MoogleViper Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 In a similar vein to what others have said, I find people who call themselves "gamers" are 90% full of shit. It's either exclusively fifa/CoD, or exclusively WoW. That's not being a gamer. I wouldn't call myself a film fanatic if I only ever watched the Harry Potter series. "Yes. I love hidden object games." I don't even know what that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 I don't even know what that is. Exactly what it says on the tin. It's like Where's Waldo?, except you get a whole list of objects to find in an image. It's video games for really boring people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diageo Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 In a similar vein to what others have said, I find people who call themselves "gamers" are 90% full of shit. It's either exclusively fifa/CoD, or exclusively WoW. That's not being a gamer. I wouldn't call myself a film fanatic if I only ever watched the Harry Potter series. I don't even know what that is. Isn't a gamer someone who plays games? So really it's more like calling yourself a film watcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Isn't a gamer someone who plays games? So really it's more like calling yourself a film watcher. But I wouldn't call somebody who's only watched one series of films a film watcher. "Do you listen to music?" "Yeah" "What music do you listen to?" "Justin Bieber" "What else?" "Just that" That's not somebody who listens to music, that's somebody who listens to Justin Bieber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diageo Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 But I wouldn't call somebody who's only watched one series of films a film watcher. "Do you listen to music?" "Yeah" "What music do you listen to?" "Justin Bieber" "What else?" "Just that" That's not somebody who listens to music, that's somebody who listens to Justin Bieber. Do you have a number of different artists a person must listen to before they are allowed to be considered a music listener? As long as they listen to music they are a music listener. Doesn't matter if it's only Justin Bieber's music. As long as someone thinks they play games (assumed to imply the person thinks it a regular activity), then they are a gamer. If you disagree then we have different definitions of the same words, and I don't feel the need to try and convince you to change your definitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.C.G Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Do you have a number of different artists a person must listen to before they are allowed to be considered a music listener? As long as they listen to music they are a music listener. Doesn't matter if it's only Justin Bieber's music. Yeah but... Justin Bieber doesn't even qualify as 'music' just irritating fucking noise. :p In the same way that the majority of facebook or iPhone 'games' don't qualify as being 'proper' games as they are generally an insult to the definition of the term. Anyone who only plays 'time-wasters' and dares to call themselves a gamer, I cannot/will not take seriously because to me, that's just an outright lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diageo Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Yeah but... Justin Bieber doesn't even qualify as 'music' just irritating fucking noise. :p In the same way that the majority of facebook or iPhone 'games' don't qualify as being 'proper' games as they are generally an insult to the definition of the term. Anyone who only plays 'time-wasters' and dares to call themselves a gamer, I cannot/will not take seriously because to me, that's just an outright lie. It qualifies as music you don't like and are hyperbolising it as something else to fit in with the culture and because you don't like it. They are games. They involve a set of rules that have you competing against either a person or the environment of the game in a way that either involves skill or luck. Just because they're simple and don't include a large amount of content does not change that they are games. They are as much "time-wasters" as any other game. I think it's laughable that people complain that those who play COD or FIFA don't consider Mario or Animal Crossing real games, but then don't consider facebook games and iPhone apps as games. It's incredibly ironic. Is it fear or change? Are you people scared that people can like something that you think is too simple? Is it like when people complain about dubstep, that because it is strays from the norm, it can't be considered music. Is it because you don't understand the appeal that you just ignorantly label it as a time-waster because you just aren't entertained by it. It could also be that the people claim to be gamers, without investing time and effort into the cultural capital. Someone might game on Facebook just as much as someone else plays The Last of Us, and if the latter ridicules the former for not playing real games, they are just as blind as the COD player ridiculing the "real" games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnas Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Really, if you're going to say "time-waster" games aren't proper games, you might as well say the same for Tetris and Pac-Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxigen_Waste Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 (edited) I think he's trying to say that they're games at their most primitive. Which they are. Which does not, however, mean that they can't be just as good as more contemporary efforts, as Jonnas clearly illustrated. Pacman CE DX is absolutely amazing. In 2013, pacman is still absolutely amazing. Try it, if you doubt me! And if that basic kit of tools enabled the creation of something as outstanding as that, we have to assume that greatness can come from absolutely anywhere. It's just as much of a game as anything we, more serious gamers, are currently playing. Which makes the players gamers. Not hardcore gamers, but gamers nonetheless. The thread should be focusing on the stuff non-gamers say, not on discussing the limits of the "gamer" concept and wether or not it's kosher for some segments of the gamer population to publicaly identify as us. However, here's my two cents: The whole perception of games as being childish is partly due to that very segment, who actually DO play mostly and, more often than not, solely very basic and very childish proto-games. Which in effect (terribly) misrepresents us as a subculture. It's somewhat irresponsible of them to identify as being an integral part of something they don't even fully understand. Personally, what separates a person who plays games from a gamer, in my eyes, is knowledge of the culture. In that sense, Cod and Fifa only gamers and facebook games only gamers are exactly the same to me. Edited July 21, 2013 by Oxigen_Waste Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindFreak Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 I was at a job interview recently where they asked about my spare time and intererests. I mentioned gaming but also added that it wasn't just about playing games it was also investigating the industry, learning about it, and talking to other people about it and games. After that, they began scribbling something on their papers. I got the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.C.G Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 I think he's trying to say that they're games at their most primitive. Which they are. That is exactly what I'm trying to say. Really, if you're going to say "time-waster" games aren't proper games, you might as well say the same for Tetris and Pac-Man. I get what you're saying, but I'd consider those two titles - and Pac-Man CE DX for that matter - to be spectacular games in their own right, I just don't understand why anyone would opt to play something as primitive as 'a game where you match socks' people have choice, yet they'll choose something that's clearly not very good. They are games. They involve a set of rules that have you competing against either a person or the environment of the game in a way that either involves skill or luck. Just because they're simple and don't include a large amount of content does not change that they are games. They are as much "time-wasters" as any other game. Yes they are 'games' I suppose what I was trying to say is that none of them even enter onto my radar because they just seem so dull, this is more about choice really, something I didn't really put across properly. Honestly though, I wish someone could explain to me why people would pay more than a few pounds for a really bad Facebook game - let's say for arguments sake that it's genuinely terrible - when they could buy a classic game for less off Steam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pratty Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Everyone's heard of Mario, though. :p Yeah but I get sometimes get blank stares from actual gamers when I tell them I'm playing a Mario game, or the Wii or Gamecube in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts