# I probably will get flamed for this.



## thegeekinthepink (Sep 24, 2010)

I notice a lot of people who call themselves gamers, but do nothing but play Call of Duty, or any other type of first person shooter. Basically it is all they know. I'm sorry, but to me, those type of people are not real gamers. (but then again who am i to say who's a real gamer or not? Just for me personally, i wouldn't consider this type of person a real gamer)

I remember reading a story about a gamestop employee who was excited because his gamestop got a used copy of Zelda Ocarina Of Time. He hadn't seen it in a while and was thinking about all the awesome times with that game. His coworker then commented on how he thought the game sucked because he couldn't figure out what to do. When asked what type of games this guy played, all he answered with was Modern WarFare.

Now i'm not saying all FPS players and MW players are like this, but it's these types that are really bringing gaming down.

I also don't understand the Xbox vs Playstation vs Wii debate. Why not get all three? they all have awesome games.

I don't know, i guess i'm just old school. I own a majority of the major consoles. NES, SNES, Genesis, N64, PS1, Dreamcast, Xbox, Gamecube, Xbox 360 (missing Sega CD,32x, Saturn, along with Ps2, Ps3, and Wii, but i will acquire those with time)

I seem to come across many new age gamers complaining about game difficulty as well. Not often, but enough to make me go wtf? I got two words for new age gamers that will probably make them **** their pants. Battle Toads. NES game, go play it and then talk about difficulty.


----------



## Ohhai (Oct 15, 2010)

Can't wait for the responses on this one.


----------



## thegeekinthepink (Sep 24, 2010)

i;m not saying Call of Duty or similar games are bad, because they're not. but there are people who seem to lock onto that specific genre and never branch out. It's similar to the WoW players.

i don't know, don't understand it. So many amazing games out there for all systems, old and new.


----------



## Glue (Oct 26, 2010)

I agree with you.


----------



## Paper Samurai (Oct 1, 2009)

I kinda agree with you; but ironically I'm against the distinction some make between 'casual' and 'hardcore' gamers at the same time (I realise this is a little hypocritical) The main reason being is that I see it as a being a bit elitist - 'my source of fun is better than yours' sort of deal. Which is a pointless debate imo. 


However going back on topic, if you haven't played a classic 2d game - I almost find it hard to acknowledge that we share the same hobby :b


----------



## David777 (Feb 6, 2011)

What's C.O.D? Some kind of tasty fish?


----------



## Syndacus (Aug 9, 2011)

I agree as well.


----------



## Charizard (Feb 16, 2011)

Consistently play video games? Look forward to upcoming releases? Congrats! You're a gamer.


Anything else is self-gratifying elitism.


----------



## Chopkinsca (Jun 16, 2006)

One thing that irks me is calling people who play facebook 'games' gamers. Then again, who's one to define what a gamer is? Maybe it's a difference between a 'gamer' and a 'true gamer'.


----------



## erasercrumbs (Dec 17, 2009)

Chopkinsca said:


> Then again, who's one to define what a gamer is?


I'm old and geeky enough to remember when people that played pen-and-paper RPGs scoffed at video game enthusiasts for co-opting the term "gamer."


----------



## Syndacus (Aug 9, 2011)

It gets into specific categories of gamers...

Casual gamers vs. Hardcore gamers.


----------



## Marakunda (Jun 7, 2011)

I agree... Hows that for a response? 

You seem like a level-headed, cool guy OP!

I'm sorry but you can't call yourself a gamer if you only play COD, ya just can't. A true gamer enjoys variety, he appreciates a different game every now and then. A gamer doesn't buy the same exact boring FPS every year... :no


----------



## GenoWhirl (Apr 16, 2011)

Dude if anyone flames you for telling the truth they will be responded to by me. Shooting games dumbed down gaming so bad it's not even funny. Nintendo is the only one who seems to still use their creativity at times and get blasted for not being mature games that shooter fanboys love. Sony tries to be creative but get sucked right back into the competition against the 360 over better shooters. Where's new platforming titles? Or new (non-FPS) RPGs? Or better quality fighting games? Or action adventure epics? None of the styles I grew up with are at fore front of gaming today and it's sickening that Call of Duty (what a suiting name Duty) and Halo have the hardcore fandom other much deserving Nintendo titles deserve based on game play and story alone. Shooters raped gaming and then took over, and they need to be dethroned.


----------



## nycdude (Mar 20, 2010)

No one is going to flame. I agree. I play different types of games. And I own all 3 consoles. But COD online is addicting.


----------



## Sanctus (Dec 10, 2010)

Gamer is a label that reinforces the stereotype of the nonsocial,game language speaking(l33t,pwn) home hermit image , which is wrong well if u play any game you are technically a gamer


----------



## seafolly (Jun 17, 2010)

I think I know what you mean. For the "shoot 'em up" games there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of thinking involved compared to the Ocarina of Time example you gave. I really enjoy people playing games like those because they think in a way that I can't (or don't as well). Watching someone go through Twilight Princess was fantastic - no walkthroughs or cheats, he just had a sense of what was required as he went along.


----------



## purplefruit (Jan 11, 2011)

if anyone wants to call themselves a gamer, who cares let 'em. i don't see the problem with preferring one genre over another. i hate people-labels, they're stupid. if i could afford games i would likely gravitate toward one or two genres. some people like specific things.

why not buy all the systems? too facking expensive, that's why. who can afford all those inflatedly priced things? and the 'which console is better' debate is annoying. each has redeeming qualities. hate all the console wars.

game difficulty: i figured out dos on my laptop and been playing commander keen for the past few days. as soon as you tap a friggin bad guy you're dead. i got through like 2 levels before it was game over. nowadays everything has HP, easily acquire "free men", etc. i did chuckle at how much easier things are nowadays. many, myself included, have become spoiled by modern games!


