Support NeoGAF

[unbias]

but the label itself is already tarnished with a negative perception. So it either needs to be reclaimed, or abandoned for something different. Either option is a positive as opposed to the alternative, which is allowing the tarnishing to continue while complaining that you shouldn't have to be counted among them.

If being a gamer is that important to who you are as a person, then there needs to be more of a response to these kinds of behaviors, and not after it's already blown up into a giant story, but when it's just harmful comments on a messageboard, or shitty tweets that pop up in your tweetstream, or facebook "friends" who contribute to the negative aspect of that label you'd still like to wear with some semblance of pride.

Again, either way works: Attempt to reclaim the label as a positive through words and deeds, or abandon the label for a new one that better fits who you are and why you like what you like.

Things change, people change, people grow, hobbies shift, and there are adaptations along the way.

I dunno, I think the case could be made there is a subset of people who want to believe the name is "tarnished" and need to be "won back" because they want their perfect scenario of a group, thing, to happen to "gamers" and until then the word is a pejorative until it meets that person's(or groups) standard. I mean, can you not see the mentality this type of thinking can be connected to and why it is bad?

 

[GraveRobberX]

Gaming culture is such a wacky term. Do we have book and movie culture?

Have you visited the Off-Topic forums recently, most movies, shows, books, animes, hell pop-culture genres have their own segmented |OT|

So yeah there are these cultures, hell they even get dissected into sub-cultures and the most meta is the hipster sub-culture of that sub-culture

 

[daffy]

but the label itself is already tarnished with a negative perception. So it either needs to be reclaimed, or abandoned for something different. Either option is a positive as opposed to the alternative, which is allowing the tarnishing to continue while complaining that you shouldn't have to be counted among them.

If being a gamer is that important to who you are as a person, then there needs to be more of a response to these kinds of behaviors, and not after it's already blown up into a giant story, but when it's just harmful comments on a messageboard, or shitty tweets that pop up in your tweetstream, or facebook "friends" who contribute to the negative aspect of that label you'd still like to wear with some semblance of pride.

Again, either way works: Attempt to reclaim the label as a positive through words and deeds, or abandon the label for a new one that better fits who you are and why you like what you like.

Things change, people change, people grow, hobbies shift, and there are adaptations along the way.

Oh? Now we're being given the option to reclaim our label? omg thank you bobby. Thank you so much. I'll be sure to do great things as a gamer again. Hopefully my words and deeds are enough for literally the entire community to feel they are covered by it.

 

[UncleSporky]

She doesn't seem to be stating numbers, does she? She's got this as almost a footnote buried in the article:

Yet in 2014, the industry has changed. We still think angry young men are the primary demographic for commercial video games -- yet average software revenues from the commercial space have contracted massively year on year, with only a few sterling brands enjoying predictable success.

It’s clear that most of the people who drove those revenues in the past have grown up...

Later, this:

Developers and writers alike want games about more things, and games by more people. We want -- and we are getting, and will keep getting -- tragicomedy, vignette, musicals, dream worlds, family tales, ethnographies, abstract art.

Care to back this up? It doesn't sound bad, but does this sort of content garner enough success in order to fund more of this content?

So-and-so doesn't have to be your audience. Ok, that's fine. Let's dispense with labels altogether.

Create content. Make a game, write an article. Note whether or not it is popular and successful. Repeat until you have a good idea of what's most profitable. What formula do you end up with?

I don't care if it's "gamer" content or not. I have a hunch it would be, but it works the same way as movies and books and any other media. Content producers follow trends. Saying a trend is over doesn't make it so. A call to action to forget about a certain group isn't practical if doing so will kill your company.

 

[Boke1879]

but the label itself is already tarnished with a negative perception. So it either needs to be reclaimed, or abandoned for something different. Either option is a positive as opposed to the alternative, which is allowing the tarnishing to continue while complaining that you shouldn't have to be counted among them.

If being a gamer is that important to who you are as a person, then there needs to be more of a response to these kinds of behaviors, and not after it's already blown up into a giant story, but when it's just harmful comments on a messageboard, or shitty tweets that pop up in your tweetstream, or facebook "friends" who contribute to the negative aspect of that label you'd still like to wear with some semblance of pride.

Again, either way works: Attempt to reclaim the label as a positive through words and deeds, or abandon the label for a new one that better fits who you are and why you like what you like.

