Yes, They're Gamers, Too

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

a gamer is someone who has bought and played a game being it wii sports operation flashpoint or halo so in summary casual gamers are gamers butt people who only play facebook games are not

I'm tempted to believe that this Jun-Kai Teoh isn't a gamer. I'm currently trying to view his article, but it sounds like gaming stopped being fun for him quite a while ago if he's this upset over "casual" gaming. Considering the stigma that videogames have had for so long, since when have we had something to prove to other people?

If gaming is not fun, you are not a gamer.

You know what? Thank you for the article Susan. You may have been preaching to the converted but you tried.

I love seeing everyone freaking out... "I can't beat Mega Man either BAWWWW SOMEONE REAFFIRM ME AS A GAMER!!"

I don't know how many of you guys play the facebook games and other casual titles in question. A friend of mine actually works in the casual games industry with a few facebook titles to his credit. The requirements sheets for stuff he has to design read like an insult to anyone who's ever enjoyed an actual videogame. There is an absolute ban on any kind of challenge, or win/lose situation. Simply put, Farmville and its imitators are not "games"... they're fun something-elses I guess for the right sort of person but BY DESIGN they take away the things that define the concept of a "game".

I don't think just sitting down with a console game is enough to make someone a gamer. Games have the thrill and spectacle of a good movie these days, I can see why anyone would want to sit down with one for a while. The difference is that gamers play games looking for a challenge, wanting to see the difficulty and complexity of those challenges start ratcheting up or even making up their own challenges as they go along. My disagreement with Teoh's article is that he emphasizes accomplishment, while I'd accept anyone who has the required motivation.

It's okay, I suck at MegaMan too. :P

If you have a passion for gaming, no matter what kind of game it is, you are a gamer. If you have a passion for any one hobby, then there should be no one to contradict you on it. Last I checked, there is no paperwork or certificate that gives you the right to be a gamer.

People who play casual games aren't gamers. That doesn't mean, however, that they're worth any less...

I don't get this article...?

8-Bit_Jack:

Yes, but I view "gamer" as closer to film buff, hardcore is fanaticism. You can guess which I am

That's fine, but I really think the common usage of the term is closer to "moviegoer". Outside of msg boards and lan parties people just use it to describe someone that plays games.

veloper:

We buy the good games; they buy the easy casual games and there's more of them than us, so we see won't see any good games, unless we're vocal enough to be recognized by the industry as a smaller, but sizeable market who won't buy casual shit.

Believe me there are PLENTY of good games on the market. If you can't find any it's more a result of your prejudice against "casual" games than the imaginary decline of the industry.

NamesAreHardToPick:
I love seeing everyone freaking out... "I can't beat Mega Man either BAWWWW SOMEONE REAFFIRM ME AS A GAMER!!"

I don't know how many of you guys play the facebook games and other casual titles in question. A friend of mine actually works in the casual games industry with a few facebook titles to his credit. The requirements sheets for stuff he has to design read like an insult to anyone who's ever enjoyed an actual videogame. There is an absolute ban on any kind of challenge, or win/lose situation. Simply put, Farmville and its imitators are not "games"... they're fun something-elses I guess for the right sort of person but BY DESIGN they take away the things that define the concept of a "game".

To be fair the concept of what makes a game is redefined every couple of years. Most games out today aren't games by the old 1980's definition.

A lot of people that are against the recent casual influx seem to be of the opinion that if it isn't challenging it's not a game. Never mind that not everyone plays games to "beat them". People play for a myriad of reasons nowadays, including story, socialization, and even art. Who is to say that these people aren't gamers too? I really think that dismissing these audiences is a lot more dangerous to the medium than the "dumbing down" that so many people are complaining about.

People who say casual gamers arnt gamers, are tehmselves not gamers and need a life.

They are lower forms of life :P

Do I think this, not really but I do think they are not gamers, why because I like the old school gamer philosophy. If you paint your own figures your a gamer, if not your something else :D

BTW I fit allot of definitions of gamer
I own and actively pursue a multitude of pen and paper rpg systems (DnD 3.5 DnD 4.0 M&M WoD Pirates, 7th sea, etc)
I play War games (War hammer ((I suck btw)) HeroClix, Axis and Allies, DND minis ((not 4.0 version)))
I play Board Games (Not only games like Monopoly, but Arkham Horror, Risk, Axis and Allies, Prince of the city, OOTS)
I play Card games, both collectible and not (Munchkins, Magic as two)
I have been playing Electronic games since the bloody NES own every Nintendo system save the virtue boy, PC gaming as well as all current generation systems (well not the psp getting one next month)
oh and I play Casual Games.

If Casual Gamers are not gamers, like many of you say, then I can easly go, none of you are gamers unless you can at least beat that list. Gamer started out as War Gamer, unless you paint your own figures in Warhammer your not a gamer, Maybe an Electronic gamer, or a loser, but not a gamer.

Or perhaps the definition has changed and your stuck in the past like those wargamers who don't think anyone else is a gamer.

I know how to make few plunks. Does this make me a guitarist?
I know how to drive the car. Does this make me a race or a taxi driver?
I know how to lift weights. Does this make me a bodybuilder?
I know how to run and I do it often. Does this make me a runner?
Someone plays a game twice a week. Does this make him a gamer?

Those questions have the same answer.

As someone who has been constantly reminded that "games are a waste of time" by my own mother ever since I took up the hobby/obsession/whatever you want to call it... I can safely say that the battle isn't over yet. Because while my mother does play casual games like Bejeweled (and she is much better at it than me, and I don't really care enough to improve), she has no idea who made the game, how much work went into it (okay, its Bejeweled, but still), and how much money was put into the project (oh shut up).

