Support NeoGAF

[Kai Dracon]

The article is clouded by a vengeful attitude that seeks to broadly attack people who, as representatives of gaming subculture, aren't all actually doing things that could honestly be called "bad". It's a familiar "I'm better than all you nerds and manchildren" attitude which sometimes shows up in games journalism. Which is, itself, largely comprised of ascended nerds.

It's too bad, because there is a real point buried in there worth talking about. In somewhat different terms "gamer" culture is indeed ending - as some people who play games see it. You have to separate mere geekish cliques from something darker. Within the demographic of young males who play games, there are those for whom games don't just represent a hobby or entertainment. The kind of hatred that easily spills from the lips (or is typed from the fingers) of some of male game players speaks of insecure, neurotic persons who have a complex. Gaming has sort of created an empowering "boys club" playground for this kind of personality for a while now. It doesn't seem strange at all. Games, especially in the internet age, represent a combination of technical discipline, sport, and escapist fantasy easily accessible to a vast range of people from all social and economic backgrounds. Even physical athleticism is not a barrier for entry.

It is that kind of subculture - not people wearing mushroom hats - that can't stand illumination once the rock is turned over. If anything, it is the gentler form of geek that represents an ally in the effort to change these social standards. The lifer fans, the unashamed enthusiasts, the guys wearing funny hats? In my experience they are among the first to say "shit like this [misogyny, etc] makes me hate gaming culture". You can't assume a tremendous overlap with people screaming f*ggot over Xbox Live before running to their computer, tracking you down on twitter and starting a flash mob of hate because they lost a video game or found out you're a girl.

Because the hobby is expanding, has expanded, will continue to expand, I tend to agree with the idea a certain form of "gamer culture" is under attack and is reacting to the prospect of being made less relevant. But I don't think it's all the parts of gaming that some are lumping together as the same thing.

 

[UncleSporky]

That Statement might have been true 10 years ago, however its not anymore.

Brad: "Hey, I have a new girlfriend, her name's Jessica."

Jim: "Oh? What's she like?"

Brad: "She's a gamer."

No mental image of the type of person Jessica might be flashes through your head? You don't think Jim is supposed to understand any sort of implied meaning about her or the type of games she might play? You think Brad is just as likely to be referring to Angry Birds once a week as Call of Duty every night?

Anne: "Hey, I have a new boyfriend, his name's Lucas."

Cora: "Oh? What's he like?"

Anne: "He's a gamer."

Same questions apply here. You don't think Cora is going to have developed any sort of mental picture about Lucas at this point? You don't think Anne has to quickly clarify what she means by saying this, or else Cora's going to get the wrong impression?

 

[More Fun To Compute]

What is a gamer what is culture. What is up what is down. I am felt there is a feeling maybe. Here we are or are we? Hmm? Pass me another glass of absinthe.

 

[Boke1879]

Those people don't self-identify as gamers. They are called gamers when it is thought that they game too much or too often (i.e., a negative thing).

I mean it's kind of inherent that when a word like that is used to describe someone, it's considered to be something they do a lot that defines them more than other things. When a girl plays Angry Birds once a week on her phone you don't call her a gamer, anymore than you would call the girl who sometimes jogs to class a runner. A runner is someone who runs more than normal people, and a gamer is someone who games more than normal people.

Do you honestly think that when two people are talking about a third person, and they say that person is a gamer, that there isn't any loaded meaning there at all? You think they nod their heads and consider that person to be an average member of society who merely games occasionally like everyone else?

I don't think the term "gamer" should be reclaimed or shifted or whatever. I just don't think it needs to be used at all. I'm not a gamer, I just play video games. Much like I'm not a watcher, I just watch movies.

It's just a general word. Both men and women view themselves as gamers. Do you think they view it negatively?

 

[IncandescentPrecept]

Here's what she said-

This means that over just the last few years, writing on games focuses on personal experiences and independent creators, not approval-hungry obeisance to the demands of powerful corporations. It’s not about ‘being a reviewer’ anymore. It’s not about telling people what to buy, it’s about providing spaces for people to discuss what (and whom) they support.

So, is this article providing a space for people to discuss what (and whom) they support? Seems to me that a lot of new VG media is about sensationalist headlines and click baits.

 

[mugwhump]

I kind of agree with the sentiments in the article, but it's filled with sweeping generalizations not backed up with much evidence.

Also felt like, as a games journalist, she was getting defensive over the flack her field's getting.

