It's time to retire the word "gamer," argues Game Developer editor emeritus Brandon Sheffield.
The word "gamer" has fully infiltrated the game developer lexicon. It's the adjective we use for our customers, for ourselves, and even for our lifestyle. But should we really be letting this one word define us?
I say absolutely not, which is why the word was banned from Game Developer magazine (as was "gaming," because that has been a synonym for gambling for years before video games were around).
"Gamer" is a marketing term used to put you in a box. If you agree with that, maybe you can stop reading right here and never use the word again. But let's continue for the rest of us.
What other media uses a single term to describe its audience? Movies use movie-goer, viewing public, or for enthusiasts, cinephiles. The printed word uses "readers," or for the dedicated, bibliophiles. For music, you've got listeners, concert-goers, audiophiles (which is something else entirely), and much more. There are levels of gradation here, allowing different descriptors for different levels of interest and dedication.
The word "fan" applies to all media - it implies a rabid dedication to something specific - a musical artist, an author, a director. But for games, we have one word in common usage, and that's "gamer."
Think about what that means, and how all-inclusive it is about a person's life and interests. It's a simple enough word to break down - it means one who games, right? But there's nothing more to it. It defines someone who plays games, to the exclusion of all else.Derisive RootsIn the early days of games, you had the Atari 2600, the ZX Spectrum, and others of their ilk. These were all billed as cheap family computers that you could balance your checkbook on - but they also happened to play games. They were meant for everyone. TV ads showed a full, smiling family gathering around the television screen.
But at some point it became obvious that games were selling these devices. And games were for kids, it was supposed, so these "home computers" became kids' toys. They began to be sold like toys, as well -- in Toys R Us and in the kids section of department stores. When the industry famously crashed in North America in 1983, many in the news media considered the "fad" of games to be over.''
Unfortunately, that's also when most mainstream media representatives stopped paying attention, and their cursory relationship with that era represents the depth of their knowledge. For evidence of this, watch any recent news program about games - it's almost guaranteed that they will either talk about how they don't play games and "hey, remember Pong?" *or* they will say "games have come a long way since Pong." Either way, their frame of reference will be rooted in something that came out over 30 years ago. This is not only because of their own ignorance of the industry, but because of the presumed ignorance of the audience. They're guessing that their viewers haven't had to deal with the idea of video games since the 70s.
After the big North American console game crash of 1983, and Nintendo's subsequent rise, you got a new group of people playing games. But popular opinion was now firmly established -- these things were for kids. Then these game players grew up, and they kept playing games. This was viewed as regressive -- people still playing with children's toys. From here, you got games as villainous, creating a Peter Pan syndrome in our youth, or the "basement-dwelling manboy." The impression is that "gamers" are just playing with their childhood toys. In the 90s, there was a mainstream view of the older game player as a deviant.
I have a friend whose mother works in film. A film associate of hers decided to make a movie based on who he thought my friend was, depicting him as a pathetic Japanophile who did nothing but play games and siphon money off his parents. (My friend is a very smart, well adjusted, and successful guy, by the way). The impression of "gamer" as an adult child runs deep in aging media.
If you grew up playing games, it's likely your parents warned against playing games, because they'll "rot your brain," and you'll never amount to anything. And now here you are making games for a living. Hmm.
But that impression of the game player as a do-nothing, thoughtless drone persists to this day. And that impression is perfectly encapsulated in the word "gamer." That is the word marketing people created to target and describe the basement-dwelling manboy. The person who just wants to play games and cares about nothing else. That person who only exists to shriek with horror and offense on internet forums about something he or she absolutely loves. And yet we have embraced this word with open arms, and proudly display it on our twitter tags. Microsoft even has its Gamer Points.Who are we, really?A "gamer," if we follow the rules of English, should be a person who plays games to the exclusion of all else. If you use a word that fully defines you, leaving no room for extra interests or hobbies, what does it say about you? It immediately becomes something to defend, or qualify. You can say "I'm a gamer, but I also read books." That's a bit forced, and doesn't it sound strange? Why the need to define oneself by one's hobby anyway? In what context could one naturally use the word, except derisively? And the news media does exactly that. "Gamers are lined up to get their hands on the new Call of Duty video game." Interviews with over-excited youths with far-away stares ensue, encouraging every mother watching to say, "I'm glad that's not my baby out there."
The word "gamer" is regressive. It accepts the portrait of us painted by the mainstream news media, and every time I hear it or read it it actually makes me feel a little sick. I believe in this art form, and I believe in the people who make it. That's why I am so hard on this industry, because I believe that as great as it sometimes is, it can get better.
So play games, of course, but don't let the playing of games define you. Why would you ever really need to describe yourself as someone who plays games, anyway? Do you walk up to people and say "Yeah, I watch movies." Well, of course you do, everyone watches movies. If games are to become part of culture, shouldn't it be assumed that you play games? Shouldn't it be presumed that we all do? In first world nations, isn't the person who doesn't play games in the greater minority, when you factor in Facebook, Angry Birds, and the like? The folks who play these more casual games don't consider themselves gamers, because they don't think of playing games as a thing that defines them. They're just casually consuming entertainment. And frankly, they're right. They see "gamer" as a term that describes someone else - they just happen to play games, it doesn't define them. And in their way, they're being more progressive than we are, as a result.
