Interesting Research: "Sexist Games=Sexist Gamers?"

[MrPopo]

Using the words real video game is pretty elitist.

You keep using that word like it's a bad thing.

[the7k]

Bejeweled and Candy Crush are, to my knowledge, real games. My understanding is that they do have goals and undesirable end states, though I've never played them so I can't be totally sure.

Those who play Bejeweled and Candy Crush and nothing else are not what I'd call real gamers. The way "Gamer" is used these days typically means those who place gaming as a primary life passion. It's pretty much why "casual gamer" is used these days in conjunction with "real gamer" (or "core gamer," I've heard others use) and "hardcore gamer." As a way of differentiating those who are keenly aware of the game mechanics and are willing to dig deep for off-color experiences, those who just want pretty visuals and an epic feel that has been sufficiently sold to them on hype, and those who don't even own a gaming console and just want something to pass the time while they wait in line at the bank or a restaurant.

Just as there are different tiers of "movie goers" there are different tiers of gamers. There's people who see an undeveloped jump scare and sigh, and there are those that stand up and loudly shout in the theater "Don't go in there!" There are those that look at the CGI work and think about how far the craft has come since The Phantom Menace, and those who just want to see Hulk toss robots around. Those who marvel at expert camera work and direction, and those who walk out because they expected action and/or tits.

[pierrot]

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]

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'.

Thanks alienjesus -- you said it better than me.

My problem with the concept of a "real gamers" category is not only the implication that someone needs to play a certain kind of game, or demonstrate some kind of skill, before they can earn their right to define themselves by the hobby, but also that people actually think such a right must be earned at all.

If someone says to me, "I'm a runner," I don't immediately ask them, "Oh yeah? How many 10Ks have you finished?" and then tell them they're not a real runner because they haven't finished any, or haven't been wearing the right shoes, or weren't on a certain terrain at the time. If they say they've run upwards of twenty and a smattering of triathlons I am definitely going to say, "Damn! You're hardcore!" The difference here is that the baseline for normal is the objective "likes to go for a run," not the subjective "is really dedicated to it" or "kicks ass."

Qualifiers should exist to give recognition to people with special achievements, talents, or specializations within a hobby, not to isolate or belittle the everyday folks who are having fun in their own way.

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." So, I think it would be better if the hardcores, professionals, and whathaveyou would embrace their extended titles consistently instead of insisting (or using language that insists) that the line forms at their level for basic inclusion. If you're hardcore skilled or hardcore dedicated, that is seriously very cool. But it doesn't mean that casual players aren't real gamers. They're not detracted from your accomplishments or fun by existing.

[the7k]

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."

[Erik_Twice]

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.

"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.

I think the stuff that bothers you, Key-Glyph is simply group-cohesion at work. I think you should really consider this angle and see if it keeps bothering you because I feel we are onto something here.

[isiolia]

"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.

[pierrot]

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."

This clarifies for me the parallel you were intending to draw, but honestly, no. I think it's a poor analogy. You're talking about minor subsets of people in the greater gaming community which comprises of a majority of people who play CoD, Madden, FIFA, Candy Crush, Minecraft, etc. The people you're alluding to are rather like people who only watch movies on 16mm film, or are specifically and/or exclusively interested in horror films, while the general movie going audience is watching the latest summer blockbuster action flick. The people who play CoD and its clones, or the latest and greatest in yearly sports games are probably just as willing to call themselves "(hard)core gamers" as those who play Street Fighter professionally.

[Ivo]

"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.

I'm not necessarily affiliating myself with whoever is elitist about it, I personally wouldn't say that any games are not real (some of them are bad, some of them are good).

I do think currently the majority of people would use "gamer" for someone that is a dedicated enthusiast or professional, and that is in analogy with the other terms referred to above.

Similarly for driver. I don't usually see that term being used for someone that doesn't do it for money (taxi driver, bus driver, race car driver) or in some other specialized context (designated driver). But I'm not a native speaker.
Maybe that is because a significant % of people have a driver's license anyway so when you go out of your way to say someone is a driver that implicitly refers to something beyond that "default" of driving to work and back or whatever.

And the same for reader. Someone that just reads the newspaper or a book every blue moon I think is not referred to as a reader, there is a default literacy level and most people can read. When I hear someone is a book reader I implicitly imagine they read more frequently than average at least, possibly significantly so but I'm not carefully drawing any lines.

I guess nowadays a significant % of people play something on the browser (facebook maybe), a phone or a tablet, and when someone goes out of their way to say someone is a gamer that implicitly refers to something beyond that "default" of occasionally playing a game because the opportunity is there when there is nothing else to do.

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.

[isiolia]

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.

Personally, that's where I'd really make a distinction too. Someone electing to use their free time to play games would be a gamer. Casual gamers would be people just killing time or joining in on a party game or whatnot. More dedicated folks would probably subclassify themselves

More generally though, just with regards to language, those terms do broadly describe anyone engaging in the activity, at least contextually. The person in control of a car is referred to as the driver. If an author says "dear reader" they aren't assuming some level of dedication, they're simply referring to whoever is currently absorbing their material. Same, one could say "readers of the Times" and be correct.
In a general sense, you can say that people who engage in playing video games are gamers, same as everyone moving around the pool is a swimmer, or there are drivers in the other cars.

In some uses, sure, saying someone is a driver could imply a bit more. Same with gamer - but it'd logically apply to the larger group as well, at least in some use.

Like I mentioned above though, that can often be within the context of marketing. Pushing the consumer to feel like a particular product is for the true participant in whatever activity...I mean, that's you, right? You're better than those sheeple - you're more dedicated, you know the difference, and that's why you should choose our product, etc.

More just as food for thought, in that, perhaps the focus on terminology here is the result of how games have been advertised, which could also be an influence on what audiences might be drawn to them.