Anyone Else Not Consider Themselves "Gamers?"

[Shmibli7]

Yes, I like video games. I really like videogames. They are probably ine of my favorite things. There are so many franchises which I can sit and play for hours. Some of my fondest memories come from video games. My dad and I playing Final Fantasy X, my mom grinding the Sly Cooper games with me on the weekends, the hours I poured into Tomb Raider and Uncharted. All of these are fun times that that conjure happy thoughts.

This being said, I do not consider myself a gamer. I do not regularly binge games just for the heck of it. I don't flip out when I hear about a game being released (Except four years ago when Sly 4 was announced,) and I don't feel like video games are a significant part of my life.

I do not sit in front of a computer screen to see strategies on how to beat games and I have only watched E3 once... And decided never to watch it again.

When fifty year old men wear LoZ or Fallout t-shirts, I shudder, wondering if a man who is supposed to be in the world of business for about twenty years still plays video games as aggressively as a college student.

I love video games, I wouldn't be here if I didn't love StarFox, but I do not consider myself a gamer. Anyone else feel this way.

[Mr. Krystal]

Nope, not even a little. I'm still a gamer.

Your definition of a gamer doesn't fit with many people who call themselves gamers, myself included. I have never binged on games (or anything really, I'm not a binger). Nevertheless, I play games, I like games, I like other people who play games, and I consider them a valid, and often superior, form of media up there with the best of novels, films, and theater. Games are the one medium that allow for active participation or outright control of the entertainment experience. Therefore, they are by their nature more emotionally and mentally engaging.

I'm 30, and I will not give up my games. I don't act like a nerd in public unless for comedic effect, but that is not something unique to gaming. Just look at Star Trek nerds, coffee snobs, and poetry geeks. Too much of almost anything is a problem, and there are places and times where gaming and gaming culture might be inappropriate, but all of real life is not one of them.

[Shmibli7]

10 minutes ago, Mr. Krystal said:

Nope, not even a little. I'm still a gamer.

Your definition of a gamer doesn't fit with many people who call themselves gamers, myself included. I have never binged on games (or anything really, I'm not a binger). Nevertheless, I play games, I like games, I like other people who play games, and I consider them a valid, and often superior, form of media up there with the best of novels, films, and theater. Games are the one medium that allow for active participation or outright control of the entertainment experience. Therefore, they are by their nature more emotionally and mentally engaging.

I'm 30, and I will not give up my games. I don't act like a nerd in public unless for comedic effect, but that is not something unique to gaming. Just look at Star Trek nerds, coffee snobs, and poetry geeks. Too much of almost anything is a problem, and there are places and times where gaming and gaming culture might be inappropriate, but all of real life is not one of them.

I understand where you come from. To me, that doesn't sound like a gamer. 

 

Maybe It's becaUse most of the people I come Into contact with who call themselves gamers act in the ways I've described.

Literally. Even In the deep south (where I happen to live.) 

 

[Arashikage]

Do you play games?  Do you enjoy playing games?  Do you see yourself playing games for the foreseeable future?  It doesn't matter how casual or competitive it is, if you play video games, tend to still buy them, look forward to seeing the completion of series you enjoy, or otherwise, you are a gamer.  Gamer is not a derogatory term any more than beatnik or hippie were in that time.  It's a culture that has a ton of different people in it.  Just because you see people that you don't like in a group doesn't mean you should exclude yourself from that group.  I mean, you can, but it's not as subjective a culture as you're suggesting.  

 

Also, Legend of Zelda and Fallout are fantastic, if I saw a 40 year old guy wearing a Tshirt from one of those game series', I'd give them a high five.

[Shmibli7]

1 minute ago, Arashikage said:

Do you play games?  Do you enjoy playing games?  Do you see yourself playing games for the foreseeable future?  It doesn't matter how casual or competitive it is, if you play video games, tend to still buy them, look forward to seeing the completion of series you enjoy, or otherwise, you are a gamer.  Gamer is not a derogatory term any more than beatnik or hippie were in that time.  It's a culture that has a ton of different people in it.  Just because you see people that you don't like in a group doesn't mean you should exclude yourself from that group.  I mean, you can, but it's not as subjective a culture as you're suggesting.  

