Yeah, this is me right now. Usually I buy one to three games a week but I've been holding off more than usual. The only games I've bought since early March are Civ VI's expansions (to play with...
Yeah, this is me right now. Usually I buy one to three games a week but I've been holding off more than usual. The only games I've bought since early March are Civ VI's expansions (to play with others), Legend of Grimrock 2 (historical low for a 6 year old game and it was very, very cheap), and what I got from my Humble Choice subscription.
I've avoided buying Doom and Animal Crossing as much as I want to play them because I really can't be certain about my financial situation. I'm very, very, very lucky in that I still have job security and a steady paycheque but what if my landlord sells my home as a result of the financial pressures of this? What if my family or friends need help?
But that's fine. I'm very lucky. All I have to do is sit at home and not go outside. It's great for playing games, and I'm going to take advantage of all the freemium content. It's "Games as a Service" now but it's basically an evolution of freemium, where all these companies have banked on the idea that a low (to no) entry cost but constant microtransactions results in more income. I'm curious if their metrics are out of whack now that they have more people than ever playing their games but the proportion of people buying microtransactions has plummeted since most people aren't whales.
I've been playing the free new CoD mode Warzone since its release. I've put dozens of hours into it now. They had a free weekend for the base game's multiplayer two weeks ago and I enjoyed it enough to commit to buying it.... when they put it on sale again. It was 35% off just six weeks ago, and no amount of 25% sales right now are going to make me forget that. The game has also been basically spamming "Buy the season pass!" message so often that I've considered putting in a feature request to get uBlock Origin to develop a version for the game, but I'm not buying that. Why would I when it's the game I've put dozens of hours into, not whatever the hell my character looks like.
I'm playing way more games with a monthly subscription. It allows me to try out games that might be questionable without fear of losing $5-$50. It also allows me to bail on a popular game if it...
I'm playing way more games with a monthly subscription. It allows me to try out games that might be questionable without fear of losing $5-$50. It also allows me to bail on a popular game if it turns out to be lame. It used to be if I paid for it, I'd try to slog through it anyway in the hopes it got better because of the sunken cost. It's very liberating!
I believe the word gamer is misused here. Not everyone that plays videogames is a gamer just like not everyone that watches movies is a cinephile. These words are reserved for enthusiasts. And...
I believe the word gamer is misused here. Not everyone that plays videogames is a gamer just like not everyone that watches movies is a cinephile. These words are reserved for enthusiasts.
And enthusiasts are not defined by hours of media consumption, but rather by how much their object of adoration define their identities, hopes and dreams. A person can mindless play games on the smartphone all day without being an enthusiast.
I think there's a closer parallel to the word 'photographer' than cinephile. Is someone a photographer because they took a photo on their phone? Yes and no. Is someone a gamer because they played...
I think there's a closer parallel to the word 'photographer' than cinephile. Is someone a photographer because they took a photo on their phone? Yes and no. Is someone a gamer because they played a game for a few minutes during a quarantine? Yes and no.
The interesting thing about gaming is that it's an "active" form of media consumption. You actually do something. It can easily be argued that watching TV is almost literally doing nothing. Games,...
The interesting thing about gaming is that it's an "active" form of media consumption. You actually do something. It can easily be argued that watching TV is almost literally doing nothing. Games, even the dumbest ones, require some level of interaction, of actually playing.
In trying to make sense why gamers seem to take attacks on their medium more personally, this is one of the most interesting observations for me (the less interesting one is that they're younger on average, thus more immature). People actually identify with what they do in games since it's a much larger part of what they do, their personality. That's the only way I can make sense of people getting upset about the word "gamer" being ill-defined. You had to be a hardcore cinephile to be upset with being grouped into a general "movie attendance" stat or something.
That's an interesting theory. To add onto it, gaming is also a medium that allows for interaction and competition. It's easy to be a book-lover or cinephile all on your own, but while that's...
That's an interesting theory. To add onto it, gaming is also a medium that allows for interaction and competition. It's easy to be a book-lover or cinephile all on your own, but while that's possible in gaming, it's far less likely given that many games are designed to be experiences that are shared with others. While this can be great and amazing, it can also be awful and bring out a lot of toxic behaviors and beliefs. The idea of a child screaming slurs at you over voicechat is one of the archetypal pillars of online gaming -- let that say what it will about the medium's identity.
