The Big Idea: We Don't Need to Retire the Term 'Gamer.' In Fact, We Need More Ways to Describe How and Why We Play What We Play

re: The Big Idea: We Don't Need to Retire the Term 'Gamer.' In Fact, We Need More Ways to Describe How and Why We Play What We Play

Jaffee — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:33:19 GMT

I think going into this, I was expecting something different. I was expecting some form of labeling to come of this in the sense of the hardcore/casual labels. And I suppose you could use what Krpata comes up with as labels, but it feels something more like the results of a Myers-Briggs test - something that's fun and useful to know, but not something you'd use in typical conversation.

And to make it clear, I really do like his analysis here. It's just not what I was expecting.

What I was expecting, I think, was something that broadened the idea of what a hardcore gamer is. Right now, the (bad) implication of that is someone who plays Halo, Call of Duty 4, or something like that, while a casual gamer is defined as someone who plays Tetris or Desktop Tower Defense. From my own experience, I'm thinking of a time about ten years ago when I was bloody obsessed with city builder games (SimCity, Pharaoh, Tropico, Black & White could fit in there, etc.). Stuff that we traditionally think of going over the head of the casual gamers, but not really in the hardcore scene (what was it, Quake at the time?). I think I was expecting a redefinition somewhere along those lines.

But I don't know, maybe that's not a worthy pursuit at this time. It wouldn't be near as useful as what Krpata has come up with here, I don't think.

re: The Big Idea: We Don't Need to Retire the Term 'Gamer.' In Fact, We Need More Ways to Describe How and Why We Play What We Play

rapture — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:33:29 GMT

I have a friend at work. He spends 10-20 hours a week playing different video games on the XBOX 360. We actually spend about the same amount of time playing video games.

However, he rarely plays on XBOX Live and enjoys playing single-player games. He rarely plays in multiplayer modes. He plays games like Gears of War, Call of Duty 4, and Halo 3 on the easiest difficulty level and plays them until the end. He doesn’t play those same games on the hard difficulty levels.

I have found that there’s several gamers like him at my work. They game, but are clueless about XBOX Live and first-person shooter multiplayer tactics.

According to some people, my friend and I are both hardcore gamers. He buys a lot of different video games and always completes the single-player campaigns for those games. I, on the other hand, focus my gaming on one or two games at a time. Once I find a game that I like, I will then study the game; how it works, how others play it, how it was designed, etc. I want to master the game.

I claim that my friend is a casual gamer. He doesn’t play with technical skill. He simply plays the game to delve into the fictional story. He doesn’t understand how the physics engine works. He doesn’t know about the strengths and weakness of all the weapons in Halo 3. He doesn’t understand basic map-control tactics. He just knows what’s fun and what he likes.

My friend is a fan of the XBOX 360 (the hardware). I am a fan of the content (the software and services).

XBOX Live is one of those services.

Perhaps you should include a “social” category to your descriptions. My friend would be an “introverted” gamer, who enjoys completing single player games. This is a guy who is essentially participating in interactive fiction and leaves it at that.

I, on the other hard, am a “extroverted” gamer. I enjoy playing in a social setting with other gamers. In fact, I rarely play a video game by myself.

Still, I’m not convinced that “hardcore” and “casual” are ubiquitous terms that should be applied to gamers.

Gamers? Are people that watch tv called “TV watchers”? Are people that go to concerts called “music listeners”?

re: The Big Idea: We Don't Need to Retire the Term 'Gamer.' In Fact, We Need More Ways to Describe How and Why We Play What We Play

SuperEffective — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:03:20 GMT

I'm always a little surprised at how little attention there is, in the gaming press, to the gazillions of people who are playing cards online. Maybe it's because there's already a (smaller) enthusiast press for Hold 'Em.

Anyway, they're gamers right? I mean, there's nothing casual about the way most people approach poker. But it's a totally non-narrative game -- which must be a plus to all of those folks. Online gamblers and fantasy leaguers may well epitomize the hardcasual, and are obviously a big part of the gaming market.

re: The Big Idea: We Don't Need to Retire the Term 'Gamer.' In Fact, We Need More Ways to Describe How and Why We Play What We Play

Mitch Krpata — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 21:45:02 GMT

There you have it: The first time I've ever been un-ironically referred to as a thinker.

SuperEffective's comment gets at something I really didn't: the idea that what we think of as a *real* gamer is still confined to what we consider *real* games, and that doesn't necessarily include titles like Minesweeper. Or Hearts. For that matter, what would you call a frequent visitor to Las Vegas who's mastered Video Poker? But these people may as well not exist as far as those of us who self-identify as gamers are concerned. Not to suggest that we should start trying to target these people with our blogs or anything, but it's clear that the horizon extends further than we're looking currently.

re: The Big Idea: We Don't Need to Retire the Term 'Gamer.' In Fact, We Need More Ways to Describe How and Why We Play What We Play

Patrick Dugan — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:23:31 GMT

Wow, <a href="http://kingludic.blogspot.com/2008/04/dont-call-me-gamer.html">I just wrote on this issue</a>, from a different perspective, earlier today.

The kind of taxonomy Krpata is describing is great, there's other good work in the direction by Nicole Lazarro and Chris Bateman that I encourage people to examine.

My point is, the term "gamer" itself is deragatory and limiting, and functions as a way to discriminate between mainstream society and the cultures of play. I think we're all doing ourselves a diservice by using it to describe ourselves or each other.

re: The Big Idea: We Don't Need to Retire the Term 'Gamer.' In Fact, We Need More Ways to Describe How and Why We Play What We Play

N'Gai Croal — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:31:58 GMT

@rapture: It sounds like your friend might be hardcasual--I mean a wholsale tourist.

@SuperEffective: I don't think narrativity is what defines a game. Simulations and rules do.

@Mitch Krpata: The issue of what's a "real" game and what isn't is not unique to videogames. People debate what is real literature, music, painting, etc. all the time.

@Patrick Dugan: I read your post and, um, I gotta say I disagree. You wrote: "Someone who plays games is a player of games, a player. We are all players. We are all watchers as well. You don't call someone who likes movies a 'cinemaer' or 'movier,' or 'watcher;' you don't call someone who belongs to the minority of novel readers a 'reader' or 'literate.' " All true. But what do we call someone who acts? Someone who boxes? Someone who gambles? Your argument cuts both ways.

The term "gamer" isn't perfect, which is why I suggested that people read Krpata's series. But as shorthand, I think it serves its purpose well. I don't think the term gamer is a priori derogatory, nor do I think it's as limiting as you do. Nor do I think you're going to solve the problems you want to solve by changing the terminology in an attempt to erase the distinctions between people who self-identify around the play of electronic interactive entertainment and those who don't.

re: The Big Idea: We Don't Need to Retire the Term 'Gamer.' In Fact, We Need More Ways to Describe How and Why We Play What We Play

Patrick Dugan — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:39:09 GMT

Thanks for reading.

I think we'll solve the problems I describe by making games that are meaningful, and the vocabulary will evolve as the cultural profile shifts. I think the distinction between gamers and non-gamers is an artificial one borne out of the adolescent poise of the medium, which it is in the process of growing out of.

But yeah, it isn't nessecarily pejorative.

re: The Big Idea: We Don't Need to Retire the Term 'Gamer.' In Fact, We Need More Ways to Describe How and Why We Play What We Play

SBouren — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:37:19 GMT

The term "gamer" has always been a little dumb simply from a etymological point of view. Game isn't a verb as far as I know. One cannot conjugate "to game" so how can one be a "gamer". One can play games, but one cannot game. This is unlike bowl, which is a verb. Thus one may be a bowler. Yep.