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

Made it part of the way through the article and then started skimming. I don't know if I have much to add to the conversation aside from saying the generalizations made within are in line with a lot of what I'm seeing coming out of paid personalities who cover gaming culture but are not self employed. I count freelance writers who post on blogs that are not their own as part of this same category.

This echo room of the lowest levels of games media fosters a hatred towards their customers much like the break room of a super market has checkers complaining about shoppers. There is nothing new here except that people follow these personalities and not the ones of their local stores. It's all about attention, positive and negative, and this attention is the main form of payment because it's not like anyone of these people are getting rich while working for 'the man'.

Instead of something like this ending up on a live journal page it's on an industry website that has job listings. So Gamers are at fault for giving these people their attention. They have already begun to migrate out to content producers who enjoy their fan base and are self employed or do it for the enjoyment of talking about games. What's left to these low level personalities are the people who want to get mad. It's like the people who wait in line at Walmart when there are free self check out stations just so they can complain to the person at the register about the lines.

Do I think 'Gamers' are over? No. Not as long as there's someone joining the hobby that is looking for a way to self identify and feel at home. Do I think these low level personalities will go away? No, there will always be companies who will pay people to fill those slots. What I do think is that people will continue to do what makes them happy. For me, that's saying I'm a Gamer. For the Gamasutra equivalent of a Walmart employee that might be pretending that their side of a computer screen is the ivory tower from which they judge others and that might make them happy. For the internet poster who will stop and comment on the site about how the Gamasutra cashier deserves to be praised/debased for their opinion, I hope they are happy.

 

[Zeyphersan]

Those people definitely need to get called out, but saying the term "gamer" is negative or needs to be reclaimed is ridiculous. Also what Leigh is doing doesn't help AT ALL. Using broad generalizations.

It almost seems as though she HATES those that stand in line, or go to midnight releases, or dress funny because it doesn't fit her view of what a "gamer" should be. And that's wrong in my opinion.

I wasn't speaking on that point because I agree, that paragraph was bad for the article. I'm also not going to advocate that the term needs to be "reclaimed" because I don't see that as a priority. But I think the term definitely is still seen as a negative one, and that comes through mostly interacting with people who don't play games. Not one time in my life has someone reacted positively to me saying I'm a gamer or that I play games (as an identification, even when not using the term) except other gamers. People can say that the stigma isn't there anymore because games have hit the mainstream (which they have), but talking to people outside of the gaming bubble shows that it is very real.

Yes, anecdotal evidence and all that.

 

[UncleSporky]

It's just a general word. Both men and women view themselves as gamers. Do you think they view it negatively?

When someone tells you someone else is a gamer, I imagine that you go out of your way to say "oh, that's good to hear that they're an average, functional member of society," and then smile smugly, knowing that this was not the message the person meant to convey.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I kind of agree with the sentiments in the article, but it's filled with sweeping generalizations not backed up with much evidence.

Also felt like, as a games journalist, she was getting defensive over the flack her field's getting.

No, you see it's #notallgameswriters. "What Watch Dogs can teach about Ferguson" and "Polygon" and "IGN" are just strawmen that conceals all the great writing that happening right now in games.

Now let me build some strawmen here.

 

[Almighty]

Yeah I have called myself a gamer a few times and will continue to do so.

I find the idea that I need to think of a new label to call myself so the gaming press has a word they can use to be short hand for misogynist assholes who also like video games to be pretty terrible. Sure gamer isn't without negative connotations, but in general in my experience it always has and should always be a term to just describe someone who really likes playing games.

 

[SapientWolf]

Gaming journalists sure do hate gamers.

From what I've seen, they've been given little reason to love them.

Who else cares about what they write?

 

[UncleSporky]

I wasn't speaking on that point because I agree, that paragraph was bad for the article. I'm also not going to advocate that the term needs to be "reclaimed" because I don't see that as a priority. But I think the term definitely is still seen as a negative one, and that comes through mostly interacting with people who don't play games. Not one time in my life has someone reacted positively to me saying I'm a gamer or that I play games (as an identification, even when not using the term) except other gamers. People can say that the stigma isn't there anymore because games have hit the mainstream (which they have), but talking to people outside of the gaming bubble shows that it is very real.

Yes, anecdotal evidence and all that.

Of course unless you're talking to people within your subculture, i.e. "he's cool, he's a gamer like us." Then you all think positively of that person, because it means you can talk about Final Fantasy 7 or whatever.

