer' is anyone that plays games. The assclowns who get hardons over LoL/DoTA are the same guys who you see on the YouTube videos of 'infamous gamer freakouts part DEUX' and in my opinion are spoiled, rotten, man children that have no place in the gaming community.
Also, I too get Game Informer, I enjoy it.
Also part II, I've played hundreds of hours of CoD, Battlefield, TF2, and a thousand other games. I guess I'm elite. Cool.
I don't think any of those labels are particularly great or exclusive. They are just a way of describing with a slightly more narrow focus than just gamer alone.
HBMC makes a good point that it is a matter of choice. I'd say the choice is how you see yourself and then actualize that identity. I'll also use my parents as an example. Each of them spends more time playing video games than me in a given week. I don't mean stuff like Farmville or Candy Crush, either. My mom plays games like Yoshi's Island and Skyward Sword. My dad plays Bethesda's RPGs and games like Sniper Elite. From what I gather, they play almost every single day. I haven't played any video games at all for the past three weeks. But I chose to see myself as a gamer and they don't. They could not tell you which company owns BioWare or which games BioWare makes. They could not tell you what DOTA stands for or what it is. They don't care about Zoe Quinn or Phil Fish or Total Biscuit or Jimquisition or Yahtzee. They don't keep up with relative sales figures for consoles or how the tablet market impacts design. They don't post on message boards discussing what a gamer is.
Obviously opinions on this can differ greatly. I would classify a gamer as someone who plays a lot of games, and different types, nothing to do with serious competitive play, just the fact that they play more than one genre often, or at least a lot of games of a single genre.
hotsauceman1 wrote: This came up recently. I feel confident that I can call myself a gamer. I love video games, I have a subscription to Game Informer and the like.
but I was told by a co-worker, Im not much of a Gamer because I dont pay attention to things like LoL, DoTA or(Maybe I shouldnt have said this) I knew about nothing from E3 or pax prime, but I also dont know about half the releases on steam
But what makes someone a gamer, is there more then loving games?
To be a gamer youd have to play betwen 2-5 hours on a Daily basis or atleast 5 hours per session deppending on variables on a frequent basis and you need to enjoy doing it.
LoL or Dota dosent make anyone a gamer, its the time and commitment someone puts down that determines how much a gamer they are, E3 and Pax is aswell largely irrelevant to being a gamer, in the end you have to actually game to be a gamer.
I'm just fething tired of people looking at my handle online and saying "not a real gamer".
Fething please, have you SEEN the playtime history on my Steam accounts (yes, plural)? Or the number of games on those accounts? Do I have to take a screenshot of the literal crate of NES games that I have upstairs for you? GRR.
You have a fondness for them and make a point of setting aside time to play.
Simple as that I guess. I find anything that makes you willing to apply a label to yourself is something you are emotionally attached to and identify with.
I am a gamer with no particular prejudice to the media it is presented.
Melissia wrote: I'm just fething tired of people looking at my handle online and saying "not a real gamer".
Fething please, have you SEEN the playtime history on my Steam accounts (yes, plural)? Or the number of games on those accounts? Do I have to take a screenshot of the literal crate of NES games that I have upstairs for you? GRR.
Selling my NES is something I regret even to this day...
Neither of my NES's work for me. I'm considering buying a Nintoaster or Toploader, since those are a lot more reliable, but damn are old systems expensive...
hotsauceman1 wrote: This came up recently. I feel confident that I can call myself a gamer. I love video games, I have a subscription to Game Informer and the like.
but I was told by a co-worker, Im not much of a Gamer because I dont pay attention to things like LoL, DoTA or(Maybe I shouldnt have said this) I knew about nothing from E3 or pax prime, but I also dont know about half the releases on steam
But what makes someone a gamer, is there more then loving games?
To be a gamer youd have to play betwen 2-5 hours on a Daily basis or atleast 5 hours per session deppending on variables on a frequent basis and you need to enjoy doing it.
LoL or Dota dosent make anyone a gamer, its the time and commitment someone puts down that determines how much a gamer they are, E3 and Pax is aswell largely irrelevant to being a gamer, in the end you have to actually game to be a gamer.
You have a fondness for them and make a point of setting aside time to play.
Simple as that I guess. I find anything that makes you willing to apply a label to yourself is something you are emotionally attached to and identify with.
I am a gamer with no particular prejudice to the media it is presented.
I admit I've done that... though probably not as long as some other people here ,but still. "Oh, it's only ten PM. I can stay up a bit late before showring before bed."
*go back to gaming, suddenly, I look at the clock, and it says 1:30 AM*
hotsauceman1 wrote: This came up recently. I feel confident that I can call myself a gamer. I love video games, I have a subscription to Game Informer and the like.
but I was told by a co-worker, Im not much of a Gamer because I dont pay attention to things like LoL, DoTA or(Maybe I shouldnt have said this) I knew about nothing from E3 or pax prime, but I also dont know about half the releases on steam
But what makes someone a gamer, is there more then loving games?
To be a gamer youd have to play betwen 2-5 hours on a Daily basis or atleast 5 hours per session deppending on variables on a frequent basis and you need to enjoy doing it.
LoL or Dota dosent make anyone a gamer, its the time and commitment someone puts down that determines how much a gamer they are, E3 and Pax is aswell largely irrelevant to being a gamer, in the end you have to actually game to be a gamer.
You have a fondness for them and make a point of setting aside time to play.
Simple as that I guess. I find anything that makes you willing to apply a label to yourself is something you are emotionally attached to and identify with.
I am a gamer with no particular prejudice to the media it is presented.
I think this is a fair definition.
A reasonable timeframe of committing to an action people enjoy doing so they can label themselves, should preffably involve some sort of interactive video or computer entertainment. The numbers are largely irrelevant as the commitment and enjoyment is the important part of being a gamer and thus needs a reasonable example of commitment.
Someone that "plays" a game for 5 minutes in a year cant be assumed to be a gamer even if they claim they are, their actions show they aren't committing any effort worthy of notice.
Bishop F Gantry wrote: Someone that "plays" a game for 5 minutes in a year cant be assumed to be a gamer even if they claim they are, their actions show they aren't committing any effort worthy of notice.
Yes they can. Who the hell wants to deal with "commitment"? I just want to have fun. And that's what games are for.
If someone who only plays games on the train to work and labels them selves a gamer then they are a gamer.
By your standards anyone who doesn't have 2 hours a night spare to play games isn't a gamer. Anyone who can only play games for an hour at a time isn't a gamer. Not only that by your definition many gamers would be a gamer one week but not one then next, pulling numbers out of the air isn't really useful.