 

Also, Legend of Zelda and Fallout are fantastic, if I saw a 40 year old guy wearing a Tshirt from one of those game series', I'd give them a high five.

(I love how we're arguing on two threads.)

The problem Is, the people I have metioned say that they are gamers and I'm not. So, I believe them.

[Fedora]

Sooo.... You choose to believe these folks who you don't seem to have much love lost over? The points seem a little confused.

Anywho, if you're willing to sink hours into a game, you're a gamer to me. You've played a range of games, seem to take them as a hobby and even post on SF-O with us geeks, gamers and artists.

 It's important to be who you wanna be though so if you don't think you're a gamer, then I suppose you're not. Though I might still think you are. Forget those other dudes or chicks.

Some folks think that you need to sink money into showing off for whatever reason. Like geek pride or something. I own one gaming sweater but that's cause I like it. I don't see the point nor feel the need in showing the world that I'm a gamer. Why would I? And why would I let anyone else tell me I'm not what I am? But I think I'm ranting now anywhos. 

To answer the question, nope. I consider myself a gamer, especially with all the games I've acquired throughout my life and the time spent in those games, enjoying them or just stubbornly playing to get past that one level or boss. If I ever felt like I was not a gamer, it was probably during some times in my college time when I needed to stop gaming to pass tests and my Capstone.

[Gestalt]

6 hours ago, Shmibli7 said:

When fifty year old men wear LoZ or Fallout t-shirts, I shudder, wondering if a man who is supposed to be in the world of business for about twenty years still plays video games as aggressively as a college student.

Consider the gamer as a media consumer or some further abstraction which highlights the ends that it meets, say entertainment or even a proxy for sociability. Of course time spent towards separate ends inhibits peak production but many don't live purely as conscious slaves to eighty hour work weeks. I don't doubt there are variable limits and balances to consider if you seek to achieve the modest lifestyle. However, taking the adoption of the the term gamer plus the shirt worn as global markers for life intervention is a hasty rationale.

The typical and stereotypical models associated with the term gamer warrant an extra adjective for the general ideas you object.

[Arminius H O Fiddywinks]

If you play a video game, you are a gamer: one who plays a video game.

Oh, and I do consider myself a gamer. Since I am someone who plays a video game.

[Shmibli7]

8 hours ago, Arminius H O Fiddywinks said:

If you i'lay a video game, you are a gamer: one who plays a video game.

Oh, and I do consider myself a gamer. Since I am someone who plays a video game.

As stated twice before, that's apparently not trie, as the people I have described outright tell me I'm not a gamer.

[Arminius H O Fiddywinks]

2 hours ago, Shmibli7 said:

As stated twice before, that's apparently not trie, as the people I have described outright tell me I'm not a gamer.

Your people. But what about the people up north? To the west? Across the ocean, maybe? What about those people? They might have different definitions of the word "gamer", and they might describe you as a gamer, since you play video games.

The definition is flexible, and depends on where you are and who you are.

[Steve]

11 hours ago, Arminius H O Fiddywinks said:

If you play a video game, you are a gamer: one who plays a video game.

Oh, and I do consider myself a gamer. Since I am someone who plays a video game.

In that regard, if I drink a cup of wine, would that make me a drunk? (not to be taken seriously)

The definition of "Gamer" comes in different flavors, . It's all relative. 

18 hours ago, Shmibli7 said:

 

When fifty year old men wear LoZ or Fallout t-shirts, I shudder, wondering if a man who is supposed to be in the world of business for about twenty years still plays video games as aggressively as a college student.

 

Think about it. Videogames are mainstream now. College students that played NES back in the 80's are now in their 40's. Older gamers (40+) are not uncommon now. Having a job, a family and being older shouldn't change the definition unless you are slipping on your responsibilities because of games . I personally play more videogames now that I'm married and with a "world of business"  job than when I was in highschool/college.