 

[unbias]

When someone tells you someone else is a gamer, I imagine that you go out of your way to say "oh, that's good to hear that they're an average, functional member of society," and then smile smugly, knowing that this was not the message the person meant to convey.

Umm... No? As a child, that might be true, but in terms of adults? I dont even remember that being true in the early 2000's. I wasnt an adult in the 90's so I dont know, but I dont remember anyone thinking I wasnt well adjusted because I played games. But then again, I didnt just randomly bring up im a gamer in a casual conversation. Your example is so odd.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

The only thing that'd come of this is very flighty fans of video games no longer being afraid of being seen as anything deeper than flighty and various nerd jostling amongst cliques as to who is less "gamer" inside video game players.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

The label may be tarnished in your eyes, but that doesn't mean all people that identify by that label are guilty of those crimes.

Nobody's said that, I don't believe.

Making someone who identifies as a gamer feel like they have to choose between their hobby and their values

Nobody's saying you have to choose between your hobby and your values. Your hobby stays the same no matter the artificial label applied to it, and your values should not be so easily set aside or subsumed by your hobbies, I don't think.

Lets not lose sight of the fact we are talking about a form of entertainment here. There's only so much weight the label itself can really bear, as evidenced by the fact people are having to go outside the realm of entertainment and popular culture largely to draw a comparison that makes the suggestion of either transforming/reclaiming "gamer" or abandoning it for a new label/term sound ridiculous on the face of it. Being a "gamer" is not equivalent to being black, or being queer, or being a woman, etc. You are not born a gamer, it is not a thing that is part of your basic wiring as a human being. it is a self-imposed label based on your choice of leisure activity pastime.

The people I choose to denigrate for their behavior often behave that way under the flag of "gaming." They are gatekeeping for a culture I belong to when I didn't ask them to do that, and they're doing a shitty job of it on top of that. They are absolutely tarnishing the term, and I am open to the idea there might be a better term to describe me and my enjoyment of video games that also allows for my core set of values to be respected and recognized without there being a fight over it every other week. I'm not giving up my games in response. I'm not selling my PC, I'm not trading in my Wii U, and I'm not renouncing my GAF account. My hobbies will remain my hobbies. but I'm also not going to pour energy into cleaning up the name "gamer" when I could be better spending that time and energy helping cultivate an atmosphere around me that is more welcoming and open to those who might enjoy the things I like, not to mention spending the time and energy to ACTUALLY PLAY the games I like to play.

The suggestion that the term itself is important beyond the attempt to allow more people to enjoy the hobby it describes is a suggestion I wouldn't appreciate.

 

[Boke1879]

Brad: "Hey, I have a new girlfriend, her name's Jessica."

Jim: "Oh? What's she like?"

Brad: "She's a gamer."

No mental image of the type of person Jessica might be flashes through your head? You don't think Brad is supposed to understand any sort of implied meaning about her or the type of games she might play? You think Brad is just as likely to be referring to Angry Birds once a week as Call of Duty every night?

Anne: "Hey, I have a new boyfriend, his name's Lucas."

Cora: "Oh? What's he like?"

Anne: "He's a gamer."

Same questions apply here. You don't think Cora is going to have developed any sort of mental picture about Lucas at this point? You don't think Anne has to quickly clarify what she means by saying this, or else Cora's going to get the wrong impression?

Look at who plays games today. Hell just look at twitch. Gaming includes ALL sorts of people. No matter your race, gender, orientation, religion or where you are from. If you or anyone else have a prejudice view of what a gamer is supposed to be then it's about time they take a look in the mirror

 

[Xando]

Brad: "Hey, I have a new girlfriend, her name's Jessica."

Jim: "Oh? What's she like?"

Brad: "She's a gamer."

No mental image of the type of person Jessica might be flashes through your head? You don't think Brad is supposed to understand any sort of implied meaning about her or the type of games she might play? You think Brad is just as likely to be referring to Angry Birds once a week as Call of Duty every night?

Anne: "Hey, I have a new boyfriend, his name's Lucas."

Cora: "Oh? What's he like?"

Anne: "He's a gamer."

Same questions apply here. You don't think Cora is going to have developed any sort of mental picture about Lucas at this point? You don't think Anne has to quickly clarify what she means by saying this, or else Cora's going to get the wrong impression?