If you want to call yourself a gamer, fine. I can't tell you what to do. But if you want to start changing the public perception of the game playing public, so that the definition includes everyone who plays games, I say it's time to retire the word "gamer."
|
As a side note, and corresponding to the bibliophile, cinephile, and audiophile labels, I prefer the term ludophile for those who are "hardcore gamers".
"What other media uses a single term to describe its audience?"
TV = Viewers
Newpapers = Readers
etcetc
These are terms that describe what people are doing in their chosen medium. And are potentially expanded to be some of the most descriptive and accurate language we have for classifying ourselves within our space. Are you a Hardcore gamer, a Core gamer, an oldskool gamer, a casual gamer, a Game guru, a professional gamer ...
If you want to change the perception of the "game playing" public, I'd suggest taking a deeper look at the problems.
I don't know, do we really want to be known as 'players' - yeah I could see that taken the wrong way.
"noun
a person who plays a game or games, typically a participant in a computer or role-playing game"
Doesn't sound so bad to me, and does not say "to the exclusion of all else", neither does any definition anywhere else. If news media use the word with more negative connotations, maybe we should just reclaim it instead.
It isn't a very useful word in the first place, but I call myself a gamer in the same way I call myself a metalhead, and a movie lover. To me and so many other people, it simply means these are things I geek out to and think about. I honestly don't see much negative use of the word gamer these days, except in articles like these. I don't mean that in a snarky way, I just fear that we might have created a boogeyman in our minds.
If this powerful industry itself cannot change the stereotypes associated with the word by turning more people onto gaming, then I don't think the word deserves to be dropped from the insiders' lexicon. If it makes us a little sick, then let it serve as a constant reminder that we need to improve this industry.
To be clear, I'm not saying players must change themselves so that the negative associations become replaced with positive ones... because that is not how it works. And developers/journalists/advocates can NOT simply wish away the negative stereotypes by not speaking a word.
Instead, developers need to create better products and journalists and pundits need to help promote quality titles and expand the audience to more than just children and adult children by developing adult experiences. TV and film have narrowed but still provide a far broader range of programming and productions than games. Apparently there isn't much confidence by people in the industry that games can ever do the same.
other words i'm reminded of...
Otaku
Muggle
couch potato
boob tuber
RPers & LARPers
@Michael Josefsen - cool name! :P
And thanks, your name is quite amazing as well :P
If it wasn't for your avatar image I'd have thought I was sleep-commenting.
Consider the almost dearth of coverage of casual games on this site (or on gaming sites). A giant part of the games industry apparently just doesn't exist in their eyes.
Especially amusing when topics like women in gaming (or in games) are brought up, because there's a whole sector of the game industry whose products are directly aimed at women, with games mostly starring non-sexualized women
Or indie games. To gamers, only some of those matter. If they are on the Vita or PC, they matter. If they are on the Ouya, they are dismissed as phone games.
I guess that makes casual games the home shopping network?
That analogy would work, if there were a crapton of Home Shopping Networks who draw in impressive numbers.
If you like movies you tend to like a variety. I don't think that's true with games.
Maybe it should be! I play all sorts of games myself and I think that can only be a benefit. Especially for people who create games. Variety is the spice of life.
People use the word "gamer" subjectively, which is not really a problem since we usually know what we mean inside our personal circles. Funny how academics can sometimes find difficulty in what others find intuitive :P
There certainly are people who limit themselves to a few movie genres as well, don't you think? People consume what they most enjoy/see relevant in their life, not everyone watches the same things, act the same and so on. It's a tendency not a rule (except for some, but sometimes you just need to make the choice of where to put your limited time) no matter the medium.
Like Michael Josefsen here said, I play whatever I feel like playing at the time no matter the genre. If it's good, it's good. Same goes for a lot of movie-goers and I personally know a lot more of people who play all kinds of games than don't. And I know a lot more people who watch movies but wouldn't watch a certain type of movie or at least would never admit it.
And I think this is more and more true the more casual you go. It's just that most of the casual market has not yet discovered all that there is available and understood that something like the more "serious" games might be worth their time investment. Eg. There's plenty of people getting excited about things like Heavy Rain and The Walking Dead even if they haven't touched many other things beyond casual or the like.
No, we don't. More often than not the word "gamer" comes with "hardcore", "casual", "PC" or "console" in front of it. The amount of terminology is greater than in other industries. TBH, i have never heard the term "concert-goer".
You're wasting your time and energy arguing over semantics.
Really?
Other people have their popular names - film buff, film/ theatre/ festival goer, bookworm, art appreciator/ collector, opera lover, sports fan etc; and we have 'gamer'.
Hmmm..
The word 'gamer' certainly doesn't include all those who actually play games and a large majority who do would probably not appreciate the 'baggage' that the term comes with.
