Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 4:07 AM
Thu Dec 3
64 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us:
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
| AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
| AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
| AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/12/09
A person who squeezes in an hour or two of Sims between their Dancing with the Stars and America's got Talent shows is not a gamer.
A person who plays seven hours of solitaire a day is a gamer.
09/09/09
09/09/09
There is no reason to extend the definitions past what they are at their simplest level. Occam's Razor is the guide to follow here and it's no different for Gamers.
Whenever you try to classify a type of person (using terms like those above) using a very specific and elaborate definition, there will always be other people slowly stepping on the bounds of that definition until there is nothing left but the pure and single phrase that defines the classification. Thus, classifications of people cannot inherently be an elaborate definition. Again, this is true for Gamers as it is for any other classifications.
"Gamer" - A person who plays video games.
There is no other definition and to argue otherwise just shows your human need to identify things as specifically as possible. It is an endless yet futile pursuit. Don't bother.
09/09/09
09/09/09
When you're talking about a subculture (and "gamers" are a subculture, even though gaming itself is mainstreamed, just as "Steelers fan" is a subculture even though football is mainstreamed) you're dealing with issues of identity within the singular person who feels that aligning themself with this group better defines themself as a person. Going against that you have the issue of gatekeeping (the process by which members of that subculture accept the neophyte) which is, essentially, what the "pefection of fun" young man is trying to do. And it's not unfair. He wants to keep his subculture sacred/pure/clean by his own standard definitions in order to protect his own concept of identity. If he allows the Pogo.com soccer mom to be a gamer, it creates an insane amount of entropy around his identity politics. So by narrowly defining the "us" against the "them," he isolates his own identity in order to reinforce it.
However, there is a different faction/feeling in any subculture of desiring legitimacy and recognition from the mainstream. Like Foucault says (paraphrase... since nobody REALLY gets Foucault), all resistance is caught up in the discourse of the allowable. So both the person who wants to insulate access to "gamer" status and the one who wants to allow access to the "gamer" status is defining themselves against, or appealing to, the mainstream. Essentially, they're relating both of their positions to the same discursive regime.
However, that's neither here nor there. "Gamer" has sigficance to gamers as an identity tag. It has significance to marketers as a market segment and demographic population. It has significance to politicians as a cultural bloc. However, "gamer" is both more and less than the members of that subculture. In the end, the application of the tag (and the access to self-application that is allowed) is far less important than how the nebulous culture of "gamer" interacts within the greater discourse.
But that's just one man's opinion.
09/09/09
This capital Gamer encompassess the majority of the crowd here at Kotaku: people who do not only play videogames, but read articles about them and participate in the peripheral culture of videogames. We are not a higher class, or better people:
games simply matter more to us.
Consequently, we tend to have stronger opinions about games, and more clearly developed tastes and abilities vis-Ă -vis gameplay.
Note that the distinction between Gamer and gamer is not the same distinction as Casual and Hardcore; terms which have recently come to describe specific types of games. It is true that many Gamers favor Hardcore games, while many gamers favor casual games, but this correlation is not absolute. Many avid hardcore gamers are rather dismissive of videogames as media and gaming as a hobby, and I'm sure there are those who favor casual games but take gaming quite seriously.
This second type is rarer, because communities like Xbox Live, and even Kotaku to a lesser extent, cater to hardcore tastes. As the number of gamers continues to grow I believe we will start to see more and more specialized gaming communities.
Because Gamer is a label that implies a certain amount of experience and knowledge, certain people will try to cultivate that image. In short, there will be posers. If such superficial posturing bothers you, don't waste your time trying to discredit their status as Gamers. Just mentally decapitalize them and move on with your life.
09/10/09
09/10/09
I would define people who fanatically play games like solitaire and bejeweled as hardcore casual gamers. It's a messy term, but games with simple rules and broadly accessible control schemes are defined as casual, and the players in question are serious about playing them.
09/09/09
If we pass by the need to define 'fun' in concrete terms, there is still the issue that fun is something to be refined and improved, which I question.
Lastly, it seems as though the common connotation of gamer implies one who consumes games, as opposed to someone who creates games. While undoubtedly there is an important feedback loop between producers and consumers, it seems to me that saying a gamer is dedicated to the perfection of fun is akin to me saying that I'm dedicated to the perfection of food by eating an inordinate amount of apples.
Far too vague a statement to make it a worthwhile basis of discussion. Perhaps something along the lines of "a gamer is one who is dedicated to the enjoyment of games" would be more appropriate?
09/09/09
By that does he mean literally just sitting down to play a game for 10 minutes, then doing something else? Because I for one have never seen anyone play any games (that weren't like, bejeweled or solitaire) for just 10 minutes. It takes me more time than that to make a family in the Sims. I could spend 10 minutes just making my Oblivion character.
So I'm not sure what the statement means.
09/09/09
1. That people think these things are not distinct
2. That people thing there's no reason to specify
3. That people seriously pretend they don't automatically apply games to either category
But what people should try to understand is why these distinctions should exist- so we can make coherent arguments for the state of games! So we can describe and define them as something deep and worth that 60 dollars, things like that. And also to argue the state of gaming- One of my biggest arguments against the wii is that it trys to pander to EVERYONE. And, as a result, there are a lot of casual games and lots of third parties cashing in to make casual games. That doesn't mean there aren't non-casual games. But it means there aren't lots of them.
And I think that matters.