----------



## Class (Nov 6, 2011)

I can't help but agree. People who play nothing but one or two games/types of games don't really fit the truth of what a "gamer" is.

No offense to CoD - I play it myself - but it's these consumers who play nothing but it that tarnish its reputation among gamers.


----------



## Matomi (Sep 4, 2011)

I hate Call of Duty. 
Why play Modern Warfare 3 when there's Skyrim?


----------



## Misanthropic79 (May 6, 2011)

Don't worry about getting flamed thegeekinthepink, around these parts SP gamers easily outnumber the MP crowd, we've got ya back! :bat

I hear exactly what you're saying and agree for the most part. The CoD guys/gals are technically still gamers but the majority are NOT hardcore and the casual/multiplayer market is slowly but steadily eating into the SP market.

CoD has drawn in a whole new crowd to gaming, I prefer to think of them as "Jock gamers". There's a percentage of CoD fans that _are_ hardcore gamers and play a bit of everything but most of the CoD crowd are in it for the competition aspect and look at it like a game of sport. You obviously can't get that online competition from a game like Zelda or Fallout so they have no interest in the single player experiences the rest of us game for.

As for the casual/hardcore labels, they're not going anywhere. Games like CoD are seriously changing the way most companies are making SP games, they're all chasing that multiplayer gold at the end of the rainbow that Activision are swimming in atm and it's pissing off the single player crowd that we're getting these watered down games for a multiplayer no one ends up playing, including the CoD crowd.

Look at the multiplayer added to Dead Space 2 and Bioshock 2. It was a waste of money and effort that few enjoyed or bought the game for in the first place and the money would've been better spent on the single player. And ever since BioWare announced the co-op for Mass Effect 3 it's all they're talking about now, like the SP is just a small reason why we love/play the ME series.

Fools!


----------



## Some Russian Guy (Mar 20, 2009)

Sanctus said:


> Gamer is a label that reinforces the stereotype of the nonsocial,game language speaking(l33t,pwn) home hermit image , which is wrong well if u play any game you are technically a gamer


before games there were, too, non social hermit types
only isntead of games, they watched tv and read books and magazines
they might have, occasionally, went to movies, alone... as in "forever alone"

see, games... are not the culprit of loneliness


----------



## tlgibson97 (Sep 24, 2009)

Unless you play the games I like to play you're not a true gamer. Take that


----------



## OldSchoolSkater (Jun 3, 2011)

thegeekinthepink said:


> I notice a lot of people who call themselves gamers, but do nothing but play Call of Duty, or any other type of first person shooter. Basically it is all they know. I'm sorry, but to me, those type of people are not real gamers. (but then again who am i to say who's a real gamer or not? Just for me personally, i wouldn't consider this type of person a real gamer)
> 
> I remember reading a story about a gamestop employee who was excited because his gamestop got a used copy of Zelda Ocarina Of Time. He hadn't seen it in a while and was thinking about all the awesome times with that game. His coworker then commented on how he thought the game sucked because he couldn't figure out what to do. When asked what type of games this guy played, all he answered with was Modern WarFare.
> 
> ...


Hey. So. You are claiming that you need to play certain types of games or a certain amount of different games to be considered a gamer??

I took a whole class dedicated to video game entertainment in college and we discussed things that make people gamers. The truth is that a gamer is only classified as someone who plays video games on a fairly regular basis (and regular basis is open to interpretation). We learned that the average gamer is a male between the ages of 22-45 - but can include anyone from 2 or 3 years old to 70+. Are they the hardcore type of gamer you imagine and see on television? Not at all.

My grandma plays her Nintendo Wii 3 or 4 days a week. She does her Wii Fit and Wii Sports Resort, as well as a couple other games that appeal to her. She is a different type of gamer then a friend of mine who plays COD 7 days a week for a couple hours at a time. Still, they are both gamers in their own way.

A gamer is just someone who plays video games. There are different types of gamers - competitive, collectors, achievers, etc. Perhaps there are even different levels of being a gamer, ie Hardcore vs passive. Who cares if they don't play the amount of games as someone else, who cares if they just play once in a while for fun rather than to be the best? It's all video games and that's that.

I think a big reason a lot of people don't own all 3 systems is that it is very costly to purchase 3 video game systems, not to mention that amount of time one would have to contribute to give each system's games the attention needed.

Also, why are these types of "gamers" that you talk about bringing the gaming industry down?? If anything they are helping to bring it up! The more people who play ANY video game will lead to more companies creating new video games. If only hardcore gamers played, like the type of person you suggest is a true gamer, there wouldn't be nearly as many games because there wouldn't be a demand seen by the amount of games coming off of shelves.

Basically, be thankful for those hundreds of thousands of people who buy games and don't play as hardcore as you do. They help push the gaming industry forward rather than letting it disappear along with the Atari and Coleco Vision.


----------



## OldSchoolSkater (Jun 3, 2011)

Sanctus said:


> Gamer is a label that reinforces the stereotype of the nonsocial,game language speaking(l33t,pwn) home hermit image , which is wrong well *if u play any game you are technically a gamer*


Yes! I'm glad there are other people out there that see this too!

Along with my last post, another example of a gamer is the 15 year old girl who plays Bejeweled or Snake on her phone on the school bus every morning. She is playing a game = gaming = she is a gamer.


----------



## Misanthropic79 (May 6, 2011)

OldSchoolSkater said:


> Also, why are these types of "gamers" that you talk about bringing the gaming industry down?? If anything they are helping to bring it up! The more people who play ANY video game will lead to more companies creating new video games. If only hardcore gamers played, like the type of person you suggest is a true gamer, there wouldn't be nearly as many games because there wouldn't be a demand seen by the amount of games coming off of shelves.
> 
> Basically, be thankful for those hundreds of thousands of people who buy games and don't play as hardcore as you do. They help push the gaming industry forward rather than letting it disappear along with the Atari and Coleco Vision.