"The word "fan" applies to all media - it implies a rabid dedication to something specific - a musical artist, an author, a director. But for games, we have one word in common usage, and that's "gamer."
I'm not sure I agree about the "rabid dedication" of the average fan; I suggest that saying that is similar tarring everyone who plays and like computer/ video games a "do-nothing, thoughtless drone".
Not everyone plays games with stalwart dedication and fanatical devotion attributed to the common (perception of a) 'gamer'.
Instead, something like 'game fan' might be more all-inclusive. Why not wipe the slate clean and include all those who play.
Let's not get started on use of the word 'core' :)
Cheers,
G
I understand your desire to get away from praise for the "gamer lifestyle". I'm reminded of Escapist Magazine, which I've never found very interesting because it talks about game players instead of about games: "The Escapist aims to capture and celebrate the contemporary video gaming lifestyle", which lifestyle carries so many negative connotations to adults. The industry could do a lot to discourage such praise, but for decades those who define themselves as "gamers" have seen it as a badge of honor, as showing that they're somehow "better" than anyone else. Whether this was a defense mechanism or not, it certainly happened. If we want to be seen as grown-ups rather than kids, we have to change the popular conception, whether this involves dropping the word "gamer" or not.
Contrary to what seems to be popular belief on many game sites, upwards of a third of the people in the US do not play video games. (Of course, there are people who don't watch movies, but likely a much smaller percentage.) And many of those people, along with even more who play games but don't see it as their hobby, tend to see the hard-core as acting like children even if they're not children chronologically. Unfortunately, the noise generated by the hard-core only reinforces this notion among the "unwashed" for whom game playing is not a hobby.
I just say I play video games. I also read books, watch TV and listen to music. No one thing defines me.
Except, perhaps, jerkface.
I don't know what book you got these "rules of English" from, but you should probably throw it away. By the logic of these "rules":
A "programmer", should be a person who writes code to the exclusion of all else.
A "painter", should be a person who paints pictures to the exclusion of all else.
A "writer" . . . . well you get my point.
I agree that "gamer" has negative connotations with it. But then so does "programmer". I wear both of them as badges of honor. There's no reason for me to cast them off just because they have negative connotations. If "society" takes a dim view of what I do, then that's their problem; not mine.
"It’s fine to have this, as people realize now that you can play games and not be a gamer." (John Turcich)
The term "gamer" brings to mind an unflattering image of unemployed and socially underdeveloped 30-somethings ignoring their responsibilities to play a complicated computer game. Why? Because the term "gamer" says something about a persons identity. Who they are is defined by the fact that they play video games. That they self-identify that way is troubling. Don't they have anything more important going on? Why don't they identify with their profession? (Think: "I'm a plumber" or "I'm a lawyer" vs. "I'm a gamer")
Sure, everyone plays games of one sort or another, though we use terms "player", "participant" and "competitor" to identify those people exclusively within the context of a game. Players might not even consider the activity a kind of play. The certainly don't see playing games as a significant aspect of their identity!
It's easy to separate games like softball and poker from "play". Video games, however, are a different matter entirely. (Though I suspect many gamers don't think of their "hobby" as play either.) If the industry wants to shake the nasty connotations attached to the term "gamer", dropping the term is just a first step.
Casual games seem like a useful place to start. Even the average grandmother plays video games now, though they don't think of themselves as "playing video games". They're just playing a game; no different than a round of solitaire. A perfectly acceptable way for an adult to pass the time. Farmville and Bejeweled fall in to an entirely different category than "video game" -- one in which they feel safe engaging.
If we only want to shake the term "gamer" to open up new markets, we might be better off asking why some video games are okay for adults to play and why others are not. Why is it okay for mom to play Bejeweled and not Super Mario Bros.? A great question, but one that's sadly off-topic.
The "gamer" is a fat teenager with pimples, who doesn't intrested in anything, which is not the game. But I'm sure this image and stereotype of last century and it will change in 5-10 years.
We speak the living and changable languages, we can affect it.
The best way, I think, is to use "gamer" as much, as we can to make people calling theirself "gamers".
I'm a late 40's professional, have been to many a nice dinner party where other professionals ( bankers, lawyers, doctors, politicians) discuss their hobbies, some say golf, and we discuss courses etc, some say games, which is followed by, what type? and the discussion goes into types of genres enjoyed. Gaming has grown up, the kids of the 70s and 80s are now the professionals of today, and we still like our hobby, and there is nothing wrong with the term gamer.
Others have mentioned the introductions reference to their being only one all encompassing term for game players is nonsense.
Also, the word gamer has existed for far longer than video games has and didnt have derisive roots at all. The media and stereotypes have corrupted the word in some contexts, as they would regardless of the terminology you use. Call us all flibflopflaps and youll see the same articles about 'flibflopflaps causing increased violence' a few weeks down the line.
This is no different to the press negativity over being a 'TV viewer' and Id imagine it goes back much further, applying to Listeners, and Readers. Nobody upped and changed their terminology over it, itd be futile to even bother.