Things change, people change, people grow, hobbies shift, and there are adaptations along the way.

I don't see the negative perception you're talking about though. The term "gamer" as seen by most is someone who plays video games. Nothing needs to be reclaimed. We are all gamers here. Again. Anything you add onto the definition of gamer that is seen as a negative is your own issue.

People can be shitty. It sucks but it's not exclusive to gaming. It's not fair to the people who do view themselves as nothing but gamers to tell them it's wrong to call themselves that. It comes off as arrogant and that you know better than they do.

 

[Xando]

but the label itself is already tarnished with a negative perception.

How is it negative? Its a label about someone whos playing Video Games. Nothing negative, nothing positive.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

A myriad of users have espoused similar ideals over the years. Admittedly, I rarely weigh in on the topic outside of sales threads, but in hindsight everyone should have seen it coming. Once there was a way to get cheap timewasters, without buying a product steeped in social stigma, the casual market would leave consoles entirely. This in turn will marginalize the products gamers buy. In turn heightening a protective reflex. This is why casual and mobile have become an angry sticking point for an already all around emotional group. Feeling threatened.

Very common in Consumerist America. We buy into the team mentality very very easy. Some of us have anti-social personalities anyway. Gaming was usually an outlet for those of us dealing with confidence or body issues, dysfunctional families, a whole range of reasons.

I would have worded it differently because I know how fragile this slice of gaming buyers can be, but I liked it.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Only in the bubble you live in.

Not true. I'd prefer if it wasn't the case, as that would mean this conversation wouldn't be happening every other week, with larger, more far-ranging versions of it happening every four to five months.

 

[2San]

Not true. I'd prefer if it wasn't the case, as that would mean this conversation wouldn't be happening every other week, with larger, more far-ranging versions of it happening every four to five months.

Care to back that up. All the definitions I can find seem to back my stance on the matter. The people that comment here or that visit your site are not an accurate representation of the general populace mind you.

 

[UncleSporky]

How is it negative? Its a label about someone whos playing Video Games. Nothing negative, nothing positive.

You can pretend that when someone says "oh him? He's a gamer," nobody gets any mental picture of anything negative, and people say "oh, good, that means he's likely a normal well-adjusted person," but that's not representative of the real world.

 

[cubicle47b]

I'm not sure what you're not getting, Brakke.

 

[Dugna]

but the label itself is already tarnished with a negative perception. So it either needs to be reclaimed, or abandoned for something different. Either option is a positive as opposed to the alternative, which is allowing the tarnishing to continue while complaining that you shouldn't have to be counted among them.

If being a gamer is that important to who you are as a person, then there needs to be more of a response to these kinds of behaviors, and not after it's already blown up into a giant story, but when it's just harmful comments on a messageboard, or shitty tweets that pop up in your tweetstream, or facebook "friends" who contribute to the negative aspect of that label you'd still like to wear with some semblance of pride.

Again, either way works: Attempt to reclaim the label as a positive through words and deeds, or abandon the label for a new one that better fits who you are and why you like what you like.

Things change, people change, people grow, hobbies shift, and there are adaptations along the way. Unsure how advocating for personal responsibility and advocacy for greater societal good in that context can be seen as "vile."

Go ask a normal person in today's world what is a "gamer" and they say a person who plays and likes games more then the average person. They don't call gamers misogynistic/racist/piles of crap. Because unlike some people in these "Journalist" sites they realized humanity itself is crap and each group has these people. They judge a person by their own merits and their own actions if that person is a shitty person they're a shitty person.

One person could be the nicest person on the planet call themselves a gamer and then get labeled by articles like this to be the biggest pile of shit ever because a small few. That isn't logical at all and is completely bullshit.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Oh? Now we're being given the option to reclaim our label?.

Option was always there.

Really, a lot of this line of discussion people seem to be engaging me on would vanish if a modicum of the effort put into defending the label "gamer" were poured into actively shouting down the people in the culture who are actively making it harder for you to enjoy your hobby with their harassing behaviors, and their abetting of such behaviors through either disinterest or apathy.

The culture is changing. it's already changed, and will continue to shift into something different as more people engage with video games. It's up to you as a person to decide how you adapt to those changes, or whether you'll try fighting them.

