Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I consider Call of Duty to be a pretty casual game. I consider most of the mainstream market to be pretty casual (and I don't really have issue with this). Rather than remarking on the 'style' of game, it's more useful to comment on the market. App store games, flash games, etc identify a market (like AAA game). Discussions like this are indeed targeted at the AAA market, and typically exclude browser games or games that you play on your phone.

I find it generally means games that are pick-up-and-play, that require little effort, but often a lot of time.
In reality, it is meaningless, it is just how the gamer views themselves. I'm a casualy-hardcore gamer (if that makes any sense), and don't really fit either "casual" or "hardcore" gamer completely.

Meanwhile, I'm sitting here playing both Civ:BE (which requires a tonof time and dedication) and Cook! Serve! DELICIOUS!, which is basically a very well done PC port of a phone game, as well as other games like payday, league of legends, etc.

Yup, it's all up to how the gamer views themselves.

No one is attacking anyone's gamer cred, could we not talk about this? Please?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I find it generally means games that are pick-up-and-play, that require little effort, but often a lot of time.
In reality, it is meaningless, it is just how the gamer views themselves. I'm a casualy-hardcore gamer (if that makes any sense), and don't really fit either "casual" or "hardcore" gamer completely.

I recommend using a Thesaurus.

 Lotet wrote:
No one is attacking anyone's gamer cred, could we not talk about this? Please?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I find it generally means games that are pick-up-and-play, that require little effort, but often a lot of time.
In reality, it is meaningless, it is just how the gamer views themselves. I'm a casualy-hardcore gamer (if that makes any sense), and don't really fit either "casual" or "hardcore" gamer completely.

I recommend using a Thesaurus.

Are you being facetious or obtuse?

... I didn't have any problems understanding what Co'tor Shas meant. What's confusing about it?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Are you being facetious or obtuse?

I'm not sure, I've looked up the 2 definitions and I don't feel either is appropriate to describe what I'm being. Hmm, I suppose if I can't figure it out that would make it Obtuse then.

 Melissia wrote:
... I didn't have any problems understanding what Co'tor Shas meant. What's confusing about it?

Nothing, it was a recommendation.

 LordofHats wrote:
I consider Call of Duty to be a pretty casual game. I consider most of the mainstream market to be pretty casual (and I don't really have issue with this). Rather than remarking on the 'style' of game, it's more useful to comment on the market. App store games, flash games, etc identify a market (like AAA game). Discussions like this are indeed targeted at the AAA market, and typically exclude browser games or games that you play on your phone.

There is no set meaning of what counts as a casual game. It just seems to be a label that people put on games they don't think fit in gaming. I basically comes from the idea that a gamer isn't simply a person who enjoys games, but they are some kind of sub group.

 Lotet wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Are you being facetious or obtuse?

I'm not sure, I've looked up the 2 definitions and I don't feel either is appropriate to describe what I'm being. Hmm, I suppose if I can't figure it out that would make it Obtuse then.

As in, are you:
a. making a joke about me saying what something means, and then saying that thing itself has no meaning.
or
b. not understanding a very simple matter.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
And how many of those female gamers are playing Candy Crush?


Don't get me wrong, I know wimminz play other games and I am not saying "Girls only play Candy Crush", but it's also a statistically proven fact that more women (Typically in the higher age ranges) play the more "Casual" market.

And why is that bad or make them less of a "gamer"?

I don't understand this dislike for things which are deemed "casual". Sure they're not the most creative or inspired games, but they can serve as something which Call of Duty, Battlefield, WoW or any other AAA title can't. A gateway. Getting people playing games, be it in their browser or on their phone, is something that is good. It can start with words with friends and move onto Scribblenauts. Anything which makes gaming more accessible to people, even if it is in a very basic form, is good.

I mean is Tetris considered a casual game? All it is is dropping blocks into place and trying to get a high score. If it were to be made now I think it's very likely it would've been first released as a casual game on social media sites. Yet as it was released a long time ago it doesn't fall into that category, despite the actual gameplay being similar to that used in casual games.

I really don't understand how candy crush and other incredibly simple games on cellphones are considered a "gateway" game when you can just boot up Warframe, World of Tanks, Team Fortress 2, etc on your computer that can run on virtually anything, and are free. Is there any evidence at all to even suggest that casual gamers actually "move up", or do they just still play cellphone games? Because I highly doubt they'd make such a jump given how unrelated the two are.

 Melissia wrote:
Regarding tech.

Regarding games.

Is it really all that surprising that women are more likely to buy tech items than men?

Well, that study was a survey asking people what they planned to buy, so I'd be more interested in seeing what was actually followed through on, and that second link is a tiny blurb titled "Women play more games than men" using that same flawed 47% number that is the very study that I had issues with.

I mean, hell - if you go and read that collection of infographics that were linked as a source, on of them tells you that "46% of gamers purchased or plan on purchasing a game in 2012"... so less than half of the people who they count as gamers in the study actually buy games? I'm sure some of that is people being strictly into f2p games... buy come on. I'm not a snob about gaming but I think that not buying a single game in a year is a pretty solid cutoff for calling someone not a gamer.