As for the ending, it seems more like he has problems with his own insecurities. Ive never said 'Im a gamer... but I also read.' and never plan to. If I ever have need of defining myself as a gamer then thats as far as it goes. Ive never been greeted by sneers and derision for saying Im a gamer. Why would you be? and why would you feel the need to apologise for such an innocuous fact even if you were?
Nobody has ever walked up to people and randomly announced their hobbies, they say what they enjoy when it is relevant to the conversation and when it is relevant 'gamer' is no less valid than 'moviegoer'.
'Readers Line Up for Their Copies' in relation to Harry Potter and likely numerous other popular books. Did the author see such negative connotations in that as well?
'every time I hear it or read it it actually makes me feel a little sick.'
Given some of the issues facing the industry I think the author needs a serious priority check; mountains out of molehills.
But as a social descriptor, I like gamer. Its like using something like "movie fanatic" to differentiate someone who is intensely into watching, studying, and knowing about movies from the general population who watch movies here and there. The term gamer was also used long before video games in baseball, to describe a player who always wanted to play and couldn't stand to have the game played without them. Even though I'm not a sports fan at all, this connotation adds to the term for me. It describes the distinct segment of people who see a game and itch to play it; who always want to try a new game; who do let gaming (or playing video games, to be politically correct) influence life choices to a degree. (Life choices refers more to choosing to spend a vacation at a convention or choosing a house that has a space for a game room rather than the negatively stereotypical "choosing to live in parents basement and not have a job in order to play more games.")
When referring to people who are partaking of video games in general, yes, we have moved beyond these people being distinct from the general population. But socially, I still think there's a need for a word for those who make it a hobby and not a casual, occasional pasttime. Its the difference between "reader" and "bookworm"; between someone who listens to a song and someone who buys both physical and digital music and goes to every show that comes into town. In that respect, we are lucky to have the term gamer; movie fanatics and the music obsessed don't have such a concise term.
I'm a gamer and that has led to me to a decent career within the industry, good pay to actually support myself, gave me the means to find other activities. At no point did I feel the need to hide that passion or be insecure it.
Art forms grow when people share the passion that they have for that art with others. I remember all the crap metal music gets (and still gets) and there's so much amazing music that came out of it. Warner Bros found a director and writer who took the idea of a rich vigilante in a bat costume and it lead to some amazing film works being done with old properties to the tune of billions of dollars.
There are changes that the industry needs, I agree. Let's start with how many people work long and hard on projects on a contract basis only to get tossed away when the game hits shelves. OR how about we try to get rid of stockholders who only pump in cash to make clones of what has already sold. OR how about we look at the mainstream media who 'looks down' on poor us and remember they dedicate 20 minutes of news programming to relationship gossip to reality actors.
One thing we don't need is outsiders defining and changing our art form. The best change comes from within. By showing livestreams and stories of how sexist men can be a fighting game tournaments towards women, we get to decide how we interact with one another and how we're supposed to include one another. We decided that, not CNN, not Rolling Stone, gamers and the game industry.
Last thing: I hear this term a lot: video games have to grow up. You know what a big part of growing up is? Accepting what you are. Knowing your flaws and strengths. Knowing that the pains you experience on the way to adulthood won't compare to the joys you may feel when you accomplish something.
PS-Go hug yourselves today. You're a gamer and you're alright!
For myself, I always say "I play video games" rather than "I'm a gamer." I usually have to repeat it a couple of times because of the dual perception that women don't play video games and that middle-aged people don't play video games, but I find it works better than calling myself a gamer.
"Gaming" has its own problems. Last week I attended a talk by Richard Hilleman at Adobe MAX advertised as "The Magic Bullet of Web Gaming." When I showed the schedule to my parents, my mom was shocked that I was into Internet gambling. This is the woman who regularly trounced my Spacer Invaders scores back in the day, so it's not as if video games are a foreign entity to her. "Gaming" is just not a word that she associates with video games.
Yeah, "user" needs to be banished. It really just sucks the humanity out of the people who keep companies in business, and has seen an uptick with new metrics-driven business models.
With the exception of a couple of things that very clearly show their age, video games in the media have evolved past the representation of "80's arcade bleeps over footage of Super Mario 64".
There is nothing wrong with the term gamer, and the only people for whom that bothers are people who are over-thinking what the term represents to them personally. It is far easier to tell somebody, "I am a gamer" than to go through the awkward and overly-lengthy song and dance of trying to describe that you "play games but not a lot of games but also more games than most people?"
If mothers are glad that "it's not their baby out there", then that's just another stigma that needs to be changed. That does not mean you abandon the term - that's cutting off the branches while ignoring the root of the problem, which, at this point, feels mostly dealt with if you ask me.
Games are mainstream now. Have been mainstream for a while. "Gamer" is not a dirty word, "Gamer" does not bring to mind the crazy shut-ins for most people. If anything, "gamer" is what a lot of people use to describe your average Call of Duty or Madden fan, which at this point are the single most ubiquitous type of consumer in this industry. That's all you need to say to know there's nothing wrong with the perception of that term for most people.