Bishop F Gantry wrote: Someone that "plays" a game for 5 minutes in a year cant be assumed to be a gamer even if they claim they are, their actions show they aren't committing any effort worthy of notice.
Yes they can. Who the hell wants to deal with "commitment"? I just want to have fun. And that's what games are for.
Exactly. It seems some people want to go the way of saying anyone who doesn't game the way they do or as often as they do isn't a gamer.
A reasonable timeframe of committing to an action people enjoy doing so they can label themselves, should preffably involve some sort of interactive video or computer entertainment. The numbers are largely irrelevant as the commitment and enjoyment is the important part of being a gamer and thus needs a reasonable example of commitment.
Someone that "plays" a game for 5 minutes in a year cant be assumed to be a gamer even if they claim they are, their actions show they aren't committing any effort worthy of notice.
2-5 hours daily is hardly a reasonable amount of time to be playing video games. Not if you've got job and/or anything resembling a social life. Your definition basically excludes everyone but students and bad stereotypes.
Do you have the degree of commitment to deserve the label of gamer?
Have you suffered? (blisters, lack of sleep, missing commitments, missing a job interview, played in a room with the "great unwashed"...)
Have you developed anti-social behavior or stigma in your obsession? (Need to bring handheld to a gathering, talk in social circles of how you defeated a particularly nasty "boss", prefer seeing your friends online during a raid...)
I dislike all this comparator, it is just people trying to force a pecking order: it is enough to have the emotional attachment of having gaming a part of who you are.
carlos13th wrote: If someone who only plays games on the train to work and labels them selves a gamer then they are a gamer.
By your standards anyone who doesn't have 2 hours a night spare to play games isn't a gamer. Anyone who can only play games for an hour at a time isn't a gamer. Not only that by your definition many gamers would be a gamer one week but not one then next, pulling numbers out of the air isn't really useful.
Bishop F Gantry wrote: Someone that "plays" a game for 5 minutes in a year cant be assumed to be a gamer even if they claim they are, their actions show they aren't committing any effort worthy of notice.
Yes they can. Who the hell wants to deal with "commitment"? I just want to have fun. And that's what games are for.
Exactly. It seems some people want to go the way of saying anyone who doesn't game the way they do or as often as they do isn't a gamer.
Then they are casual gamers.
Being a gamer is a lifestyle choice and that involves commitment and enjoyment. Bicycling to work dosent make me a Tour de France contestant even if I drive a bike, but on Meth it does!.
Labels like gamer exist to make people feel like a part of a community. Communities have standards, customs, expectations, etc. Practically speaking, being a gamer means accepting those values and practices to some extent.
Manchu wrote: Labels like gamer exist to make people feel like a part of a community. Communities have standards, customs, expectations, etc. Practically speaking, being a gamer means accepting those values and practices to some extent.
That's the problem though, There are no values & practices. Even if you could list some, the values and practices would vary from person to person, and group to group.
Even here the focus is on video game gamer, but that is just one small sub group that further splits between computer or console.
People who play miniature games are also gamers
TCG players = gamers
RPG players = gamers
board game players = gamers
face book game players = gamers
To be a gamer, you must play a game and accept the label of 'gamer'. That is all.
Manchu wrote: Labels like gamer exist to make people feel like a part of a community. Communities have standards, customs, expectations, etc. Practically speaking, being a gamer means accepting those values and practices to some extent.
And see, if that's someone's definition of being a gamer, I do not want to be that. I do not want to be a part of that community, if being a part of it is so conditional.
Manchu wrote: Labels like gamer exist to make people feel like a part of a community. Communities have standards, customs, expectations, etc. Practically speaking, being a gamer means accepting those values and practices to some extent.
And see, if that's someone's definition of being a gamer, I do not want to be that. I do not want to be a part of that community, if being a part of it is so conditional.
SO you live off in the mountains all by yourself and steal your internet? Cause if you live around people, you live in a community and accept the customs. Common ones include no stealing, no murdering, and no solicitations
carlos13th wrote: If someone who only plays games on the train to work and labels them selves a gamer then they are a gamer.
By your standards anyone who doesn't have 2 hours a night spare to play games isn't a gamer. Anyone who can only play games for an hour at a time isn't a gamer. Not only that by your definition many gamers would be a gamer one week but not one then next, pulling numbers out of the air isn't really useful.
Bishop F Gantry wrote: Someone that "plays" a game for 5 minutes in a year cant be assumed to be a gamer even if they claim they are, their actions show they aren't committing any effort worthy of notice.
Yes they can. Who the hell wants to deal with "commitment"? I just want to have fun. And that's what games are for.
Exactly. It seems some people want to go the way of saying anyone who doesn't game the way they do or as often as they do isn't a gamer.
Then they are casual gamers.
Being a gamer is a lifestyle choice and that involves commitment and enjoyment. Bicycling to work dosent make me a Tour de France contestant even if I drive a bike, but on Meth it does!.
Your argument is ridiculous. Not cycling to work doesn't make you Tour de France winner. Makes you a cyclist though. A casual gamer is still a gamer.
Manchu wrote: Labels like gamer exist to make people feel like a part of a community. Communities have standards, customs, expectations, etc. Practically speaking, being a gamer means accepting those values and practices to some extent.
And see, if that's someone's definition of being a gamer, I do not want to be that. I do not want to be a part of that community, if being a part of it is so conditional.
SO you live off in the mountains all by yourself and steal your internet? Cause if you live around people, you live in a community and accept the customs. Common ones include no stealing, no murdering, and no solicitations
dogg there's a difference between living in a society and voluntarily joining a community.
Merely pointing out that a society is a community, making a problem with 'conditions' being part of being in a community somewhat problematic for a member of the human species
sirlynchmob wrote: That's the problem though, There are no values & practices.
I disagree. But I would agree that there is a great deal of contention about what they are/should be.
I'd put forth any values & practices are solely based on the individual, and he brings all his values to any group he joins.
The only practices I can think of for gamers is really just the practice of playing of the game. Which vary games to game.
By trying to apply values & practices to a group, you are then creating the non-group for everyone who doesn't meet your expectations, or don't want to. You end up creating the non-gamer label and endorsing it's use.
LordofHats wrote: I played CoD4 for 1 year and three months over the course of 4 years. I think that qualifies as Hardcore.
That is… a lot. Like, really. It is a good thing you are reacting like that, because other could have in a totally different fashion.