I agree with the earlier part of your post, there are different types of gamers and aslong as you game you can call yourself a gamer but the part of your post I left quoted isn't how you think it is.

As I said earlier the multiplayer explosion that is CoD is making ALL gaming Devs/Publishers hungry for a piece of that Activision pie and they are infact watering down the SP experience by tacking on multiplayer. In the end the multiplayer takes time away from the single player to a point where 20-100 hour games are getting few and far between and most SP in games these days can be finished in 4-15 hours.

That's too short to spend $60 US/$100 AU if you have no intention of playing the multiplayer. And because the Devs focus is not on either the SP or MP but both, the multiplayer tends to be crap that nobody is interested in and like in the case of Bioshock 2 or Bulletstorm the game either barely makes a profit or fails entirely. When a unfocused game fails it usually means the Dev gets closed/liquidated.

The casual/multiplayer market is not creating more game companies that make SP focused games. The last few years Devs have been dropping like flies and although Casual/MP games are not entirely to blame they do have a pretty big hand in it.


----------



## OldSchoolSkater (Jun 3, 2011)

Misanthropic79 said:


> I agree with the earlier part of your post, there are different types of gamers and aslong as you game you can call yourself a gamer but the part of your post I left quoted isn't how you think it is.
> 
> As I said earlier the multiplayer explosion that is CoD is making ALL gaming Devs/Publishers hungry for a piece of that Activision pie and they are infact watering down the SP experience by tacking on multiplayer. In the end the multiplayer takes time away from the single player to a point where 20-100 hour games are getting few and far between and most SP in games these days can be finished in 4-15 hours.
> 
> ...


Interesting way to look at it. I would like to mention though that as of 3 or 4 years ago something like 85% of games actually lost money or broke even (can't remember the exact %, but that's close). So it is nothing new for developers to go out of business on a regular basis. That's happened since they had to call the original Nintendo an Entertainment System and use cartridges that slid in through the front like a VCR. Video Games were out so they had to repackage it in order to sell some.

Also, it is not gamers fault that developers don't create a decent multiplayer or a long enough campaign. That is entirely up to the developers, etc. Think about it. These developers should be making games that they should want us to play - not games that they think we want. It's like the media - don't tell us the news you think we want - tell us the news we should need!


----------



## Misanthropic79 (May 6, 2011)

OldSchoolSkater said:


> Also, it is not gamers fault that developers don't create a decent multiplayer or a long enough campaign.





Misanthropic79 said:


> The casual/multiplayer market is not creating more game companies that make SP focused games. The last few years Devs have been dropping like flies and although Casual/MP *games* are not entirely to blame they do have a pretty big hand in it.


Just to clarify as you can see I did say "games" not gamers. I seriously don't have anything against MP or Casual gamers and I know and love (my bro amongst others) several of them personally. But I do resent what impact the games they play are having on the SP market.

The OP and most hardcore gamers are blaming the MP/Casual gamers but I DO agree with you, it's really down to the publishers and their pressure on the Devs. EA's demand that BioWare tack on co-op for ME3 being one example.


----------



## ShyGuy86 (Sep 17, 2011)

Being a gamer is more than playing games. Using a grammatical argument (eg. the fact that if you add an -er at the end of a noun, you mean someone who acts on that noun), may be logically sound, but ignores the existence of a subculture and/or professional group, and is therefore semantically incorrect. If one considers the purely grammatical sense, an X-er stops being that when the activity stops, but there might be a more expanded meaning to the word X-er, which the purely grammatical meaning ignores.

Thus, you're a driver in the expanded sense if you drive a car as a job. Once you stop driving your car... you're still a driver, until the day you resign.
On the other hand, you're a driver in the grammatical sense if and only if you're driving at that specific moment. Once you get out of your car, you stop being a grammatical driver.

Note how this does not necessarily indicate a profession. It's all about whether or not the word aptly describes you once the activity is over.

Maniacally playing one game, or playing games which do not have any significant impact on the development and/or history of the art (I'm looking at you, browser games), may constitute a grammatical gamer (and only during the period during which the game is played). But to be a gamer in the expanded sense, to carry on being a gamer once the gaming is over... requires more than that, in my opinion. And the first requirement is, again in my opinion, having a clear picture of which games and genres exist, both in the present and in the past, and having at least a moderate experience in all game genres and eras.


----------



## dave twothree (Sep 26, 2010)

I think Call of Duty appeals to a lot of casuals because it's just really really easy. The singleplayer is just a rail shooter that holds your hand with lots of special effects thrown in. The multiplayer is run and gun piss easy. 

imo, call of duty is a joke of a game and serves only as a cashcow for activision because it sells purely on its name considering it's just a re-hash every year. Its multiplayer cannot even come close to what counter strike, starcraft1 and 2, and dota is.


----------



## OldSchoolSkater (Jun 3, 2011)

ShyGuy86 said:


> Being a gamer is more than playing games. Using a grammatical argument (eg. the fact that if you add an -er at the end of a noun, you mean someone who acts on that noun), may be logically sound, but ignores the existence of a subculture and/or professional group, and is therefore semantically incorrect. If one considers the purely grammatical sense, an X-er stops being that when the activity stops, but there might be a more expanded meaning to the word X-er, which the purely grammatical meaning ignores.
> 
> Thus, you're a driver in the expanded sense if you drive a car as a job. Once you stop driving your car... you're still a driver, until the day you resign.
> On the other hand, you're a driver in the grammatical sense if and only if you're driving at that specific moment. Once you get out of your car, you stop being a grammatical driver.
> ...