"Gamer" is here to stay, and unfortunately, you're just going to have to get used to it.
I see all the articles talking about "How society defines me" and "How other perceive me". Guess what? They are going to judge me no matter how I answer.
If someone thinks less of me because I play games... I don't care about their opinion or perceptions. The ONLY opinions that matter are mine and the people who are a part of my life.
To hell with what "society" thinks.
I an a programmer, a runner, a gamer and a number of other things. I am not exclusively any of those things and I don't expect that if I tell a person that I am any of those things that they will assume that I am exclusively that thing. Gamer means different things to different people, but that's ok, welcome to linguistics. What I can assume about a person that self identifies as a gamer is that they consider themselves dedicated enough to games to do so, but not much more. If I call someone a gamer I consider them dedicated enough by my standards.
Maybe gamer has a broader meaning in the non-game world, but not to us.
You can call it insecurity, and maybe it is, but I think that the stigma exists in my mind is representative of the fact that it exists in the minds of the people who put it there, and in the minds of people who know less about games culture than myself.
Maybe it's even strong enough that part of the game-playing community is trying to reappropriate the term. "Oh, you think being a gamer is wrong? Well guess what, I'm a gamer."
That's one of the reasons I think the term isn't going anywhere.
In my experience, certain people will judge you no matter what you do. That stigma exists and will always exist in these people's minds because they are judgmental. Whether you call yourself a gamer or not, they will still judge you. It doesn't matter if it's true, or if you admit to being a gamer, they will jump to conclusion that because you play games you (insert hurtful stereotype).
Some people will judge you. If not because you play games... they'll judge you based on your hairstyle, you clothes, or the way you walk. Hell... do you know how often I'm judged harshly because I make games for a living? I've been called lazy, stupid, childish and plenty more by those who refuse to learn about the industry.
Stigmas will always exist and changing the name won't fix them. All we can do is to be ourselves and hope those who are willing to learn realize that the stereotypes aren't true.
I suspect some people like the term because it sounds so active... they don't sit back and passively "consume" this "media," they plug in their controllers and DO THIS SHIT.
People are going to define themselves in whatever way they choose. If someone wants to be a Belieber, they can beliebe. If someone is really into motorcycles, they might call themselves a biker. If someone wants to be a gamer, who's going to stop them? I somehow doubt game developers or anyone else have that power.
As for the connotations that go with the label, consider the evolution of the term "gay." Its original meaning was "having a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music." Later it became used as a pejorative for homosexuality. Now, it is a commonly used term for homosexual males. Is it still used in the second sense? Yes, but doing so now is considered, at the very least, rude and disrespectful. The term gamer may be used by some in the sense of "35 year old male sitting in his parents' basement eating cheetos and playing video games," but more and more people see the evolution of gaming into a respectable industry.
In furtherance of the evolution of the term, gaming has evolved into more sub-categories, such as casual gaming, serious gaming, etc. These terms give gamers more flexibility in defining themselves should they wish to. However, for me, I am not a hardcore gamer nor a casual gamer.
I am a gamer.
Put aside issues of inclusion, equity, etc, etc. The truth of the matter is that contempt is always reciprocal. A lot of gamers in my generation felt despised as geeky children, so we banded together to despise the 'normals'. For some people, that "us" and "them" thing never entirely went away. And when the normals run into that wall of resentment, so painfully on display on the internet, they come away thinking that "gamers" are embittered, lonely men who waste their lives watching virtual boobs play volleyball in their parents' basement. It's not true, but it's perceived, and it turns potential gamers away.
Those of us who want to welcome the broader culture into games (read as: want to sell way more games) just have to figure out how to deal with the fact that a non-trivial number of gamers simply do not want their favorite hobby -- their defining hobby -- to become mainstream.
If someone says they're a "Gamer", it usually means its a strong interest, or enough to at least use the term. They're probably also something else, and I doubt "Gamer" would be the first term they use to describe themselves. If that's the ONLY thing they identify with... well... that shouldn't be put on everyone!
I'm also a Snowboarder, Basketball fan, Musician... I could think of a few negative traits associated with those.
Otherwise, we could change "Gamer" to "Interactive Media Enthusiast"!
Thus, on that note, why should we allow the tagging of keywords define us?
Furthermore, it seems to me that the term gamer is primarily used by other gamers to describe ourselves and each other. I can't think of any time some one else used the term gamer to describe me. No one ever comes up to me and says "Get out of here gamer! We don't want your kind around." If marketers also use the term, they are taking their cue from us, the audience. It was a self applied label as far as I know, and also perfectly neutral and descriptive.
That being the case, it bothers me that the attitude of this article is one of submission to a condemning society. Suppose other do use the term derisively - so what? We should make up some new term for ourselves to please them? Why not instead reclaim the term through positive example? I feel like this is what happen to the term "nerd." It seems to me that that word has lost most of its negative connotation and that happened because nerds were manifestly cool. Now it's a big thing - comic book movies are huge money makers and people talk about the power and ubiquity of "nerd culture" nor do they say it with a sneer. Gamers were generally a subset of nerds, at least when I was in school, and our public image is benefitting from the general nerd uplift.
