Your dad played 'Desert Strike' while you were in bed? Gamer. Your mum thrashed you at 'Tetris'? Gamer. Your gran loves 'Wii Sports'? Gamer.
I enjoyed this article. It has many good points to it.
any time you interact with a videogame you are a gamer. this notion that if you play mobile games you're not a gamer is silly. what's different about playing tetris many years ago to playing candy crush? nothing, they each pose a challenge and you are interacting with. i find games like uncharted and gears of war no more challenging. yet some feel good adding labels to people. "oh you're a pc gamer" or "you're a xbox/playstation/nintendo gamer" or "your a mobile gamer". who cares, what difference does that make?
Mobile games are a cancer on the industry. They take no time to code and print money for the devs. If people accept these games as videogames and their players as videogamers, then it won't be long before the balance of power regarding the future of gaming is passed on to casual 5 minute a day gamers (they already outnumber us massively). We have to maintain a distinction between casual players and gamers otherwise we run the risk of the needs of the casuals being considered more important to the industry. If all gamers are viewed as equal, console games will disappear as the devs will choose to make cheaper, easier and far more profitable mobile games instead.
I agree. There are many great mobile games out there that are good and challenging. But there are a lot of bad mobile games out there too. But I agree, if it's a legitimate game, it qualifies.
@Angeljuice, "If all gamers are viewed as equal, console games will disappear as the devs will choose to make cheaper, easier and far more profitable mobile games instead." not true at all. just because most people buy compact cars does not mean they don't still sell luxury cars. developers will continue to make console games don't worry. focus on your own priorities and stop worrying about what others might want to play. there is room for all gamers.
Yeah even though uncharted and gears is no more challenging but thats what I prefer than candy crush and tetris. My 2 sister,bunch of cousins, aunties,unclesand parents play mobile games everyday but when I join them I am still do better than them.Then the article saying" Your mum thrashed u at tetris ?" Lol the fact that they only start gaming since 2009 or 2012 when the rise and boom of indie and f2p mobile games. And having a very hard time convincing them to try pc great ports to smartphone like baldurs gate BioShock etc. etc... But they already enjoying too much clash of clans for Them to do so. I think it's because I'm a gamer at the age of 4 yrs old playing Nintendo games on NES ,SNES and arcade with my big brother. I'm 22 yrs old now. The best time of my gaming years will be ps1 and ps2 era.
It's not about whether we game, it's about who's literally inferior for not purchasing the factually better console with better games. The Ouya :D
It's OK, the Razor Twoya will come out and show everyone the error of their ways...
That's so obscure it hurts, man! Paradise lost's new album was one of their best btw
Preach it brother. Very much enjoyed the read.
Agreed, and I don't want to sound pessimistic but I'm not holding my breath.
I play (with the help of Gamefly) just about everything that comes out ...some for only a very short time though , spades , candycrush and right up to GTA on and on ...hell , we still play board games and always have a puzzle on the table at our house....any and all kinds of games...
And yet...the stereotype is still alive and kicking. I routinely get ridiculed at work for still playing games at my age (I'm 28)...by people that will sit there, NOT DOING THEIR JOBS all day playing crappy little mobile games. I'm not antisocial. I'm not overweight or unshaven or smelly and I don't live with my parents. But somehow it is still socially unacceptable for me to celebrate the hobby in front of people, even when there are literally five other coworkers around me in their cubicles playing candy crush or words with friends or some other piece of generic mobile crap. Even if I DID fit the perceived stereotype, who CARES!? It's no longer a stereotype if everybody and their mother (literally) is now playing games in one form or the other. Tell me people are not goddamned ridiculous.
28 ??? damn kids ...im 50
And you still play games!? You nerd.
Its a great time to be a gamer and weather some people want to admit it or not we all pretty much have some form of electronic addiction weather it be our game systems, I pads, I phones, Laptops, etc. etc. and I am sure that most people are playing something on them in some form so that right there proves the point of people enjoying games to a degree as either a pastime or addiction.Me personally,I have been gaming for a long time and that will never change for me. Whats interesting is to think where we are headed with this in the future. If they ever create a fully working holo deck that would be the end of me ever setting foot outside my house again....scary thought.
As a PS4 owner, will you, an Xbox owner, take my hand? (let's leave nintendo out of it)
So Nintendo is Dr.Zoidberg? http://images2.fanpop.com/i... LOL Just kidding but Nintendo is OK by me.
Considering Tablet and Mobile software is made as toilet time wasters or on the move ripping you off software, i won't ever count them amongst the primary group. Not to mention how limited you are by those devices, when compared to actual handheld devices like 3DS or a Vita with actual games. You primarily see the Tablet / Mobile group trying to fit into something they're not, because they want to be part of something they don't understand and don't even have any real interest in.
I'd rather not associate myself with the title of gamers because of how vitriolic we can be.
I think you'll find this is simply human nature, no? Look on the internet and you'll see the same between Android and Apple fanboys. Heck, look at any political issue where people are staunchly divided into opposing groups. And politics covers a huge range of subjects on which people can be assholes. Where there's a divisive issue there's assholes. That's the way the world is. And gaming, by it's competitive nature between both players and companies is more inherently divisive. The question I have to ask you is this: If you don't associate with the term "gamer" does that also mean that you don't associate with the broad culture the term points to as well?
