pepharytheworm wrote:Using the words real video game is pretty elitist.
You keep using that word like it's a bad thing.
pepharytheworm wrote:Using the words real video game is pretty elitist.
Thanks alienjesus -- you said it better than me.alienjesus wrote:The problem aswell is that people draw the line between what is a 'real' video game and what isn't when they are in fact all real video games because they exist. Your point about categorizing like thing is perfectly valid, but not when you say 'these things are legitimate and these things aren't really video games and are just for the mobile plebs'.
pierrot wrote:Seems like you're trying to illustrate a bon vivant/slack jawed ninny dichotomy, but I'd argue that most "(hard)core" gamers are still the same slack jawed ninnies who know little about the finer details of video games and their history, or are otherwise not holistic in their appreciation.
Key-Glyph wrote:This is the problem I see with the "real gamer" issue -- it's about a certain faction saying "We're the standard, so if you don't measure up, you can't associate with us."[...]But it doesn't mean that casual players aren't real gamers.
Erik_Twice wrote:"Gamer" is not just a label to define people who play games, it's a term similar to "movie buff" that denotes a heavy degree of involvement with the medium and it's also the call sign of a subculture that has this heavy involvement with video games as its identity source. Casual game-players are not gamers in a cultural or societal sense anymore than a person who enjoys Edward Scissorhands is a goth.
the7k wrote:pierrot wrote:Seems like you're trying to illustrate a bon vivant/slack jawed ninny dichotomy, but I'd argue that most "(hard)core" gamers are still the same slack jawed ninnies who know little about the finer details of video games and their history, or are otherwise not holistic in their appreciation.
You don't think that when people start talking about AI patterns, drop rates, frame data, hit boxes and other such stuff, that's not at the same level as those who can watch movies and "see the seams", so to speak? Any amount of looking beyond the surface level is what I believe separates the "core gamer" from the "hardcore gamer."
isiolia wrote:Erik_Twice wrote:"Gamer" is not just a label to define people who play games, it's a term similar to "movie buff" that denotes a heavy degree of involvement with the medium and it's also the call sign of a subculture that has this heavy involvement with video games as its identity source. Casual game-players are not gamers in a cultural or societal sense anymore than a person who enjoys Edward Scissorhands is a goth.
Being fair, "Gamer" is quite analogous to other terms that are very general. "Viewer", "Reader", "Driver", etc. It's more logical to use it as a catch-all term. How much of trying to associate it with a subculture or identity actually makes sense, and how much of it is marketing? 'cause stroking that "more discerning, more demanding" ego tends to be exactly how a lot of marketing goes.
With how varied fandom can be in subject and degree, it makes more sense to tack that on, rather than try to raise the bar on such a generic term.
Ivo wrote:In my mind it is about the dedication the person has to whatever activity, does the person choose to spend their free time in this or that way. If it is just because they are stuck somewhere waiting like at the airport and then they buy a magazine or a book or play something - anything - in their mobile, but if they were at home with more options they would do something else. That is in my opinion a valid qualitative distinction, making it quantitative and drawing a line somewhere is more difficult.