But regardless of all that I just don't read nearly as much into it as this author does. It's just a generic descriptor for enthusiasts of an activity, no different than people calling themselves painters or guitar players or modellers or whatever.
fuck it. i'm a gamer. and fuck everyone who has a problem with that.
and i read comic books. no matter how hard they try to push the term "graphic novel".
fuck perception. fuck respectability. do what you like and fuck everything else including what it's called.
for fuck's sake.
On the other hand, I don't know very many people who ride motorcycles. There's nothing wrong with it, but it would be ridiculous to assume that my old math professor has a Harley-Davidson stashed in his garage.
The word "gamer" only makes sense if you view playing games like the latter. Unlike "reader," the term is a label associated with the activity itself. And if playing games ever becomes as common as reading, we would no longer need it - because at that point, we could stop worrying about IF someone plays and move on to WHAT she plays.
I would imagine that the difficulty of learning to ride a motorcycle is a much bigger barrier to entry than the stigmas of "biker" culture. But whether the "gamer" label is descriptive, derisive or worn as a badge of honor, it turns people who play games into the "other" from the perspective of those who don't. So even though anyone can pick up a game as easily as a book - even though there is nothing fundamentally different about people who play them - the term feels (to me) like it stands in the way of games reaching as broad an audience as books or film.
This might sound like a huge stretch, but I honestly believe that if society starts taking it for granted that everyone plays games, more people will actually play games. But looking at this from the other side, maybe clinging to the "gamer" label is some people's way of keeping the club exclusive.
TL;DR I think the word "gamer" is synonymous with people who play games being viewed as anything other than the norm, and if one goes away, so will the other.
I don't think any of us wants to be misidentified, and I feel silly having to explain that humans care about public perception. If the perception associated with "gamer" overnight changed to "devoted ultimate frisbee enthusiast who commonly dresses in all yellow, refuses to eat grains, and is whole-heartedly frustrated with democracy as a system," the few of us who don't feel that sentence applies would stop and say "What? Why do you think that about me?"
We can say the term won't go anywhere, but I'm not sure I agree. I think very few of my peers wouldn't cringe being called a gamer. I know also that some game-design programs specifically leave "game" out of their title to battle the perception that it's a program made up of white dudes in black t-shirts who play games all day. That public perception is probably the larger problem -- that "gamer" has the stigma at all -- but distancing ourselves from the term, clarifying that game does not equal gamer, and continuing to establish games as a common, respectable, and understood sector of popular culture is the best way to eliminate that stigma.
On the other hand, even that has loosened up over the last decade with the arrival of mainstream casual gameplay and alternate genres, as those same individuals are now obliged to expand their pseudo-segregation to include additional descriptors like "core" gamers, "indie" fans, "casual" players, and all the other sub-categorization.
Nowadays if I meet someone and they're introduced to me as a "big gamer" with a "...so you two should get along" disclaimer, I'll usually set the tone with some extra detail.
Like: "I'm an old-school gamer, been playing pretty seriously for about 30 years. These days I'm more of a hardcore PC gamer, but I still play big games on console and a lot of indie games on every platform."
I think "gamer" still comes across A-OK if you apply some additional clarification.
*As an aside: It's funny, I don't fear any confusion between gamer, gaming, and gambling these days.
I do believe us 'video gamers' (sigh) have more or less stolen the terms away from the gambling industry for good, insofar as every day use 'among the people'. If you stopped 100 random people (ages 15-60) on the street and asked them if they were gamers, I'd say 95% of them would form a response based on electronic games.
If they answered "Yes" you'd then follow it up with, "And what kind of gamer?"
To which you would receive a myriad of responses referencing a rainbow of genres, platforms and services, each player to their own.
Think back to the obnoxious "extreme" marketing of the 90s and the rampant tropes contained therein: X-games, skateboards, neon elbow pads, skulls, anti-establishment, flame patterns, backwards baseball caps, shredding guitar solos, and X-games, all frothing in a violent "fuck conformity" tide of consumption. In other words, a completely unrealistic image of the target consumer built on anachronistic concepts and existing solely in the financial wet dreams of people who lost touch with their basis of reality long ago.
This is more or less what the term "gamer" is. It's a marketing buzzword now, an obnoxious, ridiculous term to boot and yet a good segment of the gaming population seems dead-set on defending it (or at least using it subconsciously and by default), as if liking games granted their identity some kind of goodwill. How insecure are we in our passions that we feel the need to construct some kind of cultural framework around our hobbies?
Really, it's so simple: just loving games gives us amazing output and creativity from an industry that matches our passion; "gamer" gives us the Spike VGAs and Mountain Dew cross-promotions. You want to wear that ironic T-shirt saying something about pastries and deceptions? Fine. You want me to listen to the latest Anamanaguchi album because it reminds you of Bubble Man's level in Mega Man 2? Cool!