Gaming also a lot of crossover with some of the worse aspects of nerd culture and fandoms: lots of prejudicial gatekeeping; lots of hostility to perceived outsiders; insular and protective worldviews, etc.
Maybe it's more like a Runner than a Photographer, where everyone runs, or has ran in the past, but runners have their form and their running products and that Runner identity that sets them apart...
Maybe it's more like a Runner than a Photographer, where everyone runs, or has ran in the past, but runners have their form and their running products and that Runner identity that sets them apart from everyone else who just walks or rides or drives.
The onus against calling a casual movie watcher a cinephile is an order of magnitude higher than calling a casual photo taker a photographer though, and for me at least that lower threshold fits...
The onus against calling a casual movie watcher a cinephile is an order of magnitude higher than calling a casual photo taker a photographer though, and for me at least that lower threshold fits 'gamer' much better.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamer "Gamer" might a be word hardcore gamers want to reserve for themselves, but I think the dictionary definition is the context in which it's being...
2: a person who plays games
especially : a person who regularly plays computer or video games
"Gamer" might a be word hardcore gamers want to reserve for themselves, but I think the dictionary definition is the context in which it's being used here.
Notice that dictionaries are descriptions (rather than prescriptions) made by other human beings of a certain culture in a fixed time and context. Language is way more fluid and complex. With the...
Notice that dictionaries are descriptions (rather than prescriptions) made by other human beings of a certain culture in a fixed time and context. Language is way more fluid and complex. With the exception of Scrabble games, dictionaries are of little relevance in semantic disputes.
That is not the point. The point is that dictionaries have only weakly authoritative power, and therefore are less useful to resolve semantic disputes than you seem to think.
That is not the point. The point is that dictionaries have only weakly authoritative power, and therefore are less useful to resolve semantic disputes than you seem to think.
I think this adjective is necessarily fuzzy so I don't want to get too deep into arguing over definitions, but I'm struck by the particular phrase you used, "define their identities, hopes and...
I think this adjective is necessarily fuzzy so I don't want to get too deep into arguing over definitions, but I'm struck by the particular phrase you used, "define their identities, hopes and dreams." I take it that someone who is merely very knowledgeable about a game or skilled at a particular game wouldn't count?
What sort of hopes and dreams did you have in mind? Going pro?
Yeah, it's one of those terms where it's got different definitions depending on context. There's gamer as a descriptor (i.e. "someone who plays games") and gamer as an identity (i.e. "someone who...
Yeah, it's one of those terms where it's got different definitions depending on context. There's gamer as a descriptor (i.e. "someone who plays games") and gamer as an identity (i.e. "someone who makes games a focus in their life"). The former is usually externally applied (as is the case in this article), while the latter is something usually internally defined (I would call myself a gamer; my coworker who plays Words With Friends would not).
A more clear headline would be "Everyone is playing games now" instead of "Everyone's a gamer now".
There's a deeply cynical part of me says that the selection of the word "gamer" is often a deliberate and strategic choice in articles like these, as it's a bit of a lightning rod of a word on the internet. Despite this article having nothing to do with gamer identity, it's still likely to get a bit more traffic and discussion because of that phrasing.
Yeah, this is me right now. Usually I buy one to three games a week but I've been holding off more than usual. The only games I've bought since early March are Civ VI's expansions (to play with others), Legend of Grimrock 2 (historical low for a 6 year old game and it was very, very cheap), and what I got from my Humble Choice subscription.
I've avoided buying Doom and Animal Crossing as much as I want to play them because I really can't be certain about my financial situation. I'm very, very, very lucky in that I still have job security and a steady paycheque but what if my landlord sells my home as a result of the financial pressures of this? What if my family or friends need help?
But that's fine. I'm very lucky. All I have to do is sit at home and not go outside. It's great for playing games, and I'm going to take advantage of all the freemium content. It's "Games as a Service" now but it's basically an evolution of freemium, where all these companies have banked on the idea that a low (to no) entry cost but constant microtransactions results in more income. I'm curious if their metrics are out of whack now that they have more people than ever playing their games but the proportion of people buying microtransactions has plummeted since most people aren't whales.
I've been playing the free new CoD mode Warzone since its release. I've put dozens of hours into it now. They had a free weekend for the base game's multiplayer two weeks ago and I enjoyed it enough to commit to buying it.... when they put it on sale again. It was 35% off just six weeks ago, and no amount of 25% sales right now are going to make me forget that. The game has also been basically spamming "Buy the season pass!" message so often that I've considered putting in a feature request to get uBlock Origin to develop a version for the game, but I'm not buying that. Why would I when it's the game I've put dozens of hours into, not whatever the hell my character looks like.
