Jump to content
Fogel

Gamer - Defined

Recommended Posts

I like your defintion of a gamer but we need to realize that using the world as our gauge there are levels of gamers.

 

As I work from the bottom up :-) realize that each new level can include the levels before it.

 


  •  
  • Social Gamers, think Farmville and other Facebook games
  • Casual Gamers are those people that play games like Chuzzle or Angry Birds.
  • Light Gamer, these might delve now and then into some deeper games but they consider games a brief distrations.
  • Gamer, this type considers gaming a hobby and not a distraction.
  • Hardcore Gamer, this person has gaming as their primary hobby, occupied multiple hours daily.
     

What do you think?

I agree with that list (maybe not the titles) but overall I agree accept that there should maybe be on between 'Gamer' an 'Hardcore Gamer'.

 

I made a thread recently asking people to gauge what kind of skill level they though they were, I essentially said that I play a crap load of games but that I'm not very good at it.

When I play a video game I rarely spend less than 3 hours at a time playing, often times it is way more and almost every day of the week.

I'd like to think that I'm above your definition of 'Gamer' but I wouldn't consider myself a 'Hardcore Gamer'.

 

 

Then again 'Hardcore Gamer' does not imply skill, it merely implies the amount of time you put into it.

Maybe under your definition I am a hardcore gamer?

 

:dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to summarize this for everyone.

 

"I, sack packer, am the only true gamer and everyone else isn't as good as me!"

 

Seriously get over yourself, I don't know any game developers personally but I've never heard one say anything like that. I'm pretty sure they just want their games to be fun to play and make a lot of money from people that enjoy the games.

wait, I thought we were discussing the definition of a gamer, not what developers intend to do with their games. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove exactly by responding to my own personal definition with something that has nothing to do with it...

 

Also, I doubt that any developer would ever think in their minds while making a game that they are making the next classic or the game that will be remembered for decades to come. Those things just happen and some games are simply better than others no matter what the developers thought their games might become or would like them to become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not too sure what kind of tests or benchmarks they test anti-virus programs on but on a personal level, if the anti-virus does more damage than the viruses it's supposed to protect you from, it shouldn't really be called an anti-virus. Too many times have I removed Norton or AVG from a customers computer and the thing just leaps 7 years into future in terms of performance, this is just one aspect of the problems Norton causes though.

 

I know I give IGN too much crap a lot of the time and I know everyone doesn't see it the way I exaggerate it to be but you have to admit that places like IGN, Gamespot, Gametrailers are kind of overrated. That's why topics like this one exists, it's because IGN said something and because it's so popular, some people feel the need to try and argue with IGN's opinions. It's kind of like Fox News, it's insanely popular and successful and when it attacks a game full of . or violence, we gamers just go nuts and have to on our forums and just rant about it instead of just ignoring their opinion.

I'm not sure because it has been awhile since I've seen an AV comparison, but I do know some of the tests are just detection tests, so if Norton makes the computer run like it's from the 80's but it finds every virus, it's ahead of the pack.

I don't disagree with you, I just try not to go to any extreme with IGN. I'm enough a cynic though that it's hard to let things get overrated.

Regardless, I like the idea of trying to come up with a new definition and hierarchy of gamer. With games becoming more and more available to people, both in number and variety, it isn't intelligent to classify us all with the same term, from a scientific perspective at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wait, I thought we were discussing the definition of a gamer, not what developers intend to do with their games. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove exactly by responding to my own personal definition with something that has nothing to do with it...

 

Also, I doubt that any developer would ever think in their minds while making a game that they are making the next classic or the game that will be remembered for decades to come. Those things just happen and some games are simply better than others no matter what the developers thought their games might become or would like them to become.

Defining a gamer is pretty stupid, honestly what does everyone here think is really going to happen over the next few pages? We won't have come up with a definition, but simply a bunch of different opinions. There's no need to define gamer anyway, it's not like we're actually advancing the world along by doing so, the only thing that accomplishes is probably creating an elitist group, a bunch of you really, and that could only do harm to the world.

 

You doubt that game developers would ever think in their minds? think in their minds? As opposed to what? They can't think anywhere else. The mind is pretty much where all the thinking occurs.

 

I'm not sure because it has been awhile since I've seen an AV comparison, but I do know some of the tests are just detection tests, so if Norton makes the computer run like it's from the 80's but it finds every virus, it's ahead of the pack.