Because, as people support those games in droves, the few third parties leeching onto the Wii try to imitate them more and more, and put out...well, crap. YOu don't make good games by trying to make copies of existing ones. Not one GTA "clone" did it right, at least not until Saints Row 1/2. They all either tried too hard or didn't try enough, and put out mediocre games.
Casual games were not a big deal before the Wii came along. There were one or two for every 10 'core' games- games with plots, depth, length(yes, length CAN be a factor). Games that you devote time to, games that can be completed, games that aren't puzzle games but incorporate tons of puzzles, games with action, adventure, etc. Games that you wouldn't find at chuck-e-cheese. That's a simple description, don't freak out about it.
But now that the Wii has come along and is selling itself to every person in existence, lots of people who ARE IN FACT NOT GAMERS, people who do not associate themselves with games and would not consider themselves afficionados, are playing them. And they are playing the casual ones.
THIS IS NOT A BAD THING- People who pick up and play animal crossing or Zoo Keeper or Cooking Mama aren't terrible monsters, that isn't what I'm saying. The companies that decide to cash in and do absolutely nothing but pander to them by making games with 4 month development times are the problem.
The Wii is a majority casual games. You can cover your ears and shout the names of the same few titles over and over again (Let me save you the time: Brawl, Galaxy, Zelda, No More Heroes, Metroid, and 2 or 3 others), but that doesn't change that those titles are few and far between! And why? Because of the influx of casual gamers, making sales of casual games, making idiotic copy-and-paste third parties make even MORE of them. It's oversaturating the market.
LUCKILY, this oversaturation of non-gamers hasn't spread to the other consoles, but it's hard to deny that so many has made an impact on gaming for the rest of us who do consider ourselves gamers- what do we have on the Wii? A select few quality titles, mostly first party. What do we have on everything else? A LOT of quality titles, and a LOT from third parties. There is a difference- the Wii's library has been tarnished. We don't get great 3rd party games taking advantage of the control scheme. We get...casual games. And that is a bad thing. That ruins it for the gamers. That is why people care about distinctions, that is why people dislike those who are solely casual, that is why people dislike casual games! Because this generation they stepped in in large numbers and pushed all the games for US to the side.
And think about it- this isn't strange to say! Look at anything else! Do not music fans get angry when they come across someone whose entire favorites list consists of the top 40? Do movie fans not get angry when someone doesn't recognize the genius of their favorites, and instead prefers drivel and michael bay films? Do novel fans not get angry to find that someone has never read The Great Gatsby, but owns both paperback and hard copies of the Twilight series? This isn't some wacky new thing gamers are doing- ALL media fans do it! Every single form of media has those afficionados, those who are passionate about it, and every single form of media has the "casuals" who just wander into the theater to see the newest CG animal story, or who only listen to the Top 40 radio station. And those...those ones don't affect things so much.
But with gaming, we have a rather limited spectrum of availability, and for us, an influx of casual gamers made the Wii less than what we wanted it to be, and have kept us from getting the games full of content and quality that we want.
THAT is why people care about casual games and gamers.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
I was just trying to explain WHY people get upset about it, and I think I did a pretty good job.
09/09/09
On the most basic level, they are all just people, but I would wager that almost everyone at PAX plays games actively (and is thus a gamer), but not everyone at Bumbershoot was a musician. However, there is also a base similarity between the two groups as well: both groups were at their respective venues for something that they are passionate about, it just so happens that for the people at PAX, and the people who define themselves as gamers in general, their (I should say our) passion of choice is relatively new to the scene compared to most things.
I think that the more specific we attempt to be in our definition of not only the term, but a whole fledgling subculture, the more of our fellow gamers we will alienate.
09/09/09
I'll tell you what, in the late 70's and early 80's when everyone used to get together with dice, pencils, and paper bound books to play Arduin or Runequest or D&D- that's gaming. So, since that's older than PC -OR- console gaming, everyone who only plays on those is not a gamer.
I bet most people here would disagree with that, but that's what trying to be exclusive is. 'Anything that is not what I am is not _label_'
Why not be inclusive instead. If one defines games- of any type, including cards and board games, IMNSHO, as a major interest or hobby, one is a gamer. And more power to all of us thereby!
09/09/09
09/09/09
i think this ties in well with how one might define 'basketball player' or 'guitarist.' engaging in an activity occasionally does not mean you are defined by it, which is what those terms mean. a guitarist practices their art, they sacrifice time from other areas of their life in pursuit of their chosen activity. much like a gamer sacrifices time, sleep time or social time or eating time, to play games.
p.s. whoever said anything along the lines of 'people that define themselves on one activity are pathetic.' giant fuck you. you might not have something that hits you that hard and that true but those of us that do resent you're condescending pity.
09/09/09
They could be a bit of a gamer, or a big gamer, but gamer nonetheless.
09/09/09
My definition of gamer would probably be something along the lines of Krackatoa's definition. Someone who's daily life is affected to some degree by video games. I think it also has to be more than one game to truly be considered a gamer otherwise you are just a fan of that one game. It also doesn't mean you have to play more that one game as long as you are familiar with other games and/or keep up with news from the gaming world.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
If you play for 10 minutes and only 10 minutes at a time, then your not gaming. Your wasting 10 fucking minutes.
I implore you, the 10 minute player, To achieve anything in any game from start to finish in 10 minutes.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
It'd be funny if there was a vote/panel held at the next HOPE to select a new term.