Manchu wrote: They could not tell you which company owns BioWare or which games BioWare makes.[…] They don't care about Zoe Quinn or Phil Fish or Total Biscuit or Jimquisition or Yahtzee. They don't keep up with relative sales figures for consoles or how the tablet market impacts design.
I do not know the answer to those questions either, but I still consider myself a gamer.
Melissia wrote: I'm just fething tired of people looking at my handle online and saying "not a real gamer".
Why do they do that?
Melissia wrote: I admit I've done that... though probably not as long as some other people here ,but still. "Oh, it's only ten PM. I can stay up a bit late before showring before bed."
*go back to gaming, suddenly, I look at the clock, and it says 1:30 AM*
Yes, I noticed too that video games has a hidden function as a very efficient time machine. It only goes toward the future though. I guess it is an Easter egg.
Achievement unlocked: Time Warp!
Talizvar wrote: Do you have the degree of commitment to deserve the label of gamer?
Do you have the degree of poverty to deserve the label of a bum?
Seriously, when did gamer became a title of honor? I am glad it is not that much of a title of infamy, but it is nothing to be proud about either.
Melissia wrote: Neither of my NES's work for me. I'm considering buying a Nintoaster or Toploader, since those are a lot more reliable, but damn are old systems expensive...
sirlynchmob wrote: By trying to apply values & practices to a group, you are then creating the non-group for everyone who doesn't meet your expectations, or don't want to. You end up creating the non-gamer label and endorsing it's use.
Yes exactly. Boundaries imply exclusion. That's the point. Words like "gamer" are not meant to be inclusive.
Manchu wrote: They could not tell you which company owns BioWare or which games BioWare makes.[…] They don't care about Zoe Quinn or Phil Fish or Total Biscuit or Jimquisition or Yahtzee. They don't keep up with relative sales figures for consoles or how the tablet market impacts design.
I do not know the answer to those questions either, but I still consider myself a gamer.
I see you cherry picked from my examples. Of course, I did not write those examples as a litmus test for gamer status. They are examples of knowledge that people who play games but do not identify as "gamers" are likely not to know or care about.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Seriously, when did gamer became a title of honor? I am glad it is not that much of a title of infamy, but it is nothing to be proud about either.
It's not a title of honor but a title of belonging. It's kind of like "nerd." At some point being called a nerd (or a dork or a geek or similar) was a bad thing. But nerds banded together to form their own culture, identity, community for the very fact that they were excluded from other communities. There was a "nerd space" you might say. But nowadays everybody seems to claim to be a nerd (including the people and/or type of people who formerly derided nerds) and it feels like they are invading that space. The issue of being a "real gamer" is exactly the same thing. Some of us remember when being the kid who really liked video games was NOT OKAY. Now video games make billions and billions so it is OKAY for people to like them. And those same kinds of people who made fun of kids who liked video games are now claiming to be gamers and, even worse, claiming they have always been gamers.
It's a kind of cultural appropriation. Of course, that would be invisible to anyone who disbelieves in the existence of the relevant sub-culture(s).
LordofHats wrote: Merely pointing out that a society is a community, making a problem with 'conditions' being part of being in a community somewhat problematic for a member of the human species
Fine. Whatever. What I meant was that I do not want to be a member of a community whose criteria for membership are based primarily on exclusion. Which is the definition of "gamer" that some are using here.
sirlynchmob wrote: By trying to apply values & practices to a group, you are then creating the non-group for everyone who doesn't meet your expectations, or don't want to. You end up creating the non-gamer label and endorsing it's use.
Yes exactly. Boundaries implicate exclusion. That's the point. Words like "gamer" are not meant to be inclusive.
It is inclusive though, it is open to everyone. It's not even limited to humans as even cats are playing video games.
Do you play games? Yes=gamer
Adding other values, practices and conditions after that excludes gamers, and relabels gamers as non-gamers. Which seems to be the main usage for the word 'nongamer' it's used to exclude gamers, I've never heard it used to just describe someone who doesn't play games.
Manchu wrote: A gamer is someone who regularly spends a significant amount of their free time thinking about or playing games as a matter of preference.
Good definition. Just saying "a gamer is someone who plays games" is the widest possible definition and it doesn't make much sense. You aren't an athlete because you play hopscotch once in a while and you aren't a politician if you talk about politics on an internet forum.
I don't think the word 'gamer' is used to describe anyone who has every played a game/is currently playing a game. This seems obvious because people who have played/are playing games do not necessarily identify themselves as 'gamers.' It is clear that 'gamer' can and does refer to something beyond the most absolutely literal meaning.
Talizvar wrote: Do you have the degree of commitment to deserve the label of gamer?
Do you have the degree of poverty to deserve the label of a bum?
Seriously, when did gamer became a title of honor? I am glad it is not that much of a title of infamy, but it is nothing to be proud about either.
Wow, quote out of context of the year award, try reading the full post (grumble...) be on the lookout for sarcasm it can really trip you up when skimming.
I dislike all this comparator, it is just people trying to force a pecking order: it is enough to have the emotional attachment of having gaming a part of who you are.
That is what I am saying, there always seems to be this pressing need to have a hierarchy when the sense of being part of a group should be enough.
If you associate and identify with a group, what others have to say about your membership is just being bossy or elitist (figure we need all the support we can get anyway).
Felt a real need to sort that out because I am confident in my gamer-ness and do not need to put down others who are not as awesome as I am...
Melissia wrote: Long version? Not a suitable discussion for this particular thread, don't want to derail it.
PM?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talizvar wrote: Wow, quote out of context of the year award, try reading the full post (grumble...)
Sorry. It was not meant to criticize you, it was meant to criticize the mentality you described. But taking that quote out of context misrepresented your message.
Hybrid Son of Oxayotl: I'm not interested in typing out a long essay about that sort of thing so I'll just link you here instead; if you honestly want more information on the topic, that site (a general "women in geek culture" site that also includes gamers) covers it quite regularly.
Manchu wrote: I don't think the word 'gamer' is used to describe anyone who has every played a game/is currently playing a game.
It does, to me.
Manchu wrote: It is clear that 'gamer' can and does refer to something beyond the most absolutely literal meaning.
Words have multiple meanings. Doesn't mean that we should value all meanings equally.
Melissia wrote: Doesn't mean that we should value all meanings equally.
That would be a major wrong turn.
The issue is meaning rather than value. What do people mean to evoke with the term 'gamer'? Generally speaking, the term is used to distinguish one type of person from another. Like all labels, it is inherently exclusionary.
The question here is, who gets excluded? Is it (a) people who have never played any game at all ever or (b) something more narrow? If we go with (a), then the term is pretty useless. But going with (b) opens up a huge can of worms. As discussed ITT, some people would like it so narrow as to require ~20 hours per week of DOTA.
Manchu wrote: What do people mean to evoke with the term 'gamer'?
That depends on the person. Some people are donkey-caves and intentionally go out of their way to only include those whom are exactly like them. Others are not.
Manchu wrote: If we go with (a), then the term is pretty useless. But going with (b) opens up a huge can of worms. As discussed ITT, some people would like it so narrow as to require ~20 hours per week of DOTA.
If that is your assertions, the conclusion I come up with is "therefor A is superior and B should be tossed out, shat on, burned, and then the ashes pissed on, then the whole toxic slurry dumped in a nuclear waste disposal pool."
I disagree that the "A" discussion is worthless, however.
The more kinds of people a term describes, the less useful it is to distinguish one person from another.
Drawing distinctions is what terms like 'gamer' are for.
Let's go back to the cyclist example. If I see stranger riding a bicycle, it would be fair to describe him as a cyclist. (More of a British English thing TBH.) But I would not describe myself as a cyclist, despite the fact that I have ridden a bicycle in the past. I would not describe myself as a cyclist even while riding a bicycle.
Now if I see a woman who I don't know riding a bicycle and I say 'she's a woman therefore she cannot be a cyclist' -- that's clearly sexist. The answer to that sexism is not to pretend that everyone who has ever ridden a bicycle in their lives should be described as a cyclist.
I agree with this. My parents have both played a video game at least once in their life, but they have not played one for a very long time, and if I was to talk to them about one, I would be met with a complete lack of interest. Basically no matter what game I would be talking about. So, why call them gamers?
(Well, except if you include board games. We do play board games regularly.)
As mentioned, my parents spend far MORE time playing video games than me and yet they do not identify as gamers while I do.
HBMC really brought up a good point. People choose to be gamers. They choose it not only by how they spend their resources but also by how they think of themselves (and by implication others).
Talizvar wrote: Wow, quote out of context of the year award, try reading the full post (grumble...)
Sorry. It was not meant to criticize you, it was meant to criticize the mentality you described. But taking that quote out of context misrepresented your message.
Ah cool, I have a better understanding of you now.
I am getting defensive these days but happy I behaved myself enough to not be an .
The more kinds of people a term describes, the less useful it is to distinguish one person from another.
That's also why they shouldn't be used. "to label me, is to negate me" Søren Kierkegaard. We distinguish one person from another by our names.
We do have many labels that include large amounts of people like 'theist', 'christian', 'muslim', 'atheist', 'gamer' That is just our way of sorting things. People can claim thousands of labels, and labels are never used to distinguish people, but to put them into a preconceived group with preconceived notions about that group.
Manchu wrote: As mentioned, my parents spend far MORE time playing video games than me and yet they do not identify as gamers while I do.
Yes, but the fact they do not identify themselves as gamer do not mean the rest of the world does not either. Whereas it would be very, very hard to find people that identify my parents as gamers.
Manchu wrote: I am talking about definitions not discussions.
And yet here we are, having the latter about the former.
Manchu wrote: The more kinds of people a term describes, the less useful it is to distinguish one person from another.
I fail to see any useful objection here.
Manchu wrote: Drawing distinctions is what terms like 'gamer' are for.
And it draws a distinction between someone who plays games and someone whom does not.
Manchu wrote: Now if I see a woman who I don't know riding a bicycle and I say 'she's a woman therefore she cannot be a cyclist' -- that's clearly sexist. The answer to that sexism is not to pretend that everyone who has ever ridden a bicycle in their lives should be described as a cyclist.
That's like arguing that not everyone who has driven a car can be called a driver. It's a distinction without relevancy.
Manchu wrote: As mentioned, my parents spend far MORE time playing video games than me and yet they do not identify as gamers while I do.
Yes, but the fact they do not identify themselves as gamer do not mean the rest of the world does not either. Whereas it would be very, very hard to find people that identify my parents as gamers.
I think what you are getting at here is that the utility of a term can be different depending on who uses it. But the contrast does not get us any closer to a 'true' meaning of gamer.
Melissia wrote: And it draws a distinction between someone who plays games and someone whom does not.
I think drawing a distinction between someone who regularly plays games and someone who does not regularly play game is much more useful and relevant than drawing a distinction between someone who has never ever played a game in his or her life and someone who did at least once.
Manchu wrote: As mentioned, my parents spend far MORE time playing video games than me and yet they do not identify as gamers while I do.
HBMC really brought up a good point. People choose to be gamers. They choose it not only by how they spend their resources but also by how they think of themselves (and by implication others).
A state of mind, an identity, a piece of themselves that lays claim their heart has been won by a leisure activity... ahem, electronic violence is soooo pretty! Oorah!
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I think drawing a distinction between someone who regularly plays games and someone who does not regularly play game is much more useful and relevant than drawing a distinction between someone who has never ever played a game in his or her life and someone who did at least once.
Well, I can give examples of situations where the “plays game regularly” versus “does not play game regularly” distinction can be relevant, but I cannot find any where the “has ever played a game in his or her life” versus “has never played a game in his or her life” can be relevant.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Well, I can give examples of situations where the “plays game regularly” versus “does not play game regularly” distinction can be relevant, but I cannot find any where the “has ever played a game in his or her life” versus “has never played a game in his or her life” can be relevant.
Outside of the marketplace, I can't see any relevant uses for the former. And none of us have indicated that we are discussing this from a market-based perspective.
Melissia wrote: That's like arguing that not everyone who has driven a car can be called a driver. It's a distinction without relevancy.
Far from it. The term driver can be used broadly or narrowly. This is exactly what I am getting at with the cyclist example. Let's say while riding a bike in the park I meet someone else who is also riding a bike. We start to chat and she tells me she is training for a cross country ride that she does every year because cycling is her hobby. She then asks me if I am a cyclist, too.
I have not ridden a bike in the last two decades. I don't think about biking in any way shape or form. I cannot even imagine why I would be riding a bike in my own hypothetical. Given all that, I would reasonably answer her: no, I'm not a cyclist. And she would understand what I mean DESPITE the fact that she just saw me riding a bike.
Manchu wrote: I have not ridden a bike in the last two decades. I don't think about biking in any way shape or form. I cannot even imagine why I would be riding a bike in my own hypothetical. Given all that, I would reasonably answer her: no, I'm not a cyclist. And she would understand what I meant DESPITE the fact that she just saw me riding a bike.