I dont know about you but in my 22 years of life i never had such a conversation. If i talk about my girlfriend ( who is a gamer ) i never talk about her gaming, it never came up unless she played with us.

 

[Boke1879]

When someone tells you someone else is a gamer, I imagine that you go out of your way to say "oh, that's good to hear that they're an average, functional member of society," and then smile smugly, knowing that this was not the message the person meant to convey.

No I generally ask what games they play and maybe strike up a conversation. Again. The term only comes up in context. It's not like I'm shouting it from the rooftops or anything.

 

[Doombacon]

When someone tells you someone else is a gamer, I imagine that you go out of your way to say "oh, that's good to hear that they're an average, functional member of society," and then smile smugly, knowing that this was not the message the person meant to convey.

Generally the proper followup for me would be "Oh, do you know what kinds of games they play?"

 

[Dugna]

Now that's definitely not true. No label is just anything, it carries connotations. And I agree with her: inside here in our GAF bubble, we can say "Oh those assholes are a small minority". But outside the gaming bubble they are who represent "gamers". The assholes are the ones making the headlines and deciding how non-gamers see the rest of the group. And by sitting back with the constant justification of "well I don't do that" you're letting them

If "journalists" are making only said articles about these assholes and not about anything good it starts to seem like they're the only ones in existence, when they're not. I mean 4chan or all places are sponsoring videos like info about Roberta Williams then a video about Corrinne Yu and the newest one about Anna Kipnis. While some of the stuff is exagerated in those videos it points out influential women in gaming and the best parts about them.

When is the last time any headline has been about positive things and not just clickbait rage articles? Why when women are mentioned in today's media it's only about them being victims? When there are tons of role models for these people to point out show that there is something positive for women in gaming.

 

[riotous]

Lets not lose sight of the fact we are talking about a form of entertainment here.

What an incredibly ironic thing for you to say after claiming gamers are having trouble enjoying their hobby because of issues that most of us spend a tiny fraction of our gaming hobby time contemplating or reading about.

Hey Bobby Roberts.. most of us are having NO PROBLEM continuing to enjoy this hobby. Take a break from your bubble for a while and read that sentence you typed about 1,000 times over and over again.

 

[Intheflorsh]

So, is this article providing a space for people to discuss what (and whom) they support? Seems to me that a lot of new VG media is about sensationalist headlines and click baits.

It seems like that's exactly what it did. Look at it this way: the very fact a game journalist can write an article like this one is proof that journalism has moved past the brainless advertising age.

Spoiler

Won't argue about your second point though.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I spend nearly all of my free time on video games and video game related activities. Such as this forum post! The majority of people I talk to on a regular basis have been met through gaming and it's even reasonable to argue that the reason I am currently alive today is because of gaming. Severe and persistent depression is really cool you should try it some time. Asking me to stop self identifying with this hobby is such an absurd notion to me that I'm not even sure how to approach criticizing it.

I'm not asking you to stop self-identifying with it if you dont' want to. I'm suggesting that it's becoming something else, something that may or may not still have the label "gamer" attached to it as the hobby itself continues to be mainstreamed, and allowing for more and varied people to engage in the hobby that you appreciate so much is overall a good thing, so that experiences such as the one you describe are more readily available to a wider base without really bad gatekeepers trying to prevent large sections of the population from engaging with the hobby unless they agree to accept the hobby on their terms, terms which advocate for a status quo that is largely unfriendly to both women and minorities.

 

[Zia]

Who else cares about what they write?

Other writers. I know that a lot of writers feel as if they're writing for one another, which I imagine is pretty fucking depressing.

 

[UncleSporky]

Look at who plays games today. Hell just look at twitch. Gaming includes ALL sorts of people. No matter your race, gender, orientation, religion or where you are from. If you or anyone else have a prejudice view of what a gamer is supposed to be then it's about time they take a look in the mirror

Look, I laid this out very clearly earlier. A person who plays Angry Birds once a week would no more be described as a gamer than a person who jogs to the store once a week be described as a runner.

I'm talking about how others use the term. Anyone can self-identify any way they like. When someone says "that guy's a gamer," they mean it negatively, unless they're part of that subculture and mean it as an inclusive term.

Don't try to argue to me that the word "gamer" describes everyone, that's semantics. People don't use words to describe others unless that word absolutely defines them. Just because we all eat doesn't mean "eater" is an accurate and sensible label to call any given person. People assume it means "a lot."