I don't disagree with you, I just try not to go to any extreme with IGN. I'm enough a cynic though that it's hard to let things get overrated.

Regardless, I like the idea of trying to come up with a new definition and hierarchy of gamer. With games becoming more and more available to people, both in number and variety, it isn't intelligent to classify us all with the same term, from a scientific perspective at least.

Well Norton can't find every single virus, so there.

 

I think you're kind of over thinking the gamer stuff, it's not like we're stupid if we call someone a gamer, and it doesn't make us any more intelligent if we divide gamers into dozens of groups. I know a certain genre of music that does that, metal, black metal, heavy metal, death metal, screaming metal, bloody metal, metal metal, the list could go on but it shouldn't. There's no need to come up with a bunch of different types of metal, it's all the same. I mean it's not like you're going to like everything in that particular genre even, just because you like black metal doesn't mean you will like every band labeled as black metal.

 

What the heck though, I guess I could throw out a definition of what I think a gamer is. I believe... a gamer is anyone, anyone at all, that likes Angry Birds. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Goth

We are starting to enter an era where I think Gamers need to take a stand on who qualifies and who doesn't. As mobile phone and tablets gain popularity the industry is defining people who play them as gamers. IGN just posted a Top 100 Modern Games list I am sure most have seen by now. For those who haven't seen it a couple mobile phone games like Angry Birds and Tiny Wings made it to the list. That means games with very little development time and practically no depth are beating games where actual game developers are investing a lot of time/effort/finances into. So a game you can litterally play while waiting in a Subway line or even while taking a dump is competing with games that will take you multiple days to complete. If you want to come up with a Top 20 mobile phone games list, awesome!

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the hell out of Free Cell and Spider Solitaire ...but no way in hell would I compare them with any game on a Top 100 list, let alone games that didn't make the list to make room for these games. Comparing mobile phone/tablet games to PC/Console games is like comparing a doodle you made in work/class to professional artwork. You just don't do that. It could be a really cool doodle but like hell is it real art. At some point phones and tablet may receive games where real development time is spent but we aren't there yet.

 

The defense is casual gamers deserve to be respected too. That statement alone I agree with, but do people that only play mobile phone games/apps qualify even as casual gamers? I will show the official definition of a gamer and then I will show you my dictionary friendly revision.

 

OFFICIAL DEFINITION

Gamer - Someone who play games

 

MY DEFINITION

Gamer - Someone who considers playing games as one of their primary hobbies

 

 

Simple and I think it leaves it open to when phone and tablet games mature. It is all about attitude. Someone who only plays mobile phone games is not any kind of gamer if they are capable of playing games on a PC/Console if they so desire. It simply means they are gaming (verb vs noun) on their phone. Now if someone is completely addicted to games but their mom/wife won't allow them to have a PC/Console so the only way to get their fix in is through their phone they are a gamer (a neutered one, but still a gamer). At some point you have to take your craft seriously to be considered part of the community.

 

 

Why do I care? Same reason artists care what is considered art and what isn't. If real game developers are getting less respect for all the time and effort they put into a game in favor of someone who created a game drunk people are playing on the crapper something is pathetically wrong. Why go to the trouble of sinking all that time and money into making a really nice game when the industry is going to pimp out Angry Birds instead of your game? Not to mention there are some really good indie games that deserve more respect than Angry Birds/Tiny Wings and cost the same or less on a good Steam deal. There are games that are trying to make a name for themselves and even competed for Game of the Year but lose a spot in a Top 100 list in favor of Angry Birds - really? :glare: The game I am thinking of is Okami. Resistence 2, Demon Souls, Crysis and League Legends all lost to Angry Birds. :yucky:

 

I'm not saying Angry Birds or other mobile phone games aren't fun and don't deserve respect, but don't compare them to real games. And don't say people who play those games are gamers. Not everyone who games is a gamer. Not everyone who draws is an artist.

 

//end_pointless_rant

 

Agree / Disagree?

 

Very well said. Agreed. I am proud of you dude.:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your defintion of a gamer but we need to realize that using the world as our gauge there are levels of gamers.

 

As I work from the bottom up :-) realize that each new level can include the levels before it.

 


  •  
  • Social Gamers, think Farmville and other Facebook games
  • Casual Gamers are those people that polay games like Chuzzle or Angry Birds.
  • Light Gamer, these might devle now and then into some deeper games but they consider games a brief distrations.
  • Gamer, this type considers gaming a hobby and not a distraction.
  • Hardcore Gamer, this person has gaming as their primary hobby, occupied multiple hours daily.
     