So someone who is content to play NES/Genesis/etc games isn't "really" a gamer?

Funny... I've seen people who say that someone whom DOESN'T put time in to playing old classics isn't "really" a gamer.

Or people who say that console gamers aren't "really" gamers.

(I think I might just yield to the idea that threads get off topic by nature and that opening up a new thread every time the topic turns would get spamy. So lets talk about who is a gamer.)

I thought about this idea of what makes a gamer and I came up with an odd conclusion. I don't think I'm a gamer. I mean I play games like a lot. I am into games, I think about games what games are and what they can be, should be shouldn't be. I maybe think about games much too much. (I am prone to over thinking things. ) I just don't identify with the word gamer.

I'm going to blame GG for this realization. I wasn't offended by the gamers are dead stories. I didn't get upset in part because it didn't feel like they were talking about me. They were talking about a group I'm not apart of , or at the least I don't want to be part of the group. So I just kind of said I'm not a gamer I guess I surrender the word gamer because it's come to mean something I don't want to be.

 Melissia wrote:
So someone who is content to play NES/Genesis/etc games isn't "really" a gamer?

Funny... I've seen people who say that someone whom DOESN'T put time in to playing old classics isn't "really" a gamer.

Or people who say that console gamers aren't "really" gamers.

I will go ahead and expand my point. Someone who does not buy games is functionally irrelevant for the discussion of determining the future of video gaming. No matter their gender. They can have an opinion, but they are functionally irrelevant.

It really doesn't matter who is or is not a 'gamer' by whatever metric you use. I personally find the idea silly that folks bandy about this "47% of gamers are women" statistic to try and prove something, when apparently according to the study they are citing roughly half of the people they define as gamers don't actually buy games.

 Melissia wrote:
So someone who is content to play NES/Genesis/etc games isn't "really" a gamer?

Funny... I've seen people who say that someone whom DOESN'T put time in to playing old classics isn't "really" a gamer.

Or people who say that console gamers aren't "really" gamers.

Here is the thing. The goal posts for qualifying as a "Gamer" are going to be moved the exact distance "Gamers" need to exclude anyone who doesn't fit in with how they conceptualize themselves. This includes excluding women, as many gamers somehow blame women for the fact that they're unattractive and uniteresting. Really, at this point I'm really left to wonder what value is left in being included as a "Gamer". If there is any it is certainly quite limited. The label is so toxic and the broader community so out of touch with reality asking to be considered a gamer is a bit like asking to be considered a member of the "Screaming Feces-Face Paint Club". I certainly wouldn't choose to identify as a "Gamer" anymore despite the fact I've played games all my life.

Let petulant neckbeards keep their little clubhouse, there really isn't any reason to want in it anyway. I'm sure the rest of the game-playing community can find a new label to settle into.

I think there is not quantity that we can assume for gamer.

What do we call someone that likes book and likes to read them alot. We call them an avid reader or bookers.

Someone that watches movies, and loves movies we call a movie goer.

I think what makes a gamer a gamer is their devotion to the game. You could play any game, but if you do it and consider it your hobby then you are a gamer.

If you play a certain amount of hours you could be considered a gamer. There should be no division between casual and hardcore gamers.

 Chongara wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
So someone who is content to play NES/Genesis/etc games isn't "really" a gamer?

Funny... I've seen people who say that someone whom DOESN'T put time in to playing old classics isn't "really" a gamer.

Or people who say that console gamers aren't "really" gamers.

Here is the thing. The goal posts for qualifying as a "Gamer" are going to be moved the exact distance "Gamers" need to exclude anyone who doesn't fit in with how they conceptualize themselves. This includes excluding women, as many gamers somehow blame women for the fact that they're unattractive and uniteresting. Really, at this point I'm really left to wonder what value is left in being included as a "Gamer". If there is any it is certainly quite limited. The label is so toxic and the broader community so out of touch with reality asking to be considered a gamer is a bit like asking to be considered a member of the "Screaming Feces-Face Paint Club". I certainly wouldn't choose to identify as a "Gamer" anymore despite the fact I've played games all my life.

Let petulant neckbeards keep their little clubhouse, there really isn't any reason to want in it anyway. I'm sure the rest of the game-playing community can find a new label to settle into.

Did. . . did you just mansplain to Melissia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansplaining

 Melissia wrote:
So someone who is content to play NES/Genesis/etc games isn't "really" a gamer?

Funny... I've seen people who say that someone whom DOESN'T put time in to playing old classics isn't "really" a gamer.

Or people who say that console gamers aren't "really" gamers.

I believe that may be an example of No true Scotsman.
It's pretty silly...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As in, are you:
a. making a joke about me saying what something means, and then saying that thing itself has no meaning.
or
b. not understanding a very simple matter.

I feel like I've inadvertently made another enemy somehow.

It wasn't an insult.