 

[unbias]

It seems like that's exactly what it did. Look at it this way: the very fact a game journalist can write an article like this one is proof that journalism has moved past the brainless advertising age.

Spoiler

Won't argue about your second point though.

Are you sure about that? It seems now, everyone is a journalist and facts, evidence, statistics are no longer needed, like ever, for the large majority of the press(not just gaming). I'd say news media is proving time and time again they are no better then fox news or CNN or whoever. So, ya I agree, new media is evolving... to looking like the old one.

 

[M3d10n]

Funny how it is totally acceptable to mock this caricaturized version of gamers, by their physical capabilities and dressing protocol.

I can think nearly half a dozen words that would grant someone a swift ban on GAF if they were used in some of the paragraphs (or some of the posts on this very thread) instead of "gamers".

The other point is. if you spend your time telling an entire demographic they're horrible people, you're going to provoke the ire of a large number of them. You won't be winning hearts and minds to affect positive change, you're going to get people to default to tribalism and get defensive.

You'll also get a lot of clicks as they furiously flock onto your latest article.

 

[Dryk]

Who doesn't love broad generalizations and insulting litterally millions of people in a single sentence?
How some game journos can be so full of themselves considering how mediocre and narcissistic they are as writers never ceases to astound me.

Game journalists are more like the subculture they despise than they'll admit

 

[GamerJM]

If you aren't one of those dicks, why are you feeling insulted? It's about moving away from the traditionally targeted 'gamer' demographic and the kind of ignorant people that are desperately still trying to dictate gaming culture on their own narrow terms. It's not so much about destroying gaming culture as seeing that its changing and still needs to change. That's what I got anyway.

I just want to point out again that I felt insulted by the article because, while it targeted assholes and unaccepting people, it also seemed negative and derogatory towards people who wear video game apparel, don't know how to present themselves, and live with their parents, which describes me. Again, I agree with the general point of the article, but Leigh really didn't have to be condescending and hateful to people who may or may not fit within gamer stereotypes.

 

[Averon]

If "journalists" are making only said articles about these assholes and not about anything good it starts to seem like they're the only ones in existence, when they're not. I mean 4chan or all places are sponsoring videos like info about Roberta Williams then a video about Corrinne Yu and the newest one about Anna Kipnis. While some of the stuff is exagerated in those videos it points out influential women in gaming and the best parts about them.

When is the last time any headline has been about positive things and not just clickbait rage articles? Why when women are mentioned in today's media it's only about them being victims? When there are tons of role models for these people to point out show that there is something positive for women in gaming.

I've noted that before today that these sites gives trolls far to much power and voice. Far too often you have sites cherry picking the worst of the worst comments to prove some point, clearly ignoring more sensible and benign comments.

But as you say, troll comments is great if you want churn out click-bait articles.

 

[Kintaro]

Brad: "Hey, I have a new girlfriend, her name's Jessica."

Jim: "Oh? What's she like?"

Brad: "She's a gamer."

No mental image of the type of person Jessica might be flashes through your head? You don't think Jim is supposed to understand any sort of implied meaning about her or the type of games she might play? You think Brad is just as likely to be referring to Angry Birds once a week as Call of Duty every night?

Anne: "Hey, I have a new boyfriend, his name's Lucas."

Cora: "Oh? What's he like?"

Anne: "He's a gamer."

Same questions apply here. You don't think Cora is going to have developed any sort of mental picture about Lucas at this point? You don't think Anne has to quickly clarify what she means by saying this, or else Cora's going to get the wrong impression?

I must be getting too old for this shit because all I think of is "a person who plays video games as a hobby."

Should I be thinking a particular way now?

 

[UncleSporky]

I dont know about you but in my 22 years of life i never had such a conversation. If i talk about my girlfriend ( who is a gamer ) i never talk about her gaming, it never came up unless she played with us.

Right, that's because it doesn't define her activities to a negative extent. It's not notable in its excess, so you don't describe her with it.

 

[Boke1879]

Look, I laid this out very clearly earlier. A person who plays Angry Birds once a week would no more be described as a gamer than a person who jogs to the store once a week be described as a runner.

I'm talking about how others use the term. Anyone can self-identify any way they like. When someone says "that guy's a gamer," they mean it negatively, unless they're part of that subculture and mean it as an inclusive term.