[Shmibli7]

6 hours ago, Arminius H O Fiddywinks said:

Your people. But what about the people up north? To the west? Across the ocean, maybe? What about those people? They might have different definitions of the word "gamer", and they might describe you as a gamer, since you play video games.

The definition is flexible, and depends on where you are and who you are.

Still, I don't consider myself I, a gamer, seeing as the people I've met are "my people." And none of the others you've referenced.

[Arminius H O Fiddywinks]

You know what? You have your definition, man. That's all that matters.

[Shmibli7]

7 minutes ago, Arminius H O Fiddywinks said:

You know what? You have your definition, man. That's all that matters.

That was the point, Arm. Now, can we go back to liking each other?

[Joseph.]

I play games here and there but I listen to music way more then playing games. I like video games but i wont allow myself to waste countless hours everyday. I was addicted to Cod, Battlefront 3, and gears of war 2 but after a couple of months I realized my life was being wasted away so I threw those games out. Now I have more time to design, write, and even talk more to others who aren't into video games.

Games are there to be mastered but it seems in today's society games are mastering us.

So am I a gamer because I play video games? No. I see gamers as people who idolize the concept of gaming or invest countless hours into it and not those who simply play when they feel like it. In other words, being a gamer is like being a fanatic.

[hoo]

I am not a gamer. I play a flash game on the computer like every month or so, and that's about it, really. The only game that I've spent a decent amount of time on was Skullgirls. That was like 100+ hours aver the course of like 6-8 or so months. Most people that I see that call themselves "gamers" have that in like 6-8 days.

[StarFoxfan-FUR_ever]

I'm a gamer, plain and simple. I play games mainly for fun now instead of simply "going for the win", though at one point in time I played at a casual-competitive level for a failing game series, joining a few leagues (joining a new one whenever the prior league would shut down).

I play both many of my old and newer games. I believe the key is to just have fun with them, and not get caught up in thoughts about why a horrible outcome (because tons of them will happen) is either cheap/makes no sense. I look at it like this, everyone needs a way to unwind after a rough week at work. There shouldn't be any shame in saying you like playing video games from time to time if that's what you do. As others have stated, as long as it doesn't control your life, it's ok to play them in little spurts.

I play them because they allow me to do things I wouldn't be capable of in real life, while also providing an activity which engages my mind to an extent. I'm not saying that I play video games to train my brain, but rather so that I don't sit there doing practically nothing when I have spare time.

To your question though, I believe that as long as you play video games in some form of regularity, whether it be weekends only for extended periods of time, or a half-hour per day, even bi-weekly, you are a "gamer". If you play once every few months, you're not a gamer. However with that said, my definition has it's own pitfalls.

For instance, someone could play a racing game that features the common 3 laps per race setup for casual (non-simulation) racing games, while another gamer may prefer RPG games, which require much more attention, meaning someone would make the same amount of progress (out of 100% completion of the game) in the RPG game while playing a significantly longer time than the racing video game player. Winning 15 races could be 10 percent of the racing game, taking 1-2 hours, maybe 3 tops depending on the length of the race track? That same 10 percent in the RPG game would take WAY longer to reach.

Also important to keep in mind for each individual video game, the specific setup for how the player is allowed to save a game. Does the player bring up a HUD menu and hit save, do they go to a save machine located in the game in specific locations of the in-game world, do they have to reach certain checkpoints of the story to activate an autosave feature? The later two examples could each artificially extend the time someone would spend playing the game per session.

Going back to the racing game/RPG game example, is it fair to say that the RPG player is a "video game addict" based solely on the total play time of that particular game when compared to the gamer who plays the racing game? Similarly it would be wrong for someone to claim that the racing video gamer is somehow "less of a gamer, or not a gamer at all" because they don't play games as much as the RPG game player.