You have spent far too much time concerned with what other gamers are doing. It's already a widely accepted fact for researchers and several hundred thousand other people, if you play games you are a gamer. You can argue all you want about semantics, but no one is going to care. You are a different level of gamer than I am - yes, congratulations. It doesn't change anything.


----------



## Lmatic3030 (Nov 3, 2011)

Charizard said:


> Consistently play video games? Look forward to upcoming releases? Congrats! You're a gamer.
> 
> Anything else is self-gratifying elitism.


I'll roll with this


----------



## ShyGuy86 (Sep 17, 2011)

OldSchoolSkater said:


> You can argue all you want about semantics, but no one is going to care.


The fact that no one cares doesn't even begin to argue against my point. Not caring works both ways. If you want to use a word to mean something it doesn't, I don't care either. Feel free to call a pear a cantilever bridge, too.

Or, if on the ther hand, you wish to explore the use of words and the meaning they convey, semantics is a precious tool.

Anyone can consider themselves a grammatical gamer while they play, and no one can ever take that away from them because grammar supports them, but they're not automatically part of the gamer subculture. 
And as much as they're free to call themselves a gamer (just as you're free to call a button a dog), they're using the word in the wrong way.

Playing CoD and never even heard of Doom? 
Spend hours on Skyrim but never even bothered to look up _The Elder Scrolls: Arena_ on Wikipedia? 
Can't mention any game where the right mouse button is used for secondary fire instead of pulling up the sights?
None of these examples are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions to not consider yourself part of the gaming subculture... but they sure are pointers.

A much needed EDIT:
It's not about being "cool", or part of an "élite". It's about calling an apple an apple. The last adjective I would use to describe myself is "cool".


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

I don't care if you call me a gamer or not. I guess i'm not "hardcore" like all the cool guys and gals because i play for the enjoyment and not the title. give me a break


----------



## OldSchoolSkater (Jun 3, 2011)

ShyGuy86 said:


> The fact that no one cares doesn't even begin to argue against my point. Not caring works both ways. If you want to use a word to mean something it doesn't, I don't care either. Feel free to call a pear a cantilever bridge, too.
> 
> Or, if on the ther hand, you wish to explore the use of words and the meaning they convey, semantics is a precious tool.
> 
> ...


Guys. Everyone is taking this far too seriously. Face it. My grandma is a gamer. I am a gamer. And yes, although you play more games and are probably better at them, you are a gamer just the same. You can get into subgenres of gamers all you want - if you play video games you are a gamer. It is a well established fact now. No one cares how much you argue it - it is what it is. Accept it and move on.

EDIT:
And OH NOOOO! My 13 year old cousin plays COD (among several dozen other games) but wasn't even born yet when Doom came out so he hasn't played it. He calls himself a gamer. UH OHHHHHH CALL THE GAMER POLICE!!!!

And please do not quote me anymore as I am done arguing this. There's nothing really to even argue about - a gamer is a person who plays video games. End of story.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

The pure simple fact is that while some claim to have "game" I ultimately have the most _game_ here....

Oh wait, this isn't that kind of thread is it?

Darn.


----------



## ShyGuy86 (Sep 17, 2011)

OldSchoolSkater said:


> No one cars how much you argue it - it is what it is. Accept it and move on.


I'm sorry, but if you say that, so can I. No one cares how much *you* argue it, it is what it is, move on, etc, etc.
Saying "No one cares, things are the way they are" is something anyone can say, to support any kind of point of view, all the time, in any place. It doesn't add, nor detract anything from the discussion.
If you're bent on calling a peach a mushroom and saying "no one cares, move on", feel free to do so, but it won't prove you right.

If you play video games, you are _grammatically _a gamer, no doubts. I could never say anything that can change that. But my other arguments about words having more than their strict grammatical meaning still stand.

Also, for some reason, you seem to think my point is that I'm better than you. Why would you think that? If I were to belong to a subculture someone else doesn't belong to, it wouldn't make me any better than them.
Nor it is about skill. Heck, as far as I'm concerned, you could totally kick my *** at CoD.

The way I see it, being a gamer is about, along with actually _playing_ games, being genuinely interested in their development in time, history, technology, cultural impact in movies, TV shows, lifestyle... etc.



OldSchoolSkater said:


> And OH NOOOO! My 13 year old cousin plays COD (among several dozen other games) but wasn't even born yet when Doom came out


You didn't even read the part where i said those were neither necessary nor sufficient conditions huh? Chill. It's not a personal aggression towards you, or your cousin.
And the fact he wasn't born yet doesn't mean he can't give it a try now.


----------



## OldSchoolSkater (Jun 3, 2011)

ShyGuy86 said:


> I'm sorry, but if you say that, so can I. No one cares how much *you* argue it, it is what it is, move on, etc, etc.
> Saying "No one cares, things are the way they are" is something anyone can say, to support any kind of point of view, all the time, in any place. It doesn't add, nor detract anything from the discussion.
> If you're bent on calling a peach a mushroom and saying "no one cares, move on", feel free to do so, but it won't prove you right.
> 
> ...


Hey. Let it go. It's in text books and several hundred other books about video game entertainment - I read a bunch when I was taking the class in college. Researchers and professors around the world have agreed to classify people as gamers if they play games. What you are talking about is a subgenre of gamers. As far as you not trying to be elite or whatever, you clearly are by trying to classify yourself as someone who is more in tune with the gaming world than perhaps myself. You are trying your hardest to prove to me that I am wrong and talking about all the grammatical definition crap.

If you are really interested in the development and history of video games than I suggest you pick up a few books written by scholars about the subject. There you will see the definition of a gamer as someone who plays video games and then the different subgenres.

Again, please do not quote me as I am done here.


----------



## ShyGuy86 (Sep 17, 2011)

OldSchoolSkater said:


> Again, please do not quote me as I am done here.