Just stop doing it all under the pretense of being a "gamer". We're all adults here.
To use the music analogy, I understand punkers, just like I understand hip-hop heads; I don't understand Musickers. Genre, theme, and artistic intent in games have matured beyond rescuing princesses and killing insectoid aliens. The medium has evolved, and in constantly maturing, it is defying traditional and conventional definition. The gaming audience needs to do the same.
I read in another article that some "gamers" see themselves as performance artists and that games themselves are an art form in their own right. That they are not comparable to anything else. And if you think about it games are still in their infant stages. What will it be like 50 years from now. What will we be called then, or what will we call ourselves. "Gamer" is not so bad, but I still hate "video games". As contradicting as it is, maybe we should keep "gamer" and come up with something else for "video games".
Also, that is my opinion contrary to the author. If you read what he says, he is not suggesting we replace gamer. He is simply stating we just omit it all together.
Everyone instantly knows what that means.
Try going with "electronic games" in a crowd and confusion pops up.
"So you play Operation and Simon Says all day?"
No, you just meant games are played on electronic devices. You know, video games.
"Oh."
The easiest one next to video games is usually "computer games." Rarely will people seek clarification.
In any language, it's always the "games" part. In French, it's Jeux Video.
Ditching the "games" part won't work. Games are games, when they're games.
The "video" part is sketchy to maintain, considering how much more there is to the equation besides video. But it's firmly embedded in common speak for now.
The only time mass media has branded games with something other than "video games" was in the early 2000s, when some vocal groups were calling first-person shooters "Murder Simulators". Did they call the players Gamers, or Simulated Murderers?
Anyway, weird post. I guess what I'm saying is, we shouldn't take labels too seriously.
You do what you do.
If something's your hobby and you take it more seriously than the average guy, you tend to be more sensitive to the quirks and stigmas that the average guy attaches to it.
That's fine -- carry on.
"But if you want to start changing the public perception of the game playing public, so that the definition includes everyone who plays games..."
Why would I possibly want to do that?
That very goal is what's causing the video game industry to implode on itself.
That very desire of publishers and developers to appeal to absolutely all possible target demographics, from 3-year-olds to lonely housewives, is hurting the industry more than any technical limitations or bad design choices ever have.
Gamers are not just any people who play games. Gamers are a very specific target demographic, one that's being woefully ignored in favor of appealing to all potential audiences in existence, all because of sheer greed.
Gamers are those who play actual video games. What is an actual video game? It's a game that is always out to get you, a game that is always playing AGAINST you, not WITH you. A game where it's your task to avoid the Game Over screen at every turn, NOT sit around chatting with friends in a glorified 3D chat room environment or being "social" while the enemies on screen rush to their unavoidable doom, designed so that the player cannot possibly lose, since that would be a "negative experience."
Obviously, developers and publishers need to make money, but trying to make video games for EVERYONE is exactly what's driving the industry down a dark, terrible path, with profit loss being only one of many symptoms.
I'm having a hard time grasping where the author of this article came up with the idea presented in it to begin with. Though if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say it probably has something to do with being "offended" by actual gamers and their requirements for video game design, which are being ignored or segregated into "hard modes" at every turn nowadays.
Hahahahahaha. Oh wow.
Though i was able to play with default CONTROL through n64 but found I needed to design my own CONTROL scheme which might not have happened had I been started on a DUAL shock over the tridentpad.
I was able to use motion aiming on vita after slowing the right stick down to 1 so it became aim assist and yes even with motion aiming i use inverted aim. So I was able to play uncharted and gravity rush if vita games have a camera center and motion aiming I'm able to play it AS if it were a single analog game...wish sly ,stranger and ac 3 all supported motion aiming and camera re centering.....though other "gamers" simply play madden,tiger and others just cod.
Negitive connotations asside gamers are a varied bunch and nothing's wrong with that...even if after 20 years i can't play modern gaming without my custom scheme.
Unfortunately, having played on consoles over voice chat? erm.. the term unfortunately fits. Play any COD on the 360 for 30 minutes and you won't be able to convince the average individual who doesn't play these games other wise.
Having played for 30 year .. it's going to stick.
2) Making games, even the ones that are commercially successful to absurd extent, isn't perceived as a serious accomplishment either. Nor general public sees even famous game creators as masterminds and creative geniuses. If you visit any movie premiere or autograph session you will observe celebrities being constantly swarmed by fans, especially when it comes to attractive male stars and their army of female fans. In contrast, when was the last time you've witnessed the same thing happening to Cliff Bleszinski, for example, or to Peter Molyneux, or Hironobu Sakaguchi? They're managing multimillion productions and running the most famous video game franchises in the entire world, and still nobody would recognize them ever, were they standing at Times Square for the whole day. This speaks volumes.
Still, I think we are stuck with "gamer," and I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with that. The counterbalancing examples cited seem pretty weak. For example, it seems a real stretch to say that "the media" or "the marketers" regularly talk about to "bibliophiles." At least, the marketers I worked with in a rather successful publishing department never attempted it.