Go ask a normal person

I am a normal person.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Not true. I'd prefer if it wasn't the case, as that would mean this conversation wouldn't be happening every other week, with larger, more far-ranging versions of it happening every four to five months.

Are "rap" and "hip-hop" tarnished words? Or "metal" or "rock and roll"? Amount of discussion does not describe actual "tarnish."

 

[RockTurtle]

but the label itself is already tarnished with a negative perception. So it either needs to be reclaimed, or abandoned for something different. Either option is a positive as opposed to the alternative, which is allowing the tarnishing to continue while complaining that you shouldn't have to be counted among them.

If being a gamer is that important to who you are as a person, then there needs to be more of a response to these kinds of behaviors, and not after it's already blown up into a giant story, but when it's just harmful comments on a messageboard, or shitty tweets that pop up in your tweetstream, or facebook "friends" who contribute to the negative aspect of that label you'd still like to wear with some semblance of pride.

Again, either way works: Attempt to reclaim the label as a positive through words and deeds, or abandon the label for a new one that better fits who you are and why you like what you like.

Things change, people change, people grow, hobbies shift, and there are adaptations along the way. Unsure how advocating for personal responsibility and advocacy for greater societal good in that context can be seen as "vile."

the only people who have a negative perception of it are people who think gamers are basement dwelling losers, which includes a lot of people in the general public and that has been going on for a looooooong time, and now social progressive "games journalists" who write for those same people.

but it seems they are annoyed that this is who makes up a large part of their audience and they want a more sophisticated, left leaning audience, so maybe they can finally go in public and say "i write game reviews, i'm a games journalist" and not be embarrased.

 

[flatearthpandas]

The foundations for her accusations, her complaints, her conclusions, and her hopes are all entirely assumed. The closest this article comes to introducing an actual subject is when she links to other articles. My main takeaway from this piece is that she really hates the traditional gaming audience and believes that the gaming consumer base is now large enough that she can jettison them from her readership.

I'm struggling to raise some kind of feeling about this.

I can only assume she's talking about certain people's recent behavior toward Anita and Zoey. I agree that behavior is embarrassing and makes the community as a whole look bad. I don't see what her plan is to identify or disassociate with those particular people though. I see her shooting into the crowd and hoping she gets a few guilty people.

Moreover, in case of Zoey, there's a respectable amount of blame to lay at the feet of games journalism for that fiasco. When games journalism, which is rightfully mistrusted in the best of times, puts out a blundering global squelch order on something that could even possibly implicate them, then you are literally pushing angry people out onto Twitter to wreak havoc, possibly without the facts that could calm them. If you want to moderate your communities, you need to open the conversation. Here's the info being discussed, here's why it doesn't really affect the community or so-and-so's journalistic integrity, etc.

 

[UncleSporky]

Above all, I just don't get her call to action.

"Alright, you heard her, we don't have to target gamers, because gamers are over! Let's do some market research to find out what demographics we can target instead. Hmm, it turns out that games with strong language where you shoot a gun and have violent adventures are quite popular. Let's eschew targeting gamers and make those instead!"

 

[Boke1879]

You can pretend that when someone says "oh him? He's a gamer," nobody gets any mental picture of anything negative, and people say "oh, good, that means he's likely a normal well-adjusted person," but that's not representative of the real world.

The fact is. LOTS of people are gaming these days. Whether it's mobile, tablet, console or PC. Again if someone has a negative view on the word "gamer" that's their own problem.

I'm not going to stop identifying that I'm black because some people out there might assume I'm lazy, or a thug or a whole host of other things.

It's honestly ridiculous that the term "gamer" needs to be reclaimed or shifted to a new word.

 

[riotous]

Not true. I'd prefer if it wasn't the case, as that would mean this conversation wouldn't be happening every other week, with larger, more far-ranging versions of it happening every four to five months.

Tarnished from what though?

And "to" what?

I really don't think the general image of a "gamer" has changed in a long time.. it went from something incredibly nerdy to something slightly more accepted but still nerdy... that seems to have stayed pretty steady for many years now.

All of this more recent sexism/etc. is barely a blip on the pop culture radar.. ironically the people who would associate it with "Gamers" are.. part of the gaming culture. Those outside live generally unaware.. and plenty of gamers also don't really care very much. They just want to play fun games and read about fun games.. the drama has gotten old, and so has the meta-drama.