I will leave the matter, but I can't help but feel amused by how you're convinced you can just swoop in the issue, cite unnamed and unprovided references, and think you can seal the discussion by requesting not to be quoted.

The discussion will go on without you, thank you very much. You can't have the final word just because you want to.

I said what I said, and I stand by it. I provided a logical argument and you have done nothing to point out any logical fallacies in it. If you don't like my reasoning, you are more than welcome to argue against it by pointing out where it is you don't agree with me, rather than summoning higher authorities and acting like you're providing the One and Sole Truth of the universe. You seem to be declaring you have the only real true vision of the truth, and that holding any other is tantamount to madness. My conclusions, on the other hand, always began with "in my opinion", or "the way I see it". If you don't like my conclusions, you're free to disagree. But don't say the debate should stop after you've spoken.


----------



## OldSchoolSkater (Jun 3, 2011)

ShyGuy86 said:


> I will leave the matter, but I can't help but feel amused by how you're convinced you can just swoop in the issue, cite unnamed and unprovided references, and think you can seal the discussion by requesting not to be quoted.
> 
> The discussion will go on without you, thank you very much. You can't have the final word just because you want to.
> 
> I said what i said, and I stand by it. I provided a logical argument and you have done nothing to point out any logical fallacies in it. If you don't like my reasoning, you are more than welcome to argue against it by pointing out where it is you don't agree with me, rather than summoning higher authorities and acting like you're providing the One and Sole Truth of the universe.


Dude. Stop quoting me. Please!
What sources have you cited? None? Oh ok. I'm sorry I don't know the names of every author of every text book I read in college but it is widely accepted - and if you are so interested in gaming and the history, etc, then I suggest you pick up a book about video game entertainment by a scholarly source and read it for yourself.

Now. Stop. Quoting. Me.


----------



## ShyGuy86 (Sep 17, 2011)

Again, I'm amused by how you demand to end the argument. Fine, I'll stop quoting you, but the discussion doesn't end just because you want it to.

I won't have to read a book of video game entertainment, as I've _lived_ video game entertainment history. The definition of professors and scholars make to analyze the market are very useful to plan sales, but they fail to provide insight into social realities. A person who plays games is a gamer? Very well. That's just as insightful as saying that a person who picks apples is an apple-picker. I don't need a professor to tell me that.

I haven't provided sources because I haven't mentioned other scholars in the first place. I've made a logical argument _of my own_, rather than using others'. And the argument I made still stands.


----------



## Chris2012 (Sep 5, 2010)

I'm sorry. I guess I misunderstood the concept that a gamer is somebody who plays games.

Does it matter what make and model the vehicle is for the person to be defined as a "driver"? Does it matter the type of literature for the audience to be considered serious enthusiasts?

No, it doesn't. I don't care if it's Pong, Angry Birds, Call of Duty, or WoW... a game is a game. Some people only have the money for the major blockbuster titles. They are still considered just as much gamer as anyone else.

And in my opinion, it's a annoying, narcissistic attitudes that lead to the opinion of the OP. Who gives a flying **** if you play the most hardcore of video games? Does that make you a professional?

Has gaming really gotten to the point where we need to define who gets the right to call themselves gamers? Wow... and you guys complain about society, you prideful hypocrites!


----------



## Innamorata (Sep 20, 2011)

Prideful hypocrites? Wtf?

On topic: Yes I would call myself a gamer. I don't feel the need to justify that to anyone.


----------



## Chris2012 (Sep 5, 2010)

Innamorata said:


> Prideful hypocrites? Wtf?
> 
> On topic: Yes I would call myself a gamer. I don't feel the need to justify that to anyone.


Yes, prideful hypocrites. These people resent society for not accepting them and yet they feel the need to set guidelines for what it takes to be a "real" gamer. They pride themselves in the fact that they spend countless hours playing the most hardcore of games, whatever the hell that means.

Now THERE'S a "wtf?" for you.


----------



## Selbbin (Aug 10, 2010)

If you like playing computer games you're a gamer.

If you like reading books, you're a reader.

Simple. It's not like you have to be the best at it. As long as you, wait for it... _*ENJOY*_ playing games. I have noticed that many younger gamers (under 25) tend to view gaming purely as a competition and not as FUN. I've played against a few people that only care about body counts and being better, dismissing 'noobs' and hurling abuse. Hey *KIDS*, have some fun!

I've been playing computer games with intense regularity since before the OP was even born. Should I take offense that he now considers himself a gamer while precluding me because my gaming has been reduced to casual weekends encompassing one or two games? Because I may find some games too hard or get bored before reaching the end? Because I avoid online games and only ever play LAN with friends or single player campaigns?

The answer is: No.

I am also a gamer. (and an old one at that)

I also find it funny that at just 23, the OP calls himself 'old school' and complains about 'new age' gamers. Dude, you ARE a new age gamer (unless you know all about loading cassette tape games on a c64, remember taking ages to load each new screen on Space Quest when you needed 11 floppy discs, remember when computer stores mostly just had Amiga games, remember playing most of your games with a joystick, and found it impossible to get to the last level on Silkworm.)


----------



## Innamorata (Sep 20, 2011)

Chris2012 said:


> Yes, prideful hypocrites. These people resent society for not accepting them and yet they feel the need to set guidelines for what it takes to be a "real" gamer. They pride themselves in the fact that they spend countless hours playing the most hardcore of games, whatever the hell that means.
> 
> Now THERE'S a "wtf?" for you.


Actually one of them spends countless hours flirting with me.

So there's a wtf?! for you.

I wouldn't describe him as prideful or a hypocrite, but then I must obviously be biased.