And yet, you were bicycling, therefor, you were in the act of being a cyclist, IE, a person who rides a bicycle.
(for the record, I understand what you're saying from an intellectual standpoint, but philosophically I find myself rejecting it)
Melissia wrote: for the record, I understand what you're saying from an intellectual standpoint, but philosophically I find myself rejecting it
I would say you are rejecting it as a matter of ideology rather than philosophy. But it is really just a matter of language. Perhaps if I clarify the ideological intent: using the term 'gamer' in a more narrow manner than the broadest possible one does not necessarily validate sexist attitudes about video games and/or who plays them.
One thing everyone posting ITT can probably agree on is that any coherent definition of 'gamer' cannot be so narrow as to preemptively exclude women.
I disagree that it needs to be narrow in the first place, really. "Gamer" is a perfectly serviceable word for "a person who plays games", and trying to change it to "a person who plays as much games that I like as I do" is very narrow-minded to me.
If you have some (as yet unexplained in this thread) need to narrow it, you can add qualifiers-- but then you start to step in to dangerous territory whereupon people say "well, they're casual gamers, they're not REAL gamers", the arrogance of which we really should be avoiding because it clouds our judgment.
Your assertion that this is based on "ideology" instead of "philosophy" is a little bit insulting. I said "philosophy" for a reason-- this is based off of me finding that there have been consistent ethical problems with using labels to exclude people and make those whom aren't excluded feel better about themselves through the exclusion. Not out of partisanship or some other nonsense.
Ideology is not a bad word. But it does mean something distinct from philosophy.
Taking offense to the distinction is a matter of misusing words as swords and shields rather than signifiers.
That seems to be your main problem with the way the term 'gamer' is actually used (as a kind of tribal affiliation) as opposed to the way that you would prefer (to undermine that tribal affiliation).
Manchu wrote: Ideology is not a bad word. But it does mean something distinct from philosophy.
Ethical concerns are philsoophical, not ideological.
Manchu wrote: That seems to be your main problem with the way the term 'gamer' is actually used (as a kind of tribal affiliation) as opposed to the way that you would prefer (to undermine that tribal affiliation).
Tribalism is the root of a lot of violence and hate, yes.
Would it not be reasonable to propose that being a "gamer" is a choice by the person to identify as such and not defined by an exterior definition?
I can tell someone I am a "gamer" who does not know me and to them: I am.
Others who know me at the local hobby store may not see me play there but if I tell them I am a gamer: I am.
I tell you all in this forum I am gamer, by what means can you say I am not a gamer?
Will there be any criteria or objective evidence that can make me not a gamer if I say I am???
The only time we get all upset is when someone claims they are a gamer and are only doing so for other reasons: their claim is not genuine and not with feeling.
A poser is someone looking for acceptance without liking the reason for belonging to the group.
A gamer is someone who possesses the properties of what it is to be a gamer like how a table and chair have attributes that make them what they are.
Melissia wrote: Ethical concerns are philsoophical, not ideological.
Ethics is a field of thought connected to but autonomous from philosophy. Ideology informs ethical outlook.
Melissia wrote: Tribalism is the root of a lot of violence and hate, yes.
No argument there. And I understand that 'capturing' words from your ideological opponents is a pretty popular tactic. But I'm not posting ITT to fight these ideological wars but just rather to make some observations about how the term 'gamer' is actually used and why. And it is actually used to create identity and community.
Talizvar wrote: Would it not be reasonable to propose that being a "gamer" is a choice by the person to identify as such and not defined by an exterior definition?
It's a little bit of both. In my example above about cycling, the woman who is training for her cross country event would be pretty skeptical of me claiming to also be a cyclist if I was all out of breath, falling off the bike, and didn't know much about the parts of the bike or how to change gears or what the names of famous events are, etc.
Manchu wrote: Ethics is a field of thought connected to but autonomous from philosophy.
Ethics is just one of the many topics which are included under the philosophy "umbrella" topic (similar to how "chemistry" follows under the umbrella of "physical sciences". Indeed, it's one of the most important branches of philosophy in terms of its impact on the real world and the actions of real people.
Manchu wrote: But I'm not posting ITT to fight these ideological wars but just rather to make some observations about how the 'term' gamer is actually used. And it is actually used to create identity and community.
I don't think any one is disagreeing with how it's used; the debate in this thread appears to be over how it SHOULD be used.
Manchu wrote: That seems to be your main problem with the way the term 'gamer' is actually used (as a kind of tribal affiliation) as opposed to the way that you would prefer (to undermine that tribal affiliation).
Tribalism is the root of a lot of violence and hate, yes.
While another word "community" has the connotation of support and structure.
Tribalism - the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one's own tribe or social group.
Community - a feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals.
So I guess the only differences are a degree of blind fanaticism associated with Tribalism while the other is self affirming commonality (right or wrong morally).
So the KKK or the "he-man woman haters club" (Little Rascals tv series) could fit either description I guess.
Any affiliation can easily create an "us or them" condition so the root of violence and hate is more appropriately disassociating from others: failing to see your connection to another human being and their relevance to you.
Careful use of an association label can help forge connections, it is just really handy to think of others when you run into someone new.
Melissia wrote: Outside of the marketplace, I can't see any relevant uses for the former.
The marketplace?
For a very basic example of what I meant, if I know someone regularly plays games, I will expect him or her to be more likely interested in talking about games, so I would be much more like to bring up the subject in a conversation than with someone who does not play games regularly. I would also be much more likely to involve them in other gaming-related activity. Even if I somehow do end up showing a game to a person that do not regularly plays game, I would explain things about it that I would take for granted that someone who regularly plays game already know.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: things about it that I would take for granted that someone who regularly plays game already know.
In my experience, me being a gamer has never stopped this from being an assumption frequently proven wrong.
I never played Black and White, or the Earthbound series. Assuming that I, as a gamer, must have in-depth knowledge of them will invariably lead to you having to explain things to me.
Meanwhile, I have played a lot of games that very few people on this forum have played, just on account of my age and when I started playing. A lot of people have never played, for example, E.T. on Atari (insert ominous thunder, here). I own it.
I swear its cartridge stares at me whenever I pass by my collection of older games.
But if I talk about it, a lot of people on this forum have to have it explained to them.
It is pretty unlikely that anyone posting ITT -- in the video game section of a miniatures war gaming forum -- is not a gamer. I don't think we should be using ourselves as hypothetical examples of non-gamers.