 

[SolidSnakex]

If you are somehow inhibiting that transition to a new form of culture, if you are trying to depress that growth, if you are using the terminology that was once reclaimed to now injure others, you're going to catch shit for it. If you're not stopping or calling attention to people displaying that kind of behavior, then you're somewhat complicit in it's continuing. I've been complicit. I've displayed that behavior.

You can call people out for the way they're acting without insulting them. Like I said, what exactly is going to be accomplished with insults? I think you'll get a lot more support without that. Few people here (if any) are going to argue against the idea of gaming being more inclusive. But in order to get there the insults are going to have to be cut back. And that's something that everyone has to work on. You shouldn't be supportive of one type of insult while getting angry at another type. Neither really does anything positive for gaming.

 

[Averon]

Does anyone have any evidence that the term "gamer" is deeply tarnish outside of insular game journalism bubble?

 

[Boke1879]

The foundations for her accusations, her complaints, her conclusions, and her hopes are all entirely assumed. The closest this article comes to introducing an actual subject is when she links to other articles. My main takeaway from this piece is that she really hates the traditional gaming audience and believes that the gaming consumer base is now large enough that she can jettison them from her readership.

I'm struggling to raise some kind of feeling about this.

I can only assume she's talking about certain people's recent behavior toward Anita and Zoey. I agree that behavior is embarrassing and makes the community as a whole look bad. I don't see what her plan is to identify or disassociate with those particular people though. I see her shooting into the crowd and hoping she gets a few guilty people.

Moreover, in case of Zoey, there's a respectable amount of blame to lay at the feet of games journalism for that fiasco. When games journalism, which is rightfully mistrusted in the best of times, puts out a blundering global squelch order on something that could even possibly implicate them, then you are literally pushing angry people out onto Twitter to wreak havoc, possibly without the facts that could call them. If you want to moderate your communities, you need to open the conversation. Here's the info being discussed, here's why it doesn't really affect the community or so-and-so's journalistic integrity, etc.

THIS. This is what I get as well. It seems she really dislikes the people that line up for midnight releases or conventions, or dress a different way then what she deems appropriate.

 

[Maintenance]

You can call people out for the way they're acting without insulting them. Like I said, what exactly is going to be accomplished with insults? I think you'll get a lot more support without that. Few people here (if any) are going to argue against the idea of gaming being more inclusive. But in order to get there the insults are going to have to be cut back. And that's something that everyone has to work on. You shouldn't be supportive of one type of insult while getting angry at another type. Neither really does anything positive for gaming.

Yes, I've been saying this for a while now.

 

[Fari]

Video game journalism seems to have developed a really insular bubble.

I've put myself in a bubble where I've blissfully ignored game journalism for close to a decade.

Some of you folks should try it.

 

[Xando]

You can pretend that when someone says "oh him? He's a gamer," nobody gets any mental picture of anything negative, and people say "oh, good, that means he's likely a normal well-adjusted person," but that's not representative of the real world.

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

 

[unbias]

Not true. I'd prefer if it wasn't the case, as that would mean this conversation wouldn't be happening every other week, with larger, more far-ranging versions of it happening every four to five months.

For this to be factually true you would need to give the % per capita of "gamers" that makes a label tarnished, then you need to get your scorecard out and then add up the good gamers/comments and the bad ones(empirically bad) and figure out what the ratio of good to bad to be able to say the name is tarnished(factually). That is a steep mountain to climb. I'd just rather point out bad behavior on an individual basis, as trying to throw an entire label under the bus(that many seem to fall under) only makes it seem like you think you have all the answers. I mean, it is like saying since there are cazy sports fans out there, that regularly give out death threats because a guy fucks up their fantasy team, that the term "sports fan" needs to go away or be reclaimed.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I'm not going to stop identifying that I'm black because some people out there might assume I'm lazy, or a thug or a whole host of other things.

It's honestly ridiculous that the term "gamer" needs to be reclaimed or shifted to a new word.

I'm not sure that a self-applied label based on a pastime you voluntarily choose to indulge is equivalent to being born with a specific skin tone.

 

[Paracelsus]

You can call people out for the way they're acting without insulting them. Like I said, what exactly is going to be accomplished with insults? I think you'll get a lot more support without that. Few people here (if any) are going to argue against the idea of gaming being more inclusive. But in order to get there the insults are going to have to be cut back. And that's something that everyone has to work on. You shouldn't be supportive of one type of insult while getting angry at another type. Neither really does anything positive for gaming.