----------



## Chris2012 (Sep 5, 2010)

Innamorata said:


> Actually one of them spends countless hours flirting with me.
> 
> So there's a wtf?! for you.
> 
> I wouldn't describe him as prideful or a hypocrite, but then I must obviously be biased.


I'm sorry, I'm getting mixed signals. By the way you worded that, it almost seems like you're trying to add value to this person by saying that they have _you_? It almost seems as if you think I'll be motivated by this person's ability to "flirt with you for countless hours".

But no... no... I see what you're really saying. You're really just implying that you have the same attitude, or are at least defending that attitude.

I'm not really sure what you're expecting. Are you expecting me to be shocked? Are you expecting me to bow in fear and apologize, begging for acceptance?

Alright alright... let me quit beating around the bush and get to the point. Here it is...

_I don't really give a **** who you are. You aren't special, and you don't change the fact that the OP's mindset a purely pathetic attitude to have towards the concept of gaming. So, go flirt with your boyfriend while he plays WoW and all those hardcore games. One day, you'll be wishing that he gives you the time of day but he'll only continue to be the real gamer that he's meant to be._

Thanks!


----------



## erasercrumbs (Dec 17, 2009)




----------



## Noca (Jun 24, 2005)

A gamer is someone who plays a lot of video games. A "pG" or progamer is someone who is actually good at them, takes gaming seriously, and is often making money by doing so.


----------



## sean88 (Apr 29, 2006)

I think they're real gamers, they probably play more than I do. However, I definitely think they lack proper attention spans. lol


----------



## Misanthropic79 (May 6, 2011)

OldSchoolSkater said:


> Now. Stop. Quoting. Me.


:b Sorry had to do it, that was like a big red button with a sign saying "DO NOT PUSH!"


----------



## Xtraneous (Oct 18, 2011)

^_^


----------



## THEuTASTEsOFeINKd (Apr 10, 2010)

OP's cat


----------



## rapidfox1 (Sep 13, 2010)

I think anyone who plays a game is called a gamer.


----------



## MaxSchreck (Nov 1, 2010)

i totally agree with the Op and im proud in being a true gamer


----------



## RawrJessiRawr (Nov 3, 2010)

I actually agree, only playing one game doesn't make you a gamer. I play many types, and have played many consoles like original nintendo, nintendo 64, ps1 and all the others, game cube, wii, xbox 360, xbox, super nintendo, sega, computer gaming, game boys. I still have some of the consoles and games <3


----------



## RawrJessiRawr (Nov 3, 2010)

OldSchoolSkater:1059432643 said:


> Sanctus said:
> 
> 
> > Gamer is a label that reinforces the stereotype of the nonsocial,game language speaking(l33t,pwn) home hermit image , which is wrong well *if u play any game you are technically a gamer*
> ...


Haha thats no gamer, only an app player, microsoft already talked about how people think they're gamers just because they play angry bird this generation, how the concept has gone down just because of smart phones, but that doesn't make you a gamer, if anything, thats casual. Now if the 15 yr old girl was playing game boys or psps, thats more like gaming. Apps are just fun apps, period.


----------



## Genetic Garbage (May 7, 2011)

Do people actually care whether they are regarded as gamers? And why do so many care about if somebody deserves to be called a gamer? Personally, I don't care and I have never felt the need to refer to myself or identify as a gamer. 

This reminds me of a black metal thread in which people were debating the definition of tr00ness. Elitism seems to be an important part of all subcultures and scenes and is one of the reasons why I stay away from them.

Trve, kvlt, gr1m, evil gamers.


----------



## leave me alone (Apr 1, 2011)

I agree with op. It doesnt matter, what they think, but it gets annoying when they have the need to present themselfs as true gamers every opportunity they get, just to impress the other folks. Call of duty is probably the best example. Long time ago i've been exchanging messages with this girl, who presented herself as "nerdy gamer chick" - turns out only games she was playing at time was CoD and facebook games.


----------



## someguy8 (Sep 10, 2010)

Idk. Id think being a good COD player/team would take a lot more talent than beating a zelda game. I dont play COD, but competitive games are always going to be harder when youre playing with competitive players. I also think games on average are harder today than 10 or 20 years ago. It just doesnt seem like it because you werent naturally as good at games back then.


----------



## Chris2012 (Sep 5, 2010)

RawrJessiRawr said:


> Haha thats no gamer, only an app player, *microsoft already talked about how people think they're gamers just because they play angry bird this generation*, how the concept has gone down just because of smart phones, but that doesn't make you a gamer, if anything, thats casual. Now if the 15 yr old girl was playing game boys or psps, thats more like gaming. Apps are just fun apps, period.


That's because Microsoft isn't making any money off of Angry Birds. Microsoft would, however, encourage the play of Halo and proudly give the title "Gamer" to anybody who plays it.


----------



## Chris2012 (Sep 5, 2010)

someguy8 said:


> Idk. Id think being a good COD player/team would take a lot more talent than beating a zelda game. I dont play COD, but competitive games are always going to be harder when youre playing with competitive players. I also think games on average are harder today than 10 or 20 years ago. It just doesnt seem like it because you werent naturally as good at games back then.


I don't necessarily agree with this. It may be a competitive game, but when you take into account the massive amounts of people playing, you're bound to get random sucky opponents.

And as IGN pointed out, skill is not the only driving force to who wins a game. The overall circumstances dictate who does well. If you've played CoD for any amount of time, you'd know that you could go 40-0 (k/d) on one match and 0-40 the next.

Call of Duty's foundation is the carrot on the stick act. That's the driving force of playing the game. Competition really isn't that much of a factor in the long-run.


----------



## someguy8 (Sep 10, 2010)

Chris2012 said:


> I don't necessarily agree with this. It may be a competitive game, but when you take into account the massive amounts of people playing, you're bound to get random sucky opponents.