Melissia wrote: In my experience, me being a gamer has never stopped this from being an assumption frequently proven wrong.
Do you know what a NPC is? Are you familiar with concepts such as experience points and levels ? Are you aware of what first person view and third person view means? That is the kind of stuff that I would need to explain to my parents, but that I would assume you to know. Not the intricacies of a specific title.
Melissia wrote: I know many who aren't gamers who understand what those things are.
I assume you do not mean that they never played a game once in their entire lifetime, right?
Those specific examples were very close to what you get in PnP roleplaying games, except for the third person/first person, but I am sure there are other examples that would be more specific to video games.
Melissia wrote: First person and third person are common literary terms, they aren't unique to gaming.
First person view and third person view, though, are concepts that many people have never encountered. It is not the same thing as first person/third person narration, which people are much more likely to be familiar with.
Melissia wrote: First person and third person are common literary terms, they aren't unique to gaming.
First person view and third person view, though, are concepts that many people have never encountered. It is not the same thing as first person/third person narration, which people are much more likely to be familiar with.
Uh... no?
They're pretty common ideas even amongst cinema and storytelling. They're nowhere NEAR exclusive to gaming, in fact, they're thousands of years older than gaming.
Melissia wrote: They're pretty common ideas even amongst cinema and storytelling.
I can only think of two movies that make use of a first person view (outside of horror movies where you get shot that can be or not be from the eyes of the monster): Doom, and Enter the void. In Doom, it is a reference to video games…
Melissia wrote: They're nowhere NEAR exclusive to gaming, in fact, they're thousands of years older than gaming.
Melissia wrote: They're pretty common ideas even amongst cinema and storytelling.
I can only think of two movies that make use of a first person view (outside of horror movies where you get shot that can be or not be from the eyes of the monster): Doom, and Enter the void. In Doom, it is a reference to video games…
Melissia wrote: They're nowhere NEAR exclusive to gaming, in fact, they're thousands of years older than gaming.
Uh, no.
As storytelling concepts, first person, second person, and third person are indeed that much older.
If you understand first person storytelling, you understand what a first person view is. It's really that simple.
Games did not re-invent the wheel, Oxayotl. They didn't need to.
Melissia wrote: If you understand first person storytelling, you understand what a first person view is. It's really that simple.
For a gamer that is pretty familiar with the concept, sure it is. Would you make the test of asking someone very unfamiliar about video game to see if that is that obvious to him? Personally, I would explain this to a non-gamer, but assume a gamer already knows about it.
Neither of my parents are gamers or college-educated (though my mother is getting in to it these days), and they didn't need an explanation.
1st/2nd/3rd person is EXTREMELY common knowledge amongst people of even basic education. I'd be surprised that someone could go to college these days without encountering it at least once in, say, English Composition classes.
Again, first/second/third person is common knowledge and my parents know about it. First person/third person view is not common knowledge, and inferring what it is is not obvious. If I tell them “Julius Caesar spoke about himself in third person”, they will understand (and likely already know about it), but if I tell them “Enter the void has some sequences that are filmed in first person view”, they will not have any idea of what I am talking about.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Again, first/second/third person is common knowledge and my parents know about it. First person/third person view is
... the same damned thing.
When you are taught 1+2=3, you're generslly not taught to memorize 1+2=3, but also taught to be able to understand that 1+3=4, too. That's really the level of difference between the two concepts here.
Melissia wrote: In my experience, me being a gamer has never stopped this from being an assumption frequently proven wrong.
Do you know what a NPC is? Are you familiar with concepts such as experience points and levels ? Are you aware of what first person view and third person view means?
That is the kind of stuff that I would need to explain to my parents, but that I would assume you to know. Not the intricacies of a specific title.
Glad you guys brought this up.
I have heard this mentioned somewhere and seen it demonstrated that groups sometimes develop their own language when it starts leaning toward "exclusiveness" rather than being inclusive.
Have a friend learning to be a nurse and was complaining that all the Latin terms the medical profession uses have perfectly serviceable English equivalents but seems to be different wording for the sake of it.
NPC, PC, GM, Thac0, D20, Chaotic Neutral, Wandering Monster... second nature to those who played Dungeons and Dragons for any length of time.
I had a meeting with engineers from Ford Automotive for a vehicle launch, we had a "recommended" document on acronyms that was some 20 pages long, in that meeting we barely had a clue what they were talking about, it was nuts.
The understanding of "common" wording within a given culture or group would have little impact on that person being an actual member, it will however diminish their acceptance in the group if they cannot speak the language and may have them labeled as a a "poser".
Talizvar wrote: I have heard this mentioned somewhere and seen it demonstrated that groups sometimes develop their own language when it starts leaning toward "exclusiveness" rather than being inclusive.
It is not just words, it is also concepts and ideas. And developing specific terms is normal. I could not explain to you the subject of my PhD without using the specific terms because there are no other terms to describe it.
Melissia wrote: In my experience, me being a gamer has never stopped this from being an assumption frequently proven wrong.
Do you know what a NPC is? Are you familiar with concepts such as experience points and levels ? Are you aware of what first person view and third person view means?
That is the kind of stuff that I would need to explain to my parents, but that I would assume you to know. Not the intricacies of a specific title.
Glad you guys brought this up.
I have heard this mentioned somewhere and seen it demonstrated that groups sometimes develop their own language when it starts leaning toward "exclusiveness" rather than being inclusive.
Have a friend learning to be a nurse and was complaining that all the Latin terms the medical profession uses have perfectly serviceable English equivalents but seems to be different wording for the sake of it.
NPC, PC, GM, Thac0, D20, Chaotic Neutral, Wandering Monster... second nature to those who played Dungeons and Dragons for any length of time.
I had a meeting with engineers from Ford Automotive for a vehicle launch, we had a "recommended" document on acronyms that was some 20 pages long, in that meeting we barely had a clue what they were talking about, it was nuts.
The understanding of "common" wording within a given culture or group would have little impact on that person being an actual member, it will however diminish their acceptance in the group if they cannot speak the language and may have them labeled as a a "poser".
Also having your own terms & language isn't be exclusive. I'm pretty sure most people would be willing to teach you the terms if you'd ask.
In your Ford meeting, they gave you the resource to follow along, that's being inclusive. Did anyone at Ford actually call you a poser? I used to call people 'the new guy' til the got the hang of things, but never heard of anyone getting called a poser.
Talizvar wrote: I have heard this mentioned somewhere and seen it demonstrated that groups sometimes develop their own language when it starts leaning toward "exclusiveness" rather than being inclusive.