[Ori]

I have videogames as a main hobby of sorts, honestly because I don't really have a lot of other things to do other than talk to people online (which usually I do while playing games), sketching and the occasional writing as well as other random activities and a few away from online involvement, though I don't invest anything on gaming at a monthly basis or a game a week or anything like that. I usually just get interesting things on a convenient sale or something, so I can't really say it's putting a financial toll to anyone. I still do my studies which seems to be going reasonable so far as well.

Not much of a collector though when it comes to physical media and merchandising though, closest to that I really get were controllers and headset accessories. I don't really know whether to consider myself a "gamer" by any definition but I like games, I like the unique media they provide but it's mostly the social environment that's kinda unique in and of itself.

And much as I enjoy the company of people whose interests in games are similar I have a hard time actually playing anything with other people, between connection issues, lack of voice usage, and distance lag, I find myself having a hard time doing any "gaming" with any community or multiplayer aspects.

That and apparently people seem to be very hype-based today in gaming circles and are lightning quick to change the current active fad, while I'm slow to make any decision at all, let alone raise the resources to join in. By the time I get to try what everyone was talking about say, one or two months ago, it's already considered to be sewage-low quality by others, and I'm not going to keep wasting money on a weekly basis just to stay up to date with the latest hyped thing.

Though to be honest I don't really care much for what people are going to call me based what I like doing, long as I can still enjoy it somehow.

[Mr. Krystal]

On 2/11/2016 at 3:15 PM, Shmibli7 said:

I understand where you come from. To me, that doesn't sound like a gamer. 

Maybe It's becaUse most of the people I come Into contact with who call themselves gamers act in the ways I've described.

Literally. Even In the deep south (where I happen to live.) 

This is what we have dictionaries for: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamer

Quote

Full Definition of gamer
1:  a player who is game; especially :  an athlete who relishes competition
2:  a person who plays games; especially :  a person who regularly plays computer or video games

If people are telling you you are not a gamer, but you play games (at all), they are either lying or ignorant of the definition. Ignore them, or don't, your choice.

If you think that the word 'gamer' must necessarily entail certain behaviors, beliefs, or activities beyond simply playing a game, you are the one who is changing the definition.

Either way, gamer means one who plays games, period. There's not much room for interpretation here. I personally don't care if the definition of 'gamer' doesn't "sound like a gamer" to you.

What I do care about is when someone insists that other people's definitions are wrong because they *feel* like the definition is wrong, as if that were some sort of authority.

I live (and was born) in the deep South. I don't understand what that has to do with the definition of 'gamer'.

[Ori]

On 12/02/2016 at 1:08 PM, Steve said:

Older gamers (40+) are not uncommon now. Having a job, a family and being older shouldn't change the definition unless you are slipping on your responsibilities because of games . I personally play more videogames now that I'm married and with a "world of business"  job than when I was in highschool/college.

An interesting detail that might or might not mean much to the discussion about Steve's detail there, but I've recently started my programming logic introduction classes with a couple teachers that seem well above their 40s. Right up after introducing their career history the first notice that one their hobbies is gaming among others (military history, biking, etc), and they seem to be good with their teaching method/style and still serious about their work. Huh.

But at this point I'm fairly certain that the bottom line for this discussion is that the definition is broad and has as few requirements as to what you need to do to fit in as a "gamer". What I'm seeing out there among certain age and social groups is that they're making a big misattribution of cause and consequence. "Gamers" tend to be seen as 'lazy' and that kind of thing because let's be honest, the number of lazy people out there is big but they still want a hobby (though preferably one that requires little activity) and gaming fits in pretty much every interest out there. Or rather, overly obsessed; if a person is obsessed to buying gaming merchandising it might not necessarily mean the person is like that because of gaming-- if it also happens with movies, comics, anime, music groups and any given number of other things, then the reason for the obsession at compulsive merchandising purchases or hoarding is the person, not gaming in and of itself.