Thats why I said when you are going versus competitive players. Yea its an easy game when your opponents are much worse than you. Most people playing fps, or any game actually, plays them casually. A lot of online games deal with that by forcing you to play against people on your same level during random games(Idk if COD does or if its a seperate game mode).



> And as IGN pointed out, skill is not the only driving force to who wins a game. The overall circumstances dictate who does well. If you've played CoD for any amount of time, you'd know that you could go 40-0 (k/d) on one match and 0-40 the next.


In any game the best player/team does not win everytime. Not just video games but in sports aswell. They will just have the highest win ratio. Thats why things are never settled in just one match in tournaments. And do you go 40-0 and 0-40 fighting the same people or different people? If its same ive never played a game that random.

Anyways, I guarantee beating the best Call of Duty player in the world would be leagues harder than beating an old zelda game. Even a game say like...Ninja Gaiden on the hardest difficulty. But if youre going to go try to win 1v1 in a game vs the best a fps is your best chance. Team play in fps is where the "skill" is.


----------



## OldSchoolSkater (Jun 3, 2011)

Can I ask a question to those who consider themselves to be "true gamers" over someone like myself who plays casually and is usually a couple years behind with games?

Why do you care about classifying yourselves as a more elite gamer than most other people? Does it give you a sense of identity? A sense of worth?

With skateboarding there are a lot of subgenres, just like in gaming. However, I wouldn't say other people aren't true skateboaders. The guys who wear the clothes and talk about it but don't actually skate, they aren't skateboarders. But if they skateboard at all, in any way, than they are a skateboarder and I would not argue that. I think the different with skateboarders and gamers are that we see ourselves as a small percentage of people, so most of the time no matter what their style or preference of what to skate we identify ourselves as a collective group.

The 10 year old kid kickflipping over and over again in his basement when there's 10 feet of snow outside is a skateboarder just the same as my friends and I who build and pay rent for our indoor skateboarding options. Yea, there's a difference in subgenres, but we are happy to include him as a skateboarder because we enjoy seeing the younger kids have fun with skating as well.

I would think it should be the same with gamers. You would be happy that so many people want to be a gamer these days. You should be happy that you aren't seen as just the hardcore gamers who lives in their parents basement eating chips and drinking mountain dew for weeks a time. You should be happy and accepting that people want to be part of your small group of people, and you should be happy people like this pay money for games so that developers will continue to make them. If only the "true" or "hardcore" gamers were spending money on video games than there wouldn't be nearly as many games, as many systems, and they certainly wouldn't be as affordable as they are (although I do not consider $60 for a game affordable, personally).


----------



## leave me alone (Apr 1, 2011)

It used to be just the small group of people, actually. The same people who call themselfs "gamers" now, would talk **** about "true gamers" in the past. But nowdays all the cool kids are gamers, so why not join in.

I dont really care about classifying myself as anything, i dont like labels. I dont mind, when someone says "I like to play games" or such. But it is annoying when someone keep saying it like it was something very "cool" and superior to everything else.

I dont know, i guess it is difficult to compare gaming to skateboarding. I used to own a board myself, but i would never call myself a skater, because i was terrible at it. Imagine a new, very mainstream and shallow sub-genre of skateboarding, aimed mostly towards kids and teenagers, rapidly decreasing the skill difficulty, compared to the old skateboarding. It would get so popular, so that when someone mentions "skateboard", everyone would think of this new mainstream thing, instead of the real old school skateboarding.


----------



## Joe (May 18, 2010)

dave twothree said:


> I think Call of Duty appeals to a lot of casuals because it's just really really easy. The singleplayer is just a rail shooter that holds your hand with lots of special effects thrown in. The multiplayer is run and gun piss easy.
> 
> imo, call of duty is a joke of a game and serves only as a cashcow for activision because it sells purely on its name considering it's just a re-hash every year. Its multiplayer cannot even come close to what counter strike, starcraft1 and 2, and dota is.


Starcraft and Dota shouldn't be compared to call of duty since its nothing like it, ive never played counter strike though so ill shh about that.

But difficulty for multiplayer is different with call of duty since its not 1v1. But doesnt really matter what you play, games are meant to be enjoyed.


----------



## dave twothree (Sep 26, 2010)

jJoe said:


> Starcraft and Dota shouldn't be compared to call of duty since its nothing like it, ive never played counter strike though so ill shh about that.
> 
> But difficulty for multiplayer is different with call of duty since its not 1v1. But doesnt really matter what you play, games are meant to be enjoyed.


CoD just seems like a crappy product living off the hype of its name and activision just takes advantage of its fans.

It's what annoys me about the series.


----------



## Joe (May 18, 2010)

dave twothree said:


> CoD just seems like a crappy product living off the hype of its name and activision just takes advantage of its fans.
> 
> It's what annoys me about the series.


I can't really argue with you there, Im the only person I know who enjoys the campaigns more than actual single player based games. (not all though and it doesn't have much replayabilty.

In a few years time I wouldn't be suprised to see battlefield overtaking it alot of people aren't as excited about cod anymore (could be due to age though) just for something different.

Talking about cod im fed up with over expensive dlc, I don't buy any of it but still for Arkham City the Catwoman dlc is day one and 8 quid, only rockstar do their dlc right (and bethesada maybe but ive only used oblivion dlc which is more of a expansion than dlc.) same with deus ex, I took it back after completing it but theres dlc directly linked to a point in the story where you are apparently 'frozen' for 3 days but they've made a dlc to cover what actually happened. (Its not a spoiler btw, more information would be in the actual dlc.)


----------



## thegeekinthepink (Sep 24, 2010)

OP here,

i just take pride in the fact that i have a well rounded knowledge of a lot of different games and systems. I love the history of video games.

other then that, i don't really care what someone else thinks about it. I just know that for ME, someone who only plays call of duty is not a gamer. That doesn't stop them from considering themselves gamers though.