It is not just words, it is also concepts and ideas. And developing specific terms is normal. I could not explain to you the subject of my PhD without using the specific terms because there are no other terms to describe it.
Using the commonly accepted wording gives a better impression of understanding = eloquence.
Using less direct descriptors will still give the impression of comprehension issues because it would appear fumbling: why did they not use the correct term?
I have some trouble with the claim that no other words can describe a given concept, maybe not well, but not fail completely.
(The subject of your Phd is sounding intriguing.)
But it's usually best to take a term that is extremely similar and also very well known (in this case, first and third person perspective) and use or modify that for your new idea (in this case, first and third person camera views).
Talizvar wrote: I have some trouble with the claim that no other words can describe a given concept, maybe not well, but not fail completely.
Well, you could use periphrasis, but that would only make it longer, and basically amount to giving the definition every time again, I guess.
Talizvar wrote: (The subject of your Phd is sounding intriguing.)
I am working in graph theory. We are looking at stuff like finding a FPT algorithm that solves finding a minimum tropical dominant set in a given vertex-colored graph in polynomial time. “Tropical” is a notion that we introduced ourselves. All those terms (except maybe for graph and vertex because it is something anyone interested in reading the thesis would already know) are going to be, of course, defined at the beginning of the thesis, but not using those terms in the text would make it much more tedious to read.Also I could explain about everything needed to understand that first sentence in about 10 minutes at a cafe provided you are not too drunk and we have pen and paper, I guess. It is not a complex or hard to understand problem, it just requires a few definition that you have no reason to have heard about before.
sirlynchmob wrote: Also having your own terms & language isn't be exclusive. I'm pretty sure most people would be willing to teach you the terms if you'd ask.
This is the problem with dealing in general concepts, yes, many will be happy to teach as a means to increase members to the group. But the new words and terms act as a barrier to understanding until they are learned = barrier to participation in the group.
In your Ford meeting, they gave you the resource to follow along, that's being inclusive. Did anyone at Ford actually call you a poser? I used to call people 'the new guy' til the got the hang of things, but never heard of anyone getting called a poser.
No, they did not give us the material to follow along, we were warned <edit>(by people in our company that knew better).
They DID have it in their body of documents we had access to, so they had an official document to point to for their correct usage.
We did not have access to that document until we were confirmed in their system as an official supplier (part of the group).
Poser, new guy, newbie, wet behind the ears, on probation, new supplier pre-Q1 certification (Ford) all words for a new member that has not been fully accepted into the group.
Ah! Scribed got a hold of some of it, the official document is still locked away in the Ford ctis site.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/94341190/FORD-Acronyms-Booklet 13 pages and they did not get past "A" yet... <edit>(it has grown a lot since I last saw it)
sirlynchmob wrote: Also having your own terms & language isn't be exclusive. I'm pretty sure most people would be willing to teach you the terms if you'd ask.
This is the problem with dealing in general concepts, yes, many will be happy to teach as a means to increase members to the group. But the new words and terms act as a barrier to understanding until they are learned = barrier to participation in the group.
In your Ford meeting, they gave you the resource to follow along, that's being inclusive. Did anyone at Ford actually call you a poser? I used to call people 'the new guy' til the got the hang of things, but never heard of anyone getting called a poser.
No, they did not give us the material to follow along, we were warned <edit>(by people in our company that knew better).
They DID have it in their body of documents we had access to, so they had an official document to point to for their correct usage.
We did not have access to that document until we were confirmed in their system as an official supplier (part of the group).
Poser, new guy, newbie, wet behind the ears, on probation, new supplier pre-Q1 certification (Ford) all words for a new member that has not been fully accepted into the group.
Ah! Scribed got a hold of some of it, the official document is still locked away in the Ford ctis site.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/94341190/FORD-Acronyms-Booklet 13 pages and they did not get past "A" yet... <edit>(it has grown a lot since I last saw it)
If they were being exclusionary then the new guy would never be fully accepted, everyone goes through a learning process and once that is done they are fully accepted into the group, showing the group is inclusive.
I'm more curious now as to why you were sent, being so unprepared.
sirlynchmob wrote: I'm more curious now as to why you were sent, being so unprepared.
Oooh! that sounds suspiciously like a zinger...
Was part of a "satellite plant" group so this was our "orientation" and kickoff meeting for the project.
The more experienced personnel in the company had their own plants to attend to (not associated with the project = not the manufacturing facility personnel).
One can only memorize so many acronyms in a few days... "unprepared" would be better described as "culture shock".
When we got past the "corporate types" the Ford assembly plant personnel did not make use of this shorthand.
Funny how dealing with any of the other companies (Toyota, Nissan, GM, Chrysler) we had no such issue.
If they were being exclusionary then the new guy would never be fully accepted, everyone goes through a learning process and once that is done they are fully accepted into the group, showing the group is inclusive.
A certain minimum standard for acceptance has been required though to participate.
Commitment needs to be demonstrated (at least $27 and a fair bit of memorization time!).
Being "inclusive" in this case is conditional.
What gets ugly is if the person has no control over that factor (features they were born with for example).
What kind of difficulty would an outsider have operating on a ship with no knowledge of the language in your book you pointed to?
With your knowledge in naval matters: What makes someone a sailor?
What would be considered the minimum qualifier?
The minimum qualifier to be a gamer seems to be eluding this thread, I still maintain to have a like/care/zeal for gaming is sufficient to be identified as one.
It wasn't meant as a zinger, it just seemed odd to me that you went with out anyone with you who was more familiar with the lingo. It seemed like you were thrown into the deep end to see if you'd float.
A sailor is usually someone who sails on a boat. Either in the military or a private ship. A gamer plays games, a Sailor works on boats. Most first term sailors in the US navy, have little liking, no caring, and absolutely no zeal for being a sailor, but they are still sailors.
Outsiders get along just fine on our boats. And they are quite common, from family members taking a cruise with the boat, to college teachers or instructors coming on board to fill in the crew on what they've missed over the last 6+ months, to just technical crew installing new things on the boat.
I quite like the definition as being one that is self-applied - I'd consider myself a gamer, but a low intensity one - I play RPG's, I've never played DOTA or LOL or whatever, and I don't keep up with new releases (although "Destiny" has grabbed my attention)
I think there is a tendency to look down on people claiming to be gamers who game less intensively or just differently than you do - for example, I'd raise an eyebrow at someone calling themselves a gamer just because they occasionally play candy crush, but then I'm sure some would look down on me because I don't spend all my free time playing online deathmatches in COD or whatever.