Don't try to argue to me that the word "gamer" describes everyone, that's semantics. People don't use words to describe others unless that word absolutely defines them. Just because we all eat doesn't mean "eater" is an accurate and sensible label to call any given person. People assume it means "a lot."

I think you are making a lot of assumptions about the way people think. I person who hears the term gamer mostly think of someone who plays video games. Some may view it negatively and most probably just don't care.

 

[Gsak]

Aaaaand here's Kotaku chiming in:

Link - http://trib.al/QhRcaTC

DoNotLinkURL - http://www.donotlink.com/bdsy

 

[Hydrogen Bluebird]

A lot of these game journalists insult their readers (the "gamers") and think "gamers" take a lot of things too seriously in the game industry. Failing to realize that it's actually their job to take a look at things in the game industry seriously seeing as they are professional journalists.

Edit:

I mean, game journalists took video games seriously enough that they made it their profession.

 

[Intheflorsh]

Are you sure about that? It seems now, everyone is a journalist and facts, evidence, statistics are not longer needed, like ever, for the large majority of the press(not just gaming). I'd say news media is proving time and time again they are no better then fox news or CNN or whoever. So, ya I agree, new media is evolving... to looking like the old one.

I'm not saying it's getting smarter, I'm just saying the breadth of content we see among articles is getting larger. It's not just all 'Sneak Peak Screenshots of Metal Gear 2 that will Blow Your Mind' anymore.

 

[Boke1879]

Aaaaand here's Kotaku chiming in:

Link - http://trib.al/QhRcaTC

DoNotLinkURL - http://www.donotlink.com/bdsy

Yup. This may be a bit OT but seeing all these journalists reactions on twitter has been pretty pathetic. Everyone seems to be acting like children. Seems most journalists have this "I know better than you do" attitude. It's actually quite sickening.

 

[Xando]

Right, that's because it doesn't define her activities to a negative extent. It's not notable in its excess, so you don't describe her with it.

Why would i describe her with one of her activities? If someone wants me to describe my new girlfriend im not gonna describe her by saying she's going to the gym 2 days a week or that she plays video games.

 

[Maintenance]

Aaaaand here's Kotaku chiming in:

Link - http://trib.al/QhRcaTC

DoNotLinkURL - http://www.donotlink.com/bdsy

Luke at least tried:

Note they're not talking about everyone who plays games, or who self-identifies as a "gamer", as being the worst.

But I think they are, Luke, at least Leigh.

I liked this bit:

Once you're done here, I'll see you next week, where we can hang out as thoughtful, considerate human beings and enjoy video games as they are, not what some folks feel they can dictate from a dark corner of the internet.

I understand what he meant, but I find it ironic that the same could be said about what Leigh is doing.

 

[2San]

Nobody's said that, I don't believe.

Making someone who identifies as a gamer feel like they have to choose between their hobby and their values

Nobody's saying you have to choose between your hobby and your values. Your hobby stays the same no matter the artificial label applied to it, and your values should not be so easily set aside or subsumed by your hobbies, I don't think.

Lets not lose sight of the fact we are talking about a form of entertainment here. There's only so much weight the label itself can really bear, as evidenced by the fact people are having to go outside the realm of entertainment and popular culture largely to draw a comparison that makes the suggestion of either transforming/reclaiming "gamer" or abandoning it for a new label/term sound ridiculous on the face of it. Being a "gamer" is not equivalent to being black, or being queer, or being a woman, etc. You are not born a gamer, it is not a thing that is part of your basic wiring as a human being. it is a self-imposed label based on your choice of leisure activity pastime.

The people I choose to denigrate for their behavior often behave that way under the flag of "gaming." They are gatekeeping for a culture I belong to when I didn't ask them to do that, and they're doing a shitty job of it on top of that. They are absolutely tarnishing the term, and I am open to the idea there might be a better term to describe me and my enjoyment of video games that also allows for my core set of values to be respected and recognized without there being a fight over it every other week. I'm not giving up my games in response. I'm not selling my PC, I'm not trading in my Wii U, and I'm not renouncing my GAF account. My hobbies will remain my hobbies. but I'm also not going to pour energy into cleaning up the name "gamer" when I could be better spending that time and energy helping cultivate an atmosphere around me that is more welcoming and open to those who might enjoy the things I like, not to mention spending the time and energy to ACTUALLY PLAY the games I like to play.

The suggestion that the term itself is important beyond the attempt to allow more people to enjoy the hobby it describes is a suggestion I wouldn't appreciate.