----------



## OldSchoolSkater (Jun 3, 2011)

leave me alone said:


> It used to be just the small group of people, actually. The same people who call themselfs "gamers" now, would talk **** about "true gamers" in the past. But nowdays all the cool kids are gamers, so why not join in.
> 
> I dont really care about classifying myself as anything, i dont like labels. I dont mind, when someone says "I like to play games" or such. But it is annoying when someone keep saying it like it was something very "cool" and superior to everything else.
> 
> *I dont know, i guess it is difficult to compare gaming to skateboarding. I used to own a board myself, but i would never call myself a skater, because i was terrible at it. Imagine a new, very mainstream and shallow sub-genre of skateboarding, aimed mostly towards kids and teenagers, rapidly decreasing the skill difficulty, compared to the old skateboarding. It would get so popular, so that when someone mentions "skateboard", everyone would think of this new mainstream thing, instead of the real old school skateboarding*.


Interesting point. And I think skateboarders would be split on this. I've come to terms that my generation has long since been passed up by the new up and comers whose common skills were unheard of when I started skating. It's a different subgenre, a different subculture, and definitely a different attitude. However, I stick by my statement: Either you skate and you are skating next to me, or you don't skate and we don't skate together. The older I get the more I realize that skating is skating, no matter what the skill level.

That is just my opinion, and I can totally see from other peoples viewpoints that certain people who consider themselves a skateboard may not be seen as one. So in return, I can understand why some of you wouldn't see certain types of gamers as true gamers. However, I still stick by my statement, again, that scholars and researchers have classified a gamer as anyone who plays video games on a fairly frequent basis. This, of course, is up to interpretation and no, I do not have the text books from my class with me to quote.


----------



## Watercoulour (Jul 24, 2011)

I know where youre commnig from D:

Im kinda young so i havent experienced all the consoles you have, but whenever i ask someone what they play or what games they have, i always get the same thing:

Xbox and Call of Duty. 

As for me, i have owned a super nintendo, atari, gamecube, gameboy advance, sp, ds, playstation, ps2, wii, and a ps3.
Whenever i talk about games like Zelda, Resident Evil, Okami, Sonic, even Pokemon or Mario i get flamed. "How could you like those games? They take no skill whatsoever- lame."

Doesnt being a gamer mean you play more than 2 or 3 games? Im not trying to glorify myself, but it seems some of these "gamers" are best being called "COD/MW junkies". D:


----------



## dave twothree (Sep 26, 2010)

I guess the only thing worse than the CoD series is its fanatical fans..


----------



## someguy8 (Sep 10, 2010)

Watercoulour said:


> Whenever i talk about games like Zelda, Resident Evil, Okami, Sonic, even Pokemon or Mario i get flamed. "How could you like those games? They take no skill whatsoever- lame."


In my real life everyone only plays shooting games anymore. I feel like i have to play my Mario, Sonic, Fighting, Rpgs, Action/Adventure games in a dark corner. Not because of skill-level but people in my world consider those as games for small children. Someone walks in on me while im playing Sonic but what they see is a 22 year old man playing with a rattle. They act disturbed when i do this like its morally wrong to still like this stuff as an adult.

It is very annoying because I know im not weird for still liking stuff i grew up on. It is them...


----------



## Watercoulour (Jul 24, 2011)

someguy8 said:


> In my real life everyone only plays shooting games anymore. I feel like i have to play my Mario, Sonic, Fighting, Rpgs, Action/Adventure games in a dark corner. Not because of skill-level but people in my world consider those as games for small children. Someone walks in on me while im playing Sonic but what they see is a 22 year old man playing with a rattle. They act disturbed when i do this like its morally wrong to still like this stuff as an adult.
> 
> It is very annoying because I know im not weird for still liking stuff i grew up on. It is them...


I get what you mean >.<
I talk to someone and they dont take me seriously :/
Theres also sexist comments (and my incredibly unthreatening screenname) but its like all they care about it is too see who blows up more people. I think its just to seem macho, but thats how society works now i guess *facepalm*


----------



## iAmCodeMonkey (May 23, 2010)

Matomi said:


> Why play Modern Warfare 3 when there's Skyrim?


I agree. Except, replace Skyrim with Diablo II.

(I haven't bought Skyrim yet.)


----------



## Ohhai (Oct 15, 2010)

Matomi said:


> Why play Modern Warfare 3 when there's Skyrim?


Why play an unfinished game(Skyrim), when there's Saints Row the Third.


----------



## GPU (Nov 5, 2011)

i just found out that BF3 and MW3 are the same... = a cult (niche?). it is basically the same thing... http://ps3.dashhacks.com/2011/11/18/bf3-and-mw3-same-game


----------



## Fatman Joe (Nov 29, 2011)

What irks me about all the shooter games is that there are too many of them doing the exact same things and coming out at the same time. I personally say it got really bad when people started wanting hardcore realism in their games. Not saying general realism is bad in games, but now there seems to bee a little too much in the shooter genre. Some companies need to branch out sometime and put some oomph into their guns.


----------



## erasercrumbs (Dec 17, 2009)

Ohhai said:


> Why play an unfinished game(Skyrim), when there's Saints Row the Third.


Quick question: if someone (like, say, me) were to find the humor in Saints Row to be unfunny, would it still be possible to enjoy the game?


----------



## Ohhai (Oct 15, 2010)

erasercrumbs said:


> Quick question: if someone (like, say, me) were to find the humor in Saints Row to be unfunny, would it still be possible to enjoy the game?


Sure, I mean the humor is a huge selling point that makes a good game great for me, however they've really knocked down the repetitiveness from the second one, so I'd say try it for sure.


----------