So, for me, it's about the next level down ~ especially when we are doing our work. If we indeed think there is only one kind of "gamer," we are doomed. We need to better define who we are making games for. Each and every time!
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/ChrisToepker/20130415/190480/Correcting_Core_Conf
usion.php
Your facts, like this article, are Epic Fail.
If you hate this so much or you're so embarrassed about gaming, pick a new hobby or something. Or grow a pair and man up. You can take your "interactive digital media enthusiasts" or whatever you come up with to hide your shame of enjoying gaming and shove it.
I might add that the true antidote to actual gambling is electronic non-betting games. Take out the punitive financial losses and keep the subconscious thrill by offering a better alternative to gambling through our community’s conception of ‘true’ gaming. There is real good that can come from video gamers appropriating the terms 'gaming’ and ‘gamer' from the gambling community.
As much as I would like to save Game Developer magazine’s feelings, not grabbing 'gaming' and 'gamer' from the open jaws of the gambling community was a mistake. Words are tools, you do not allow people with bad intentions to use tool you could use for good. Even if gaming and gamer were used for centuries by gamboling there is no good reason to leave them in their hands. We can might not grab the terms by force, but the slow accumulation of public’s consciousness has worked. I expect that some people reading your article had not made the connection to gambling because gamers (yes, I said it..gamer, gamer gamer) have ameliorate the term game for several decades. The term is now just as much ours as it is there's and we have a better use for it. I say we keep it, and grab more of it in the public consciousness.
It's especially dubious for a medium that does involve a certain level of skill development. Half the reason why "gamer" exists is due to the skill curve between "casual" and "core" players; that curve can't be defined out of existence, and it affects the sort of mechanics and experiences that are felt to be appropriate by the different groups. How do you signal to experienced and skilled players that a game is appropriate for them?
I game. Therefore I am a gamer. Seems to me it's the author who has an unreasonably narrow scope of what the term implies, not the rest of the industry.
I like to hope that when I call myself a gamer and people see an upstanding, hardworking, clean, and fun person who just plays games a lot, it helps define being a gamer as something positive.
I wish there were something like 'interactive experience enthusiast' but simpler so I could use that, but for now I'm going to work on shining a positive light on the word 'gamer'.
Some people will get it, most will probably troll me (or accuse me of trolling)
But the even bigger point is how about we don't let a hobby define us? I've long disliked the term gamer, not because it was some means for the industry to peg us into their hole, but because...well, they're right. As a guy who grew up with video games his whole life and plays them in his 30's to this day, would be really pissed if someone tried to assume video games have anything to do with my self-definition. It's something I do and enjoy. It's not a part of me, and I feel bad for anyone who's internalized this frivolity that way. Have your fun, for sure, but you need to broaden your world a LOT if this is "who" you are.
I say we make our stand right here. Around 'gamer'.
Resistance is futile!
There are Gamer conventions that celebrate the gamer culture the world over. Gamer, broken down to its constituent components (with regard to video games), is simply; someone who enjoys an interactive electronic medium... this simplistic definition ignores the depth of impact games have on our culture and is more in line with how a marketeer will often perceive a gamer through their often one-dimensional, money colored glasses. A Gamer, however, has as many and myriad views on the term as there are gamers... most of them with the central aspect of enjoy games... but rarely to the exclusion of the other aspects of life.
I cannot tell you how often I hear people proudly proclaim “I'm a Gamer”. Its akin to anyone else saying: I'm a Martial Artist, or Free Runner, or Musician or any other label that may exist out there. The difference? Gamer used to be a derogatory comment... I can't emphasize “Used to be” enough. It really isn’t anymore... its now a distinct part of our culture. Are there people out there still using it in a derogatory way? Sure. And there always will be... but the solution isn’t to hide one aspect of our lives... quite the opposite. The solution is to proclaim loud and proud: “I am a Gamer!”
Assuming that the gamers Need to improve their reputation towards people that are not into gaming (I do not btw) the goal should be to improve the perception of gamers, not to back down to another term until it becomes yet another synonym for loser and migrate from term to term endlessly.
I don't know if it is because I'm not from US or because my biggest successes in life are tied to my being a gamer. All that without living in my mom basement and having a healthy relationship with a woman for the past 10 years (I do understand these are considered not Gamer behaviors somehow).
I do not understand why we should change a definition because some media get their facts wrong.
The definition of gamer has evolved in time... it has sub-categories and by itself core-Gamer is usually implied.
People starts to say "people who play angry birds once in a while on the train are gamers too" I do not agree.
They are casual gamers.
Nothing wrong with that really, they are just a different demographic.
Are some of them living in their mom basement? sure.
There are a lot of "artists" that do exactly the same, i don't see artists from all over the world trying to change their definition because some of them are hopeless loners who are stuck with their parents for not being able to keep a job.
I really don't see the issue here aside from "the media gets their fact wrong" and the obvious answer would be let's give them the facts right, or, let's promote media who can get the facts right.