That doesn't mean that there are absolutely no unhealthy addicts because there are people that go as far as to fork over money intended for their bills and throw it into gaming, but it also seems to happen with other things as well, and basing such a widespread culture on an isolate individual is bound to have inaccuracies because the inducted logic of "that guy is a freak and he is a gamer, therefore all gamers are freaks" won't ever work on a culture that spans diverse ethnicities, nationalities, mindsets, their specific subcultures, and a number of other factors, therefore not being a sound assumption.

TL;DR Putting it in terms it's like the "fat american patriot" and "ultra-high-expectations asian father" stereotypes all over again: basing entire cultures on a single individual or a constructed individual even that was meant more as a tongue-in-cheek remark at a certain individual examples started to be regarded as a serious thing.

[Clearwater]

While I do consider myself a massive fanboy when it comes to playing games (I have a PS2, Nintendo DS and a Wii), I don't think I can consider myself a proper gamer, since most of the games I want to play are usually on PC, and since I only have a potato 'pooter, I'm rather limited in my choice of games I want to play.

[Joseph.]

On 2/18/2016 at 7:47 PM, Mr. Krystal said:

gamer means one who plays games, period. There's not much room for interpretation here. I personally don't care if the definition of 'gamer' doesn't "sound like a gamer" to you.

What I do care about is when someone insists that other people's definitions are wrong because they *feel* like the definition is wrong, as if that were some sort of authority.

That makes no sense. I dont feel that the definition is wrong, it just sounds vague and doesn't describe the term at all. If this is the true definitions then it is open for interpretation because the definition is not firm or clear at all.

For example, according to that logic, I am an athlete because I play football. I could be playing for fun not competitively, or maybe im force to play it in gym class.

 

EDIT: I forgot to mention there's multiple types of gamers. Turns out im a casual gamer because i play few games per year.

[StarFoxfan-FUR_ever]

On 2/21/2016 at 11:28 PM, Joseph. said:

That makes no sense. I dont feel that the definition is wrong, it just sounds vague and doesn't describe the term at all. If this is the true definitions then it is open for interpretation because the definition is not firm or clear at all.

For example, according to that logic, I am an athlete because I play football. I could be playing for fun not competitively, or maybe im force to play it in gym class.

 

EDIT: I forgot to mention there's multiple types of gamers. Turns out im a casual gamer because i play few games per year.

While the "proper" definition of a gamer may be vague as you suggest, the counter-argument you made is a bit of a problem.

You're suggesting that someone needs to partake in a sporting activity at a high competitive level in order to be considered an athlete. Athletes could be playing at all levels. From peewee leagues, through elementary, high school, and college, recreational league, amateur level, semi-pro leagues, U-21, U-18, junior professional, minor leagues, anything that falls within the Olympics, and whatever the top level domestic/international league might happen to be for a particular sport. All of those labels do technically fall under the "athlete", but each of them are separated by how "serious" the competition is.

For that reason, peewee, elementary, and rec leagues are often placed into a separate category or ignored altogether, even though there probably are some individuals who care as much about winning as enjoying the sport they play.

Team sports vs individual sports also needs to be taken into consideration. Just because someone is not good enough to make the Olympics in track and field doesn't mean they aren't an athlete. Whereas by comparison professional sports teams may have one or two lackluster players on the highest level roster (who otherwise would be in the minors) because there is a shortage of talent within the franchise. Because those individuals are playing on a high level though, even if it may be easy to believe you can replace them right now, the fact is they are considered high-level professional athletes. Here's an example. There was this guy named Brian Scalabrine, a former basketball player who honestly was the worst player on every professional team he ever played for. Was he not an athlete because he wasn't good? He managed to scrape by and play for 11 years professionally while being one of the worst basketball players in American basketball history.

I think the question really comes down to regardless of how physically capable one is, as long as someone partakes in athletic competition on a regular basis, they are an athlete. By the same token, just because someone is bad at video games or may not necessarily own a lot of them does not mean they are not gamers. Likewise, if someone plays video games for fun as opposed to being worried about leaderboards, they are still gamers. I hate the term casual gamer, because there is far more to video games than getting a high score or being able to beat people at them. That's of course besides the fact that it is also used as an insult of late, but that's another topic altogether.