I meant exactly what I said with those 5 words. If you don't like that answer then, again, B.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
So someone who is content to play NES/Genesis/etc games isn't "really" a gamer?

Funny... I've seen people who say that someone whom DOESN'T put time in to playing old classics isn't "really" a gamer.

Or people who say that console gamers aren't "really" gamers.

I believe that may be an example of No true Scotsman.
It's pretty silly...

Basically its one of the fallacies. Anyone that says that needs their brain fixed.

1) Boob armour. ie. which can be anything from hardened leather to heavy plate armour either:
-providing coverage of the same extent as a mini skirt and bra, ie. about as useful as a glass hammer
-or if it is intended as something which is extensive enough to provide some form of actual protection, must be incomplete so as to reveal much cleavage and/or legs.

2) Female character dealing with trauma or psychological fallout from past event, has many issues, all cured in an instant by a good lovin' by lead male character.

Neither tof these tropes is exclusive to games, can be seen in plenty of TV' and books too. I don't have a problem with these things (what man can object to playing a lady warrior with boob armour right?) so much as I find them tiresomely cliched, In the same manner that I roll my eyes to heaven every time the bad guys take cover behind the explosive barrels...

 Lotet wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As in, are you:
a. making a joke about me saying what something means, and then saying that thing itself has no meaning.
or
b. not understanding a very simple matter.

I feel like I've inadvertently made another enemy somehow.

It wasn't an insult.

I meant exactly what I said with those 5 words. If you don't like that answer then, again, B.

I'm just confused as to what made you make the remark. I'm fine with it, just confused.

And how could I even be mad at someone with JonTron as their avatar .

 Chongara wrote:
Let petulant neckbeards keep their little clubhouse, there really isn't any reason to want in it anyway. I'm sure the rest of the game-playing community can find a new label to settle into.

The thing is, I've been a "gamer" longer than most of the people you talk about have been alive, including identifying myself as one. Don't see why I'd want to give that up.

 Melissia wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Let petulant neckbeards keep their little clubhouse, there really isn't any reason to want in it anyway. I'm sure the rest of the game-playing community can find a new label to settle into.

The thing is, I've been a "gamer" longer than most of the people you talk about have been alive, including identifying myself as one. Don't see why I'd want to give that up

Hey, fair enough. Seems the term has been pretty well co-opted by some real dinks though. I totally appreciate your willingness to keep fighting the good fight. Still I'm rapidly becoming convinced the term can't be salvaged. It'd be cool if I was wrong though.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
So someone who is content to play NES/Genesis/etc games isn't "really" a gamer?

Funny... I've seen people who say that someone whom DOESN'T put time in to playing old classics isn't "really" a gamer.

Or people who say that console gamers aren't "really" gamers.

I believe that may be an example of No true Scotsman.
It's pretty silly...

I think people giving a gak about having a label is the silly thing here, who cares about labels when you are out of your teens and don't feel a desperate urge to fit in and be a part of some club?

I average about ten hours a week playing on something, but I don't think I have ever referred to myself as a "gamer." Those silly terms are reserved for professional businesswomen like Anita Sarkeesian that exist to make money by giving interviews because they can spit the term out and give themselves some credibility in the eyes of the clueless old fether that is interviewing them. They love labels and "buzzwords" that apparently say something about you.. "gamer" "goth" "straight-edger" "feminist" "misandrist" "neo con" etc etc ad-nauseum.

Play games, don't play games, does the term even matter? In me eyes, if you have a beer once a year at Christmas you are officially a drinker. If you occasionally have a bash on Tetris you are a gamer, but its utterly irrelevant in real terms because does anybody care?

Buzzwords... I've gak em. I'm a bloke who does things, that's enough for me, and it should be enough for you too.

Matty, there's so much wrong with that post that I just don't have the heart to even start with it...

 Melissia wrote:
The thing is, I've been a "gamer" longer than most of the people you talk about have been alive, including identifying myself as one.

Why “gamer” though? I mean, would “player” not be a more natural term? Because we play, we do not make games.

 Melissia wrote:
Matty, there's so much wrong with that post that I just don't have the heart to even start with it...

Hey you know me, Im a black or white kinda guy.

Seriously though, why are you bothered about labeling yourself a gamer? You are what you say you are, there are no requirements.

Why not just "I'm a lass and sometime I play games and sometimes I walk the dog and sometimes I read books"

I don't understand why anyone outside of their teens really gives a flying feth about identifying with a buzzword club. I mean, we don't call ourselves "readers" or "dog walkers" do we?

 mattyrm wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Matty, there's so much wrong with that post that I just don't have the heart to even start with it...

Hey you know me, Im a black or white kinda guy.

Seriously though, why are you bothered about labeling yourself a gamer? You are what you say you are, there are no requirements.

Why not just "I'm a lass and sometime I play games and sometimes I walk the dog and sometimes I read books"

I don't understand why anyone outside of their teens really gives a flying feth about identifying with a buzzword club. I mean, we don't call ourselves "readers" or "dog walkers" do we?

A lot of people I know self identify as 'readers'.