Ok since you ignored the last point let's go to the next.

Let's go on the premise that gamer does carry negative connotations. So you want a new term? The term will still end up meaning "someone who plays video games" and will carry the same connotations. So what have you achieved?

Furthermore even years ago, despite recent articles like the one in the OP, people seem to have no problem getting into games. As demonstrated by Wii and with cellphone games and with the rise of the smartphone. This is not a new phenomenon, if you had any sense of reality.

We have even gotten to the point that male/female gamer ratio is equal. Gaming Journalism/Development has more issue's. Misogyny is an issue, not some label.

The article in the OP is faulty on so many levels.

 

[thesolidshark]

Whew...

It's been a while since a piece got me annoyed close to the point of anger (I'm probably angry anyway). I'm guessing it's purely reactionary (though according to somethings in this thread, she can be usually like this), but with some of this stuff going on, Jim Sterling's decision to wait for some of this stuff to cool down (specifically the Zoe Quinn stuff) before he said anything about it seems really smart.

I guess I should start by saying that I like the term gamer and identify with it, and it's basic and only definition to me means "someone who plays games" in any sense. Casually, hardcore, enthusiast, whatever. I understand some don't like that title or labels in-general or don't like a lot of people who do consider themselves gamers, and I can respect their feeling that way. Some of the best fun I get with being a gamer is being labeled one in a negative way and mentioning how the cellphone game they play qualifies them as a gamer too.

I'm very much in-line with the quotes like below.

I don't recognize myself in her definition of "gamer" and I don't think that the vast majority of gamers does it either.
Also the article is counterproductive given the current situation, it's like bombing an entire country because a terrorist cell has been discovered.

The opening few paragraphs are so malicious and condescending it's kinda gross. We're talking about an entertainment product here meant to sell to the masses.

It undermines the heart of her article, but it's really just a rant piece so... it fits I guess.

I thought gamers was a term for people who play games. Must have missed the development over the past week where 'gamers' became bigots.

I'm a Gamer. I identify as one. It's always been a huge part of my life due to my circumstances. I love games and I am very passionate about them. I buy far more than most people and love supporting developers and I love talking about what I like. I try to help people when I can and if I think something is wrong I try to call it out in the best way I can, though I'm not the best at communicating.

I'm pretty insulted by her mudslinging at people who go to events. That's just totally uncalled for. I love going to midnight releases and being part of the crowd and seeing everyone excited to play a new game. It's fun and people are generally pretty nice. My girlfriend *loves* conventions, btw. It's far from some creepy basement nerd guy thing. Most people I see at stuff are pretty normal and where I live there's a fair mix of females. I met an awesome Dead Space fan at one midnight release and she was really cool and totally into the series, books and all.

The inane generalization that we're all just a bunch of angry little neckbeards who are full of hate and mad at everything is dumb and her article is a really piss poor opinion piece to me. She kicked a huge pile of manure in the face of everyone here at gaf who loves games.

I may be the only one in this, but despite the reasoning behind it being totally different, the vibes of the original XB1 vision being pushed out by some journalists feels like it's in her article. Telling readers what's future and what's past really stuck out to me. It sounds like she really pushing for this kind of future, taking on some pretty strong assumptions that the kind of gaming she wants to emerge will stay that way for good, and the problems of the older generations will never come back.

With BobbyRoberts and the other articles and forum members, I just feel sorry for some that look at an entire group of people and often think that they're all as bad as the worst of them, when terrible things happen and the perpetrators happen to be gamers. I'm sure being guilty of sharing the same hobby and angering and insulting those who apply make up a bit of the clicks that get the money, but if the articles were really after an appeal to their own opinions, why not denounce the perpetrators themselves, or those who would even think of going that far? Is it really worth lumping all of us together (inculding yourselves by my definition) and claiming foul and responsibility for the less than the 1%, or even .1% maybe?

Let me respond to this with a question.

Are you angry or upset with the notion that what you considered to be gaming or the criteria to be a gamer is either changing or going away?

I know this was aimed at someone else, but it feels like a weird question to ask by itself (I know there was more to it that I left out in the whole quote), because my answer could have nothing to do with the latest happenings.

"Yes, I'm upset that gaming as I know it as changing, into more digitally, online-focused, DLC and microtransactioning, incorrectly-budgeted gaming in many instances, among other things."

Anyone else tired of being told how your a shitty person because your hobby is gaming?