You're a lot smarter than that, this is called psychological manipulation: voice your argument, then go with a pre-emptive strike, call names and shaming to anybody against you so that they are at a disadvantage in their rebuttal no matter what.

 

[Oersted]

Btw, why does OP seem to be so "hurt" over her claims? Happened anything?

 

[Freshmaker]

Jeff Gerstmann said it was a dumb term years ago at Gamespot. It's finally back to the forefront.

People spend way too much time worrying about the term given it just describes a group of people who like to play video games.

The really dumb concept is core gamer. "This doesn't appeal to core gamers" Whut? If a platform's selling well, they're hitting their "core gamers" right there.

 

[Dead Man]

but the label itself is already tarnished with a negative perception. So it either needs to be reclaimed, or abandoned for something different. Either option is a positive as opposed to the alternative, which is allowing the tarnishing to continue while complaining that you shouldn't have to be counted among them.

If being a gamer is that important to who you are as a person, then there needs to be more of a response to these kinds of behaviors, and not after it's already blown up into a giant story, but when it's just harmful comments on a messageboard, or shitty tweets that pop up in your tweetstream, or facebook "friends" who contribute to the negative aspect of that label you'd still like to wear with some semblance of pride.

Again, either way works: Attempt to reclaim the label as a positive through words and deeds, or abandon the label for a new one that better fits who you are and why you like what you like.

Things change, people change, people grow, hobbies shift, and there are adaptations along the way. Unsure how advocating for personal responsibility and advocacy for greater societal good in that context can be seen as "vile."

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. Denigrating entire groups of people is what people are supposed to be fighting against, not for.

As a queer gamer, seeing this shit is really disheartening. I see a lot of value in critical discussion of gaming culture, and I hate a lot of aspects that get expressed when people want to talk about the representation of women, or queer characters, or shit like that. But tarring everyone with that brush just because the identify as a gamer, or in the case of the article, just for lining up for a product, is fucking disgusting.

Making someone who identifies as a gamer feel like they have to choose between their hobby and their values (especially when those values line up with what the article writer seems to want) is pathetic and counter productive.

Even if I agreed with you in principle, human psychology doesn't work as you seem to think it should, and so it will never work as you want it to. Worse than being wrong, your idea is also just not going to work.

I sympathise with the sentiment that there are a lot of vile, misogynistic, bigoted, uncritical consumers of media that also identify as gamers. That doesn't mean the label is the way to diagnose the issue. The problem is misogyny etc, not people having a passion for games, or even standing in fucking line.

 

[Amazeballs]

Generic labels that are easy to strawman, manufactured outrage and a rhetoric that directs the emotions of the ill-informed or uneducated towards hypothetical enemies. We've gone full on identity politics with the term "gamer."

I think I'm gonna bail on all of this. The only ones who win in politics are the politicians.

 

[Zeyphersan]

How is it negative? Its a label about someone whos playing Video Games. Nothing negative, nothing positive.

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

 

[Boke1879]

I'm not sure that a self-applied label based on a pastime you voluntarily choose to indulge is equivalent to being born with a specific skin tone.

The point still stands. Which you didn't bother to address. I'm a gamer. It's definitely not all there is to me, but in the context that is what I identify myself with.

I don't see how the term "gamer" has been tarnished. Again ask someone in the outside world what a gamer is and I promise you most will say "someone who plays video games" Saying you're a gamer is neither positive or negative.

Gaming is inclusive. You have a shitty minority of people who can spoil it sure. But that's not exclusive to gaming. If you feel the term "gamer" is negative or something to be reclaimed then that's YOUR issue. YOUR problem.

 

[Moon_frogger]

Does anyone have any evidence that the term "gamer" is deeply tarnish outside of insular game journalism bubble?

Nope. I'm a gamer. Is it the focal point of my existence ? Nope. Seriously though, someone who MAKES THEIR LIVING FROM THE GAME INDUSTRY looking down their nose at game enthusiasts is not someone I'm going to give much attention to. If I'm sad and pathetic for identifying with a hobby that I enjoy then what does that someone who actually makes it their life's work, and not even a direct capacity but from the sidelines writing about it? I'm the sad one? I don't think so. Also, leigh alexander is a terrible writer. Terrible.