What do you think?

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defining a gamer is pretty stupid, honestly what does everyone here think is really going to happen over the next few pages? We won't have come up with a definition, but simply a bunch of different opinions. There's no need to define gamer anyway, it's not like we're actually advancing the world along by doing so, the only thing that accomplishes is probably creating an elitist group, a bunch of you really, and that could only do harm to the world.

It's for curiosity and achievement, just like playing a game itself. Also it is the people not the definition that make an elitist.

 

I think you're kind of over thinking the gamer stuff, it's not like we're stupid if we call someone a gamer, and it doesn't make us any more intelligent if we divide gamers into dozens of groups.

That's why I said "from a scientific perspective at least" because if someone were to study gamers they would need to be able to classify them properly. To not do so would be incredibly foolish and stupid, on the part of the researcher. The ego aspect I think is still valid though, because of hardcore gamers, whatever the definition will be, not wanting to be considered as much a gamer as their mom who spends hours playing Angry Birds. They would want to be considered more a gamer than she is.

 

I know a certain genre of music that does that, metal, black metal, heavy metal, death metal, screaming metal, bloody metal, metal metal, the list could go on but it shouldn't. There's no need to come up with a bunch of different types of metal, it's all the same. I mean it's not like you're going to like everything in that particular genre even, just because you like black metal doesn't mean you will like every band labeled as black metal.

Just as you're not going to like every FPS just because you like one. The fact is we are already in multiple groups based on what we like such as, FPS, adventure, platformer, and then further by the subgroups within those such as open world and cross genre works. That makes you an FPS-lover, adventure-lover, etc. The identification is still important. Some people want to be an FPS-lover just as some want to be a black metal lover and it isn't about being elitist, it is about belonging to a group. Currently by there not being formal distinction between the types of gamers the group could be seen as "polluted" which could lead to tension. It is probably worth my saying now that my interest is purely academic here and I want to know a formal definition. I strongly doubt I'd be considered a hardcore gamer, but even if I were, I view this an intellectual endeavor that will increase at minimum my understanding and possibly others by the examination that must take place before creating a formal definition. I'll try to get to that later today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I work from the bottom up :-) realize that each new level can include the levels before it.

 


  •  
  • Social Gamers, think Farmville and other Facebook games
  • Casual Gamers are those people that polay games like Chuzzle or Angry Birds.
  • Light Gamer, these might devle now and then into some deeper games but they consider games a brief distrations.
  • Gamer, this type considers gaming a hobby and not a distraction.
  • Hardcore Gamer, this person has gaming as their primary hobby, occupied multiple hours daily.
     

 

 

Sorry to quote myself. I have about 20 people here for the 4th, we are cooking out and celebrating my B-Day :thumbsup: (Actually B-Day is the 9th but easier to get everyone together on one day.) Anyway this crowd literally ranges from people that think gaming is for children to hardcore gamers. I ran the list and definitions by them and I was amazed, they all agreed!

 

The above is now the official defintion of the gamer strata for the Computer Ed Radio Show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I've come up with so far, and thank you ComputerEd for the names of the groups, though our definitions differ. That could just be because I tried to keep what the games are out of the definition.

Here's the whole hierarchy I've come up with:

I. Gamer: one who voluntarily attempts to overcome unnecessary obstacles.

A. Non-core Gamer: situational gamers who only game when they think their situation will benefit from it

1. Social Gamers: game only when asked and would not consistently choose to game, if they had the choice.

2. Casual Gamers: game for a distraction and never have a need to game.

B. Core Gamers: those that have a desire for the feeling of accomplishment only a game can bring them. They will make things into games that are not to the non-core gamers.

1. Light Gamer: they have the least desire for the feeling of accomplishment, but they do desire it. They would game during their free time. This is different from the casual gamer who games as a distraction. The light gamer makes the conscious choice to game over other activities.

2. Medium Gamer/Gamer: they plan out playing games and see it as an activity onto itself. This differs from the light gamer who views gaming as a free time activity.

3. Hardcore Gamer: these are the people that find games in everything. They always want the feeling of accomplishment a game can give them. Everything will be a competition.