*both hands raised high*

I don't think the classic Sonic games are good, either.

A lot of people feel this way. Does that render all of our opinions invalid?

No, but it can render some of your opinions incompatible to mine, so I won't agree with everything you or she has to say.

 

[Boke1879]

Luke at least tried:



But I think they are, Luke, at least Leigh.

Leigh is at least. The term "gamer" isn't going anywhere. Leigh wrote that piece specifically to incite a negative reaction. She has done this sort of thing before and that tweet earlier in the thread is just a glimpse into her ego.

 

[G-Fex]

I'm not asking you to stop self-identifying with it if you dont' want to. I'm suggesting that it's becoming something else, something that may or may not still have the label "gamer" attached to it as the hobby itself continues to be mainstreamed, and allowing for more and varied people to engage in the hobby that you appreciate so much is overall a good thing, so that experiences such as the one you describe are more readily available to a wider base without really bad gatekeepers trying to prevent large sections of the population from engaging with the hobby unless they agree to accept the hobby on their terms, terms which advocate for a status quo that is largely unfriendly to both women and minorities.

Look, I laid this out very clearly earlier. A person who plays Angry Birds once a week would no more be described as a gamer than a person who jogs to the store once a week be described as a runner.

I'm talking about how others use the term. Anyone can self-identify any way they like. When someone says "that guy's a gamer," they mean it negatively, unless they're part of that subculture and mean it as an inclusive term.

Don't try to argue to me that the word "gamer" describes everyone, that's semantics. People don't use words to describe others unless that word absolutely defines them. Just because we all eat doesn't mean "eater" is an accurate and sensible label to call any given person. People assume it means "a lot."

 

[UncleSporky]

I think you are making a lot of assumptions about the way people think. I person who hears the term gamer mostly think of someone who plays video games. Some may view it negatively and most probably just don't care.

And I think you're trying to pretend the world is more reasonable in the assumptions it makes based on labels than it really is.

Again, this is outside of self-identifying. When someone is called a gamer, the implication is that they are gaming more than the average person, and likely too much.

When someone calls someone else a Trekkie, they do not mean that person is just someone who watched Star Trek Into Darkness and enjoyed it, and knows little else about the franchise. Do you disagree with this?

 

[unbias]

I'm not saying it's getting smarter, I'm just saying the breadth of content we see among articles is getting larger. It's not just all 'Sneak Peak Screenshots of Metal Gear 2 that will Blow Your Mind' anymore.

Well great, a new gaming news website needs to come out, called "the forum"... Cause I'm not seeing a huge difference.

 

[Gsak]

Luke at least tried

The second, by Leigh Alexander, is called "'Gamers' don't have to be your audience. 'Gamers' are over." It's a similar piece, albeit one aimed a little more at developers.

That's what you got out of the article Luke? Perhaps we read different articles.

 

[Averon]

Yup. This may be a bit OT but seeing all these journalists reactions on twitter has been pretty pathetic. Everyone seems to be acting like children. Seems most journalists have this "I know better than you do" attitude. It's actually quite sickening.

Game journalism have developed an insular bubble over the last several years. How many times have you seen an incident when a journalist is criticized and he/she runs to Twitter and get back slaps from fellow journalists while being as insulting to his/her audience as possible? It's a reflex at this point.


Don't engage the audience at all, not matter how valid or helpful it can be.
Run to Twitter and engage in back slaps with you peers while being as passive aggressive, or down right aggressive, at you audience as possible.

 

[unbias]

And I think you're trying to pretend the world is more reasonable in the assumptions it makes based on labels than it really is.

Again, this is outside of self-identifying. When someone is called a gamer, the implication is that they are gaming more than the average person, and likely too much.

When someone calls someone else a Trekkie, they do not mean that person is just someone who watched Star Trek Into Darkness and enjoyed it, and knows little else about the franchise. Do you disagree with this?

According to all this information, I'd say I disagree with the implications, yes. I dont think a gamer is closer to a trekkie, I think they are closer to a sports fan.

 

[Last Hearth]

"Gamer" does not mean somebody who plays games. "Gamer" means gaming enthusiast, and yes it's a real thing.

Gamer is no different from a Sports fanatic. Plenty of people with watch sports on TV once in a while, or maybe even attend a game or two. But they are not the people who listen to sportstalk radio, watch ESPN every night, etc.

And yes, if you're reading this on GAF, you're probably a gamer.