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'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.

Yep, you play games and like them.

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...

Bishop F Gantry wrote:

 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.

Where do these arbitrary numbers come from?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
Yep, you play games and like them.

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.

 Bromsy wrote:

- edit-
I just asked my girl this question and she said "Anyone who has held off taking a shower so they can keep playing video games is a gamer."

That is probably the best definition of gamer that I've ever heard...

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*

Well, gak.

 carlos13th wrote:

Bishop F Gantry wrote:

 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.

Where do these arbitrary numbers come from?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
Yep, you play games and like them.

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.

 Melissia wrote:
Someone is a gamer if they play games.

That is all.

Exactly.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

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.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:

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.

This is where the labels all start falling down.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

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.

Thread was answered in the first reply. Your coworker is just a poo brain.

"Oh you play games but you don't keep up with what other people play? You don't know anything you poser! hurdur!"

 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.

 toasteroven wrote:

 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

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.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

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.

 LordofHats wrote:

 toasteroven wrote:

 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

 Manchu wrote:

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...

You can do better get a retron 5.

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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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).

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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?

Short version? Misogyny. Long version? Not a suitable discussion for this particular thread, don't want to derail it.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
Then they are casual gamers.

A term so utterly meaningless, and, frankly, toxic, that it devalues your argument by using it.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
Being a gamer is a lifestyle choice

In the same way as "I enjoyed a Metallica song" makes you a music lover.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
and that involves commitment

In the same way as "I'm going to turn on the radio" requires commitment.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
Bicycling to work dosent make me a Tour de France contestant

It does, however, make you a cyclist.

 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.

 Manchu wrote:

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.