 

[UncleSporky]

The fact is. LOTS of people are gaming these days. Whether it's mobile, tablet, console or PC. Again if someone has a negative view on the word "gamer" that's their own problem.

I'm not going to stop identifying that I'm black because some people out there might assume I'm lazy, or a thug or a whole host of other things.

It's honestly ridiculous that the term "gamer" needs to be reclaimed or shifted to a new word.

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.

 

[Zeyphersan]

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

Definitely still true.

 

[unbias]

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

Hmm... You dont see how that is, possibly, conflicting? Seems that perhaps the media is driving the headlines and giving attention to assholes, giving the perception of a pervasive issue that is bigger then it factually is. I'm sorry, but if you are going to throw a label under the bus, you need facts/statistics to do it, I think.

 

[JMargaris]

BobbyRoberts has tarnished the "BobbyRoberts" label with his string of terrible posts.

I now demand that he change his user name!

 

[riotous]

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

Where is your evidence of this though?

Who do you think is reading these "headlines"?

Honestly.. IMO.. it's mostly gamers.

I'm sure tons of people here have corporate jobs.. ANYONE here water cooler talk about gamers sending rape and death threats? Anyone?

Not me. Never had anyone bring up gaming culture or gamers with me.. ever.. in any situation.. and I'm fairly social. People pay very little attention to gaming if they aren't gamers.. they get their sterotype from the people they know who play videogames. those people in general aren't spouting off rape threats as a habit.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

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.

"Oh, he's a rapper" "Oh, he's a musician" also could include loaded meanings about things that are just hobbies. It's time to stop using words in general obviously.

 

[RockTurtle]

i'm not a hiker, i just like to walk trails and jump over rocks.

 

[daffy]

Option was always there.

Really, a lot of this line of discussion people seem to be engaging me on would vanish if a modicum of the effort put into defending the label "gamer" were poured into actively shouting down the people in the culture who are actively making it harder for you to enjoy your hobby with their harassing behaviors, and their abetting of such behaviors through either disinterest or apathy.

The culture is changing. it's already changed, and will continue to shift into something different as more people engage with video games. It's up to you as a person to decide how you adapt to those changes, or whether you'll try fighting them.

They aren't making it hard for me to enjoy videogames or post on message boards. They're making it harder for gaming journalists to define their reading audience properly. And I'm not responsible for providing journalists with a more nuanced, situational way to describe us.

I'm going to fight proxy battles with bad eggs and I'm going to defend my ability to label myself in the most appropriate way I see fit. It just so happens the latter is the topic of discussion here.

 

[riotous]

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).
.

There is absolutely nothing new about that though... other than the fact it's now somewhat acceptable to play games at all (as long as you don't game too much or often.)

So what is "dead" or "over"?

 

[Doombacon]

I'm not sure that a self-applied label based on a pastime you voluntarily choose to indulge is equivalent to being born with a specific skin tone.

I spend nearly all of my free time on video games and video game related activities.

Spoiler

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.

Spoiler

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.

 

[Boke1879]

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

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.

 

[unbias]

They aren't making it hard for me to enjoy videogames or post on message boards. They're making it harder for gaming journalists to define their reading audience properly. And I'm not responsible for providing journalists with a more nuanced, situational way to describe us.

I'm going to fight proxy battles with bad eggs and I'm going to defend my ability to label myself in the most appropriate way I see fit. It just so happens the latter is the topic of discussion here.

The new media has become the old media, seems the grass wasn't actually greener on the 1's and 0's side.

 

[2San]

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

No one outside the gaming bubble knows who Zoe or Anita. Let alone in the gaming bubble itself. The vast majority of gamers don't even know about this meta-gaming drama that is happening at the moment.

 

[Kinyou]

Btw, why does OP seem to be so "hurt" over her claims? Happened anything?

Really? Where are you even going with this

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

The level of discourse in this community (I'm including Leigh Alexander in this community, whether she likes it or not) is just so overwrought and so depressingly unsophisticated. I can only hope that the last few weeks' convulsions have just been growing pains.

I do wonder where the game academics are. I wish some of them would put a blog together where I could read about games without all the rampant corporatism and subculture squabbling. Surely there are intelligent people out there who can save us from this cyclical civil war between embittered nerds and amateur feminists.