Debating whether that's something that can (or even should) be changed, or whether a level of elitism is inevitable, is for my money, time better spent running yet another Skyrim playthrough
sirlynchmob wrote: A gamer plays games, a Sailor works on boats. Most first term sailors in the US navy, have little liking, no caring, and absolutely no zeal for being a sailor, but they are still sailors.
Funny, I agree.
Being a sailor really is just the act of spending time on boats: you do not have to like it.
I do it for recreation and enjoy "blow boating" in particular so I now understand my error.
I think I know what went wrong: as you are involved / performing an act you gain a label: As I ride a bike I am a cyclist, As I crew a boat I am a sailor, As I play a game I am a gamer.
When I am not performing that role when do I still get to call myself it (a piece of my identity)?:
"I am an avid cyclist" (they ride every day for leisure), "I am a sailor" (I own a recreational boat and sail every weekend), "I am a gamer" (I spend 70% of my leisure time playing).
I suppose if something is your job, it is sufficient to be part of your identity.
So if I did playtesting as a job could I say I am a "gamer" and possibly not like what I do?
Seems like the right track.
It is a mistake to to self-identify as what you do for money. We are not are jobs, our jobs are not our lives (unless you want to make your job your life), it is simply what we do to fund the things we like to do. What I do as a job right now is not what I thought I'd be doing 5 years ago, and not what I see myself doing 5 years from now. It's just a job, it pays my bills. Nothing more, nothing less.
hotsauceman1 wrote: This came up recently. I feel confident that I can call myself a gamer. I love video games, I have a subscription to Game Informer and the like.
but I was told by a co-worker, Im not much of a Gamer because I dont pay attention to things like LoL, DoTA or(Maybe I shouldnt have said this) I knew about nothing from E3 or pax prime, but I also dont know about half the releases on steam
But what makes someone a gamer, is there more then loving games?
Its all bollocks.
Everyone has to have a gang now. Its how we make discussions interesting, but its all a grand nonsense. Same as how everyone always has to tell me what they are "in to" via their shirts nowadays.. I think its all inexorably linked to our trenchant narcissism, but then I'm a miserable old fether.
I think the same about all kinds of things, if you say you are a Muslim but you drink beer and never pray, are you one? Who is to say you aren't? Who makes the rules?
Thus, If you play Angry Birds occasionally and that is your fething lot, but you like to call yourself a gamer, then you are one. Knock yourself out.
feth me its 2014, I think almost everyone is a gamer aren't they? I don't know anyone who doesn't play at least something.
Psienesis wrote: It is a mistake to to self-identify as what you do for money. We are not are jobs, our jobs are not our lives (unless you want to make your job your life), it is simply what we do to fund the things we like to do. What I do as a job right now is not what I thought I'd be doing 5 years ago, and not what I see myself doing 5 years from now. It's just a job, it pays my bills. Nothing more, nothing less.
A gamer is a person who plays games. Full stop.
Being labeled by job is so commonplace though, it's the norm. Labels are not who we are though, they're a check list for others, and unfortunately you will be treated based on your labels instead of who you are. It's wrong, but it happens and everyone does it. Take the 'telemarketer' for example, when they reveal that label, don't you just want to punch them in the throat, or just take a instant dislike for them? You could be the most honest 'used car salesman' ever, but their label comes with 'dishonest' attached.
To see that you are identified and labeled by your job, try this simple test. Ask your parents about your grand parents, or anyone about their parents. The answer usually goes, their character, their job, other stuff.
Psienesis wrote: It is a mistake to to self-identify as what you do for money.
So many of us do though.
When someone introduces themselves or get introduced, their job tends to get added to the description.
Funny how again, it appears you do not like your job enough to self identify to it.
You are identified by your job description at work, like it or not.
As others have pointed out, saying your job does not describe you is a bit odd.
This is why I feel the label of gamer is more than the simple act of gaming, it is a personal choice to take-on the label.
Why is this diluting the term "gamer"? What does that mean? It seems like you are framing gamer to be exclusionary instead of being inclusive. The reason that some people on thread on hostile with such an approach is that historically, people used such language to delegitize people's experiences. If people game and want to be called a gamer, isn't that enough?
I believe if you play video games then you are a gamer, but I have had my friends tell me I am not a gamer because I don't play certain games like destiny, or GT5 ect, I am more into story, character progression, art style, but not overly complicated either I also like when my games end eventually and what I am always craving for is a satisfying ending I don't really care if it doesn't have a replay value after the first run I just care about if I had fun playing through it, that its memorable and that I feel I got my money's worth.
my friends however think that online game play is the greatest thing ever and it should always be a competition, endless content, and violence, and I believe that they are gamers too, just not the same type as myself, I prefer to stick to my kingdom hearts, mario kart, and bioshock ect.
Psienesis wrote: It is a mistake to to self-identify as what you do for money.
Fighter pilot says, "Wrong."
But yeah, as for gamer? Too nebulous. Whoever wants to claim the title is one, as far as I'm concerned.
And when that pilot can no longer fly, what does he identify himself as then? What is left when he is no longer that job? When a car accident between flights robs him of his sight, what has he become? An invalid? Useless? A waste of a pilot's training?
To identify yourself as your job is to remove from yourself the things that actually make you "you". What was that pilot outside of flying? Was he a dreamer? A writer? A drawer? A joker? A philosopher? A connoisseur and brewer of craft beers? What was it about his personality that made him the person that he is? Is what he was no longer there once he stops flying? If so... what a hollow, sorry existence that must be.
A lot of people describe themselves as their job even after they retire. I suppose I'm thinking of hte old saying that once you join the marine corps, you never really stop being a marine-- a lot of people whom are proud of their lifestyles feel the same way.
A lot of people describe themselves as their job even after they retire.
They do, and that's sad. Do people dream of being accountants? Of garbage collectors? (Actually, that pays pretty damn well, maybe they do...)
uppose I'm thinking of hte old saying that once you join the marine corps, you never really stop being a marine
That is the result of a rather effective brainwashing program, which is part and parcel of Marine Basic. The Army has a similar mindset, "Soldier first. Soldier last. Soldier always." That's simply how our military functions.
Of course, being in the military is more than just a job, it is more a lifestyle decision than, say, choosing to work in a call-center is. Or, on the other hand, it is simply that the military doesn't want you to know how badly you're being paid and so builds it up to be such an adventurous thing. Equal chance of both, I suppose.
Hardcore 
.