I think the gaming community on the Internet can be appalling but it's not representative of gamers Most gamers I know in real life are friendly and open minded
People are so obsessed with trying to define what a gamer is, or pointing out that the distinction makes no sense since it is so difficult to accurately define that they miss that cultural identities are BY THEIR NATURE imprecise and quite general anyway. To quote myself on the subject: All cultures have a vague rallying point that binds its people together under one identity; in the case of "gamers" it's the celebration of videogames themselves. Now, that's not to say you aren't a gamer if you don't have experiences like knowing the arrow-to-the-knee meme or having played Ocarina of Time. But at the same time those experiences are part of the identity (just not an inalienable or even necessary part). And that's not a contradiction: Cultural identities aren't defined quantitatively by how many criteria you meet on a checklist, but qualitatively, by broad sets of experiences that those within the culture have likely shared. After all, I don't stop identifying (and being identified) as culturally British because I don't get Monty Python references. But those references are part of the broad spectrum of British cultural identity all the same.
I agree with you, for the most part. I don't quite understand that last paragraph. As an American, my friends and I love Monty Python. However... People who play a few phone games on their commute, or bought a wii for wii bowling and nothing else are not what I would consider "gamers." I agree that people don't need to have all the boxes filled in on their "gamer checklist" to be considered a gamer. But if you've only marked 3 out of 300 boxes, calling yourself a gamer would be foolish.
"I agree with you, for the most part. I don't quite understand that last paragraph. As an American, my friends and I love Monty Python." Let's use your checklist example: You and your friends would get one tick on the checklist for being culturally British for loving Monty Python, but that alone wouldn't be enough to be culturally British. Conversely I could not get that tick, but that alone wouldn't diqualify me from being British either as there's the rest of the entire checklist left. Not getting Monty Python jokes is a bit like, I dunno, not having played Super Mario Bros. or something like that: Arguably a big part of the common shared experience of being a gamer, but not a necessary one. But at the same time it's not a totally irrelevant experience either because not every "gamer" shares that experience. It's still important as one of the many checklist items, but its true value in deciding your cultural affiliation only becomes clear once you look at the entire checklist and look at all the items on it. These checklist items go towards a kind of score that determines if you pass or fail the "culture test" rather than each single item being taken in isolation to define whether you are part of it or not. That said, although the checklist example is useful in understanding my points in some ways I worry that thinking that way might inadvertently place too much emphasis on numbers. And that would be problematic as there is no exact number of ticks one needs to pass for being of a particular culture. There's no one to decide or arbitrate that. But it is certainly the case that having a broader range of cultural checklist items ticked would put you in a better position to qualify for being part of a culture.
People just like to label things. We label everything we see. What's the difference between a deer and an antelope? If we analyze everything down to its smallest parts our whole world stops making sense, but as a whole we can see what certain things lean towards. And then label them. Just because a banana is a sweet fruit doesn't make it an apple. And gros michel bananas are not cavendish bananas. We have different labels for them as well. The "gamer" nomenclature was already well established by most to mean something. Now it is being challenged just because others feel left out. Imagine if I thought I should be considered British just because I like Monty Python. Am I now a Brit? Of course not. But if I lived in Briton for 10 years, picking up the habits, language, enjoying a spot o' tea with the Govna, and a few hundred other things, then yeah. I'm sure I would seem rather British to anyone and could identify myself as such. There would be a definite grey area somewhere in the middle of the 10 years. But playing candy crush and tetris on your phone during your commute or buying a wii just to play bowling every now and then would be like goin to london for a weekend and calling yourself British. To be honest it sounds like we are almost saying the same thing. I'm just making clearer distinctions. Drawing lines, putting things in boxes, and labeling them. :D
How funny coming from vice, when they just hired a bunch of people who were leading the charge on "gamers are dead" and "they don't need to be your audience"
Vice? I thought it was Kotaku and 4Chan.
If what are considered 'core' gamers refuse to get on with each other, good luck trying to get them to accept the more casual end of the spectrum as equals.
It's not about accepting casuals as "equal" as people but equally invested in games and the culture around them. And of course casuals aren't going to be considered equally invested: they aren't. I can't sit down with one and have a conversation about a game like I can with people on this site who I can assume have a baseline of experience in games and exposure to the industry.
If I put thousands a year into it, and you put in a few dollars, how are our passions equal? If I get really into the news of an upcoming sequel or promising new IP, but you're never aware of such things, is our attention equal? If I protest an anti consumer tactic, but you don't even know said tactic exists- and couldn't care less- is our dedication equal? A casual gamer is still a gamer, but that doesn't mean they're equal to a core gamer. And that's okay.
So everyone who has ever controlled the movement of pixels across a screen is now a gamer? Words, ahh... They are fun. So what do we call the "real gamers" now? You know, the ones that own multiple consoles, play for at least 4-6 hours a day, get exited as they watch E3 every year, and have theories for the plots/timelines of long running franchises. Guess we have to find a new name since everyone and their dog wants ours.
Let me be the first to welcome our reptilian friends as gamers! /s https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Notice how the lady holds the controller.. She has no idea what that is
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.