These exist on a continuum and one can exhibit properties of the others. For example, if a medium gamer is traveling and hasn't anything to do, they may start playing a game they do not consider a challenge. This makes their activity one of distraction, like the casual gamer, because if they do not view the game as a challenge they cannot experience the sense of accomplishment that makes them a core gamer. The hardcore gamer is the exception to this though, as they will always invent a challenge with the distraction, keeping them a core gamer and, because they sought after and invented the challenge, they remain a hard core gamer.

I've got some more stuff written down, but I think this is enough to understand my thinking. By my definitions, I'd be a medium gamer mostly, though I will casually game when I'm bored, occasionally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,

 

Personally I l,ike your list but I think it overcomplicates the information for the purposes I will be using, which is to help with defining where various thinks computing fit together.

 

For example, below is the list we will be using for computers and components. At the end of each definition is a car model to help judge what I am meaning.

 


  •  
  • Budget : Someone that is worried about the bottom dollar and nothing else, any computer will do as long as we get it as cheap as we can. (Festiva)
  • Value : This person is looking to keep costs low but at the same time wants more from their PC than the bare bone basics. (largest consumer base) (High end escort to Taurus)
  • Performance: This person is still worrying about cost but wants great performance form the PC as well, even if it means spending more. (Where the more serious gamers tend to be) (Mustang)
  • Luxury: This person is worried about making their epeen big or has mommy and daddy to buy for them. Okay seriously this is the person that absolute performance in benchmarks is a must with price being no object. (Lamborghni or Tesla)
     

Now you will notice I DID not nor will I ever use the word Enthusiast when doing this. The reason is that the marketing departments have taken that word and bastardized it make people think they need to buy more expensive parts. An enthuisiast should not be labeled based on the parts he chooses to use but on his passion for the hobby. A value user that will spent time modding and tricking out his PC while tweaking ti to high end is a MUCH bigger enthusiast than someone that buys an Intel 6 Core and dual GTX 590 cards in a Level 10 case and then brags about it.

 

I think it is safe to say that most of the people on this forum are enthusiasts, it does not matter what our hardware is.

Edited by ComputerEd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I've come up with so far, and thank you ComputerEd for the names of the groups, though our definitions differ. That could just be because I tried to keep what the games are out of the definition.

Here's the whole hierarchy I've come up with:

I. Gamer: one who voluntarily attempts to overcome unnecessary obstacles.

A. Non-core Gamer: situational gamers who only game when they think their situation will benefit from it

1. Social Gamers: game only when asked and would not consistently choose to game, if they had the choice.

2. Casual Gamers: game for a distraction and never have a need to game.

B. Core Gamers: those that have a desire for the feeling of accomplishment only a game can bring them. They will make things into games that are not to the non-core gamers.

1. Light Gamer: they have the least desire for the feeling of accomplishment, but they do desire it. They would game during their free time. This is different from the casual gamer who games as a distraction. The light gamer makes the conscious choice to game over other activities.

2. Medium Gamer/Gamer: they plan out playing games and see it as an activity onto itself. This differs from the light gamer who views gaming as a free time activity.

3. Hardcore Gamer: these are the people that find games in everything. They always want the feeling of accomplishment a game can give them. Everything will be a competition.

These exist on a continuum and one can exhibit properties of the others. For example, if a medium gamer is traveling and hasn't anything to do, they may start playing a game they do not consider a challenge. This makes their activity one of distraction, like the casual gamer, because if they do not view the game as a challenge they cannot experience the sense of accomplishment that makes them a core gamer. The hardcore gamer is the exception to this though, as they will always invent a challenge with the distraction, keeping them a core gamer and, because they sought after and invented the challenge, they remain a hard core gamer.

I've got some more stuff written down, but I think this is enough to understand my thinking. By my definitions, I'd be a medium gamer mostly, though I will casually game when I'm bored, occasionally.

So where does someone like me belong on your list? According to your definitions, it sounds like I wouldn't be considered a gamer at all. I love to play games, but not for the challenge, I like to cheat most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think people are getting too worked up on the definition of a "gamer". If you play mobile games and ignore core games then more power to you and vice versa. ever since the influx of iphone/droid games, core gamers feel like they are being invaded, its pretty much the same argument for pc/ console arguments. i like to play to escape life and live in a different world, some people play for competition, some play to kill time and its all fine.

 

but i also understand the frustration, its kind of like if your hobby was modeling cars, and then some company comes up with these new kits that are like 75% complete, then these "noobs" start to claiming they are on the same level as you.

 

all in all, these mobile games will at most be flavors of the month and be forgotten in a year, whereas a truly great game with depth and stuff will last decades or more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...