I'm playing way more games with a monthly subscription. It allows me to try out games that might be questionable without fear of losing $5-$50. It also allows me to bail on a popular game if it turns out to be lame. It used to be if I paid for it, I'd try to slog through it anyway in the hopes it got better because of the sunken cost. It's very liberating!
I believe the word gamer is misused here. Not everyone that plays videogames is a gamer just like not everyone that watches movies is a cinephile. These words are reserved for enthusiasts.
And enthusiasts are not defined by hours of media consumption, but rather by how much their object of adoration define their identities, hopes and dreams. A person can mindless play games on the smartphone all day without being an enthusiast.
I think there's a closer parallel to the word 'photographer' than cinephile. Is someone a photographer because they took a photo on their phone? Yes and no. Is someone a gamer because they played a game for a few minutes during a quarantine? Yes and no.
I believe both comparisons are equally valid.
The interesting thing about gaming is that it's an "active" form of media consumption. You actually do something. It can easily be argued that watching TV is almost literally doing nothing. Games, even the dumbest ones, require some level of interaction, of actually playing.
In trying to make sense why gamers seem to take attacks on their medium more personally, this is one of the most interesting observations for me (the less interesting one is that they're younger on average, thus more immature). People actually identify with what they do in games since it's a much larger part of what they do, their personality. That's the only way I can make sense of people getting upset about the word "gamer" being ill-defined. You had to be a hardcore cinephile to be upset with being grouped into a general "movie attendance" stat or something.
That's an interesting theory. To add onto it, gaming is also a medium that allows for interaction and competition. It's easy to be a book-lover or cinephile all on your own, but while that's possible in gaming, it's far less likely given that many games are designed to be experiences that are shared with others. While this can be great and amazing, it can also be awful and bring out a lot of toxic behaviors and beliefs. The idea of a child screaming slurs at you over voicechat is one of the archetypal pillars of online gaming -- let that say what it will about the medium's identity.
Gaming also a lot of crossover with some of the worse aspects of nerd culture and fandoms: lots of prejudicial gatekeeping; lots of hostility to perceived outsiders; insular and protective worldviews, etc.
Oh I’m not upset at all!
Maybe it's more like a Runner than a Photographer, where everyone runs, or has ran in the past, but runners have their form and their running products and that Runner identity that sets them apart from everyone else who just walks or rides or drives.
The onus against calling a casual movie watcher a cinephile is an order of magnitude higher than calling a casual photo taker a photographer though, and for me at least that lower threshold fits 'gamer' much better.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamer
"Gamer" might a be word hardcore gamers want to reserve for themselves, but I think the dictionary definition is the context in which it's being used here.
Notice that dictionaries are descriptions (rather than prescriptions) made by other human beings of a certain culture in a fixed time and context. Language is way more fluid and complex. With the exception of Scrabble games, dictionaries are of little relevance in semantic disputes.
In which way is this description of the word's meaning no longer valid or less valid than your description?
That is not the point. The point is that dictionaries have only weakly authoritative power, and therefore are less useful to resolve semantic disputes than you seem to think.
I think this adjective is necessarily fuzzy so I don't want to get too deep into arguing over definitions, but I'm struck by the particular phrase you used, "define their identities, hopes and dreams." I take it that someone who is merely very knowledgeable about a game or skilled at a particular game wouldn't count?
What sort of hopes and dreams did you have in mind? Going pro?
Switch “and” with “or” and expand the concept of personal identity (not because I require it but because it actually is very broad and subjective).
Also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
Yeah, it's one of those terms where it's got different definitions depending on context. There's gamer as a descriptor (i.e. "someone who plays games") and gamer as an identity (i.e. "someone who makes games a focus in their life"). The former is usually externally applied (as is the case in this article), while the latter is something usually internally defined (I would call myself a gamer; my coworker who plays Words With Friends would not).
A more clear headline would be "Everyone is playing games now" instead of "Everyone's a gamer now".
There's a deeply cynical part of me says that the selection of the word "gamer" is often a deliberate and strategic choice in articles like these, as it's a bit of a lightning rod of a word on the internet. Despite this article having nothing to do with gamer identity, it's still likely to get a bit more traffic and discussion because of that phrasing.