Why Do You Have To Be Good At Video Games To Be a Gamer?

[Menegrothx]

I don't think your ability at gaming has anything to do with warranting the title "gamer". Personally I think I'm very competent at beating "difficult" games but with that in mind I'm not a fan of being called a "gamer". "Video Game Enthusiast" is fine by me.

I think that video game enthusiast is a more suitable title for a person who's intrested in the history of video games and gaming platforms and thus plays everything from 2600 and VIC-20 to modern games, reads developer interviews, books on gaming history and so on while a gamer is a person who dedicates a great deal of time to master an individual game (usually a competetive FPS/fighter/RTS/MMORPG player) and only plays a handful of games at a time.

[J T]

You have to be good at video games so that you can enjoy Dark Souls, Super Meat Boy, and Super Mario Bros (The Lost Levels).

[outlaw_moon]

I consider myself a gamer even though I am only good at a handful of games. By good, I mean when competing I can actually hold my own and for example might win 6 out of 10 rounds of KOFXIII. Like others have mentioned, VGs are there to entertain you, plain and simple. And unlike other forms of entertainment, they are digital entertainment and hold no life/death value in the real world.

I guess it does mean more for those who compete for a living in VG tournaments, but for the rest of us [99%] they are just there to entertain us. And yes, even getting my a$$ handed to me in Stuntman was ummm fun

[Luke]

I think that video game enthusiast is a more suitable title for a person who's intrested in the history of video games and gaming platforms and thus plays everything from 2600 and VIC-20 to modern games, reads developer interviews, books on gaming history and so on while a gamer is a person who dedicates a great deal of time to master an individual game (usually a competetive FPS/fighter/RTS/MMORPG player) and only plays a handful of games at a time.

In that case I am definitely a video game enthusiast.

[AppleQueso]

I think that video game enthusiast is a more suitable title for a person who's intrested in the history of video games and gaming platforms and thus plays everything from 2600 and VIC-20 to modern games, reads developer interviews, books on gaming history and so on while a gamer is a person who dedicates a great deal of time to master an individual game (usually a competetive FPS/fighter/RTS/MMORPG player) and only plays a handful of games at a time.

In that case I am definitely a video game enthusiast.

same here

I'd wager it's probably the same for a lot of people on here

[marlowe221]

Oh, there are lots of games I'm not very good at.

I recently got a Sega Genesis. I never had one growing up. I have the following games:

Shinobi 3
Streets of Rage 2
Sonic 1
Beyond Oasis
Starflight
Thunderforce 2
Truxton

The only one I can beat? Streets of Rage 2. I'm pretty good at beat'em ups.

But I have never beaten a shm'up in my entire life. Not a single one. I don't even play fighting games - I can't ever seem to do the combos.

But there are other genres I am pretty good at. I've beaten lots of RPGs and strategy games. I am pretty good at beat'em ups. I'm just OK at platformers.

I think everyone is better at some kinds of games than other kinds.

[Luke]

The only one I can beat? Streets of Rage 2. I'm pretty good at beat'em ups.

Don't take this the wrong way, but SOR2 is insanely easy. I don't know of an enemy including the bosses in the game that can't be easily beaten by "punch, pause while stunned, punch, repeat".

I wholeheartedly believe part of the reason I hear a lot of "I can't beat Sonic (or enter game name here)" is because it's so easy to take out a cart and put a new one in. I think a lot of here enjoy the challenge, and at sometimes welcome the frustration of some games. Could be a generational thing, maybe not. All I know is that if I pay for a game, it's going to be played until I finish it (when possible).

[Ack]

I think that video game enthusiast is a more suitable title for a person who's intrested in the history of video games and gaming platforms and thus plays everything from 2600 and VIC-20 to modern games, reads developer interviews, books on gaming history and so on while a gamer is a person who dedicates a great deal of time to master an individual game (usually a competetive FPS/fighter/RTS/MMORPG player) and only plays a handful of games at a time.

And what if I do both? I tend to play only one or two games at a time and run through them doing everything possible, but once I finish, I move on to a new game. I do this across a variety of mediums, and I read and consume a large amount of gaming history. So...what should I be considered?

[Menegrothx]

And what if I do both? I tend to play only one or two games at a time and run through them doing everything possible, but once I finish, I move on to a new game. I do this across a variety of mediums, and I read and consume a large amount of gaming history. So...what should I be considered?

It's just a stereotype. But I do know that many "hardcore" gamers who play a MMORPG or are playing at competitive level in some FPS or RTS game wont bother with any new single player games, even if they take just 8 hours to beat (unless they are absolutely superb like Portal or HL2E2), because investing time in a game like that is a waste of time when you could've used that time practising. On the other hand they might play a game series like Touhou, Street Fighter or Dwarf Fortress on the side every now and then because they offer substantial challenge and time investment usually leads in skill progression. It's apples and oranges anyways. In online games the only objective is to beat other players and there is no clear and defined ending, you'll fight against people again and again, while in a single player game the main objective is to finish the story line and see the end credits. Once you've done that you have beaten the game.

I personally used to only play one online game (FPS or MMORPG) at a time, investing hundreds and some times thousands of hours in to one single game. Then I started playing single player games, going through NES, SNES, PS1 and PC games one at a time systematically. Then I started collecting, and now I play all kinds of games randomly, some just 5-10 minutes at a time while going through a few longer PC and console games at a slower pace (rather than racing through them in 1-3 days like I used to) and I stay the hell away from online games. I finish the story mode on the games that I buy& collect very rarely.

[Gamerforlife]

I would agree with the sentiment that every gamer just has a particular skill set. If you think you suck, you just haven't figured out what you're good at yet. I for one, am not that great at bullet hell shooters, or 2d ship flying shooters in general. So I rarely bother with games like that, unless it's something kind of special like when Deathsmiles got localized or when someone got me a copy of Radiant Silvergun.

Now you show me most beat 'em ups, platform games, and the occasional Japanese RPG, and I'll make those games my bitch. I'm fairly good at certain other genres too, unless it's a genre entry that generally has a reputation for being hard. Then I don't feel like I "suck." I just recognize that the game is aimed at kicking the asses of even skilled, veteran fans of the genre. I generally avoid those types of games nowadays as I find them rather sadistic and not fun to play and I've reached a point in my gaming life where I don't much care about my gaming rep anymore. Hence why I ignore the games mentioned in JT's last post.