The point is, I know for a fact that my mother will never, ever try any non-casual game (I even had to explain to her what the difference between Casual, Mainstream, and Hardcore was) unless her life depended on it... hmm... no... bad idea. And she is still keeping up some bad habits when judging games... like say, assuming that simply watching someone else play a game for about 10 minutes gives you a full understanding of the game as a whole. For some games, okay, I'll grant you that this can be enough... but only if you have played a lot of other games that share at least some gameplay similarities.

As an example: after watching me play through the brief Ravenholm chapter, my mother came to the conclusion that HL2 is a shallow and vapid copy of House of the Dead... which we used to play together at arcades. (face-palm of epic proportions)

I'm not saying that you have to like HL2 to be a true gamer, but you have to be able to at least recognize that a lot of time, effort, work, and money went into most games that are made. And sadly, my mother (and people like her), can't really understand that... they just make the assumption that I used to make when I was 4 and started gaming: that the games came from an electronic smiles machine from a magical land far far away. (another epic face-palm)

boholikeu:

veloper:

We buy the good games; they buy the easy casual games and there's more of them than us, so we see won't see any good games, unless we're vocal enough to be recognized by the industry as a smaller, but sizeable market who won't buy casual shit.

Believe me there are PLENTY of good games on the market. If you can't find any it's more a result of your prejudice against "casual" games than the imaginary decline of the industry.

Believing doesn't figure into this. Last year has been a very poor year and 2008 wasn't much better.
There were *some* games in 2009 worth buying, like dragon age and tropico3, but not enough.
A promising game like asscreed 2 turned out to be way too easy, while games like demons souls and dragon age actually got criticized for being "too difficult". Even game reviewers are becoming casual.
When the real gamers shut up, the only games the industry poops out will be simple enough for drooling idiots.

A gamer is a person who plays games. It does not matter what kind of game they play (be it one on Facebook or not), it is a very, very simple definition. I am amazed at the stupidity of people that liken their own terms to it. People who find eliteness in the term are very, very sad indeed.

boholikeu:
To be fair the concept of what makes a game is redefined every couple of years. Most games out today aren't games by the old 1980's definition.

A lot of people that are against the recent casual influx seem to be of the opinion that if it isn't challenging it's not a game. Never mind that not everyone plays games to "beat them". People play for a myriad of reasons nowadays, including story, socialization, and even art. Who is to say that these people aren't gamers too? I really think that dismissing these audiences is a lot more dangerous to the medium than the "dumbing down" that so many people are complaining about.

Woah, hey now. Grab a dictionary. We're talking about a real word here, the videogame industry can't redefine it every couple of years... never mind the fact that we've been running, jumping, and shooting bad guys pretty solidly from like the release of Mega Man way back before most posters here were alive to Uncharted 2.

If someone is motivated enough by the story or art of a game to encourage them to play it to completion, good on them and I hope they enjoy it, maybe they're a gamer and don't know it yet.

I've seen non-gamers play videogames... revivedplayed MMO's with people who are there mainly as a fun means of socializing but weren't interested in optimizing their character, played through action games with people who love the stories but only engage in gameplay as much as required to get to the next cut-scene, bought games because they let my daughter hug chickens on a virtual farm or carry monkies around in magical wolf's mouth. They're something they want from the software, even if it has nothing to do with the "game" the developers created. I'm guilty of it too from time to time, the most fun I've ever had in bloom blox was ignoring the "rules", just grabbing the bottom piece off a puzzle and trying to nunchuck other pieces into the scenery as they fell through the air.

In general, people who play videogames for some reason other than mastering the underlying game aren't gamers and it's not doing favors to anybody involved if we try and treat them as such... I'm not worried about ignoring people who really do care about games in favor of the much larger number of people that don't, we're well spoken for because this medium started off as ours exclusively. I've got a bunch of non-gamer folks in my family, like everyone besides me. They spend hours on the PS3 collecting stuff and role-playing and smashing cars and hugging chickens and making toys. They rarely-if-ever enjoy mastering the actual games contained in each piece of software... at best they put up with it in order to fulfill some other purpose.

Let's go to the toy store. Toy stores "get" the differences in entertanment needs in a way that videogame publishers should really get their heads around. There's a "games" section, look what's there besides me geeking out - alone, probably - over the back of absolutely every box and trying to pick just one. Separately, you'll find books, and puzzles, you'll get run over by my son as he's running around with action figures or toys or building kits, and my daughter's hugging all the stuffed animals and asking them which one wants to go home with her.

In comparison everything that goes on a console is called a "game" and HAS TO INCLUDE A GAME. That's where the divide is, it's not that the games are too hard and that they need to make it so even a potato has the wits and reflexes to succeed... it's that everyone has to play some stupid game to get to the part they actually want. If the videogame industry ran a toy store it would be one huge GAMES section and "screw you" to anyone who just wants a toy; they all come with a game board and a rulebook telling you how you have to play. Maybe models would come locked in a vending machine that spits out the next part you need only if you can successfully beat it in a round of Simon. That's how badly they're missing their untapped markets with "casual games". Suppose a kid that just wants to smash cars or blow things up in glorious high-def, he's gotta do all these frustrating races to unlock the good models and there's some goddamned announcer branding him as a LOSER every time he blows it. What monster decided that all the animals in a virtual petting zoo should have predators hanging around, or become miserable and sick whenever you're not doing a bunch of chores to support them? HELLO EA, YOU'RE JUST SUCCEEDING IN MAKING A LITTLE AUTISTIC GIRL CRY ABOUT HER DEAD MEERKATS.
She even remembers all their randomly-generated names.
Dammit now I've got something in my eye.

Trying to make every product appeal to everybody who might possibly step into that toy store is just a recipe for failure, just ask all the games gathering dust after buying them for my non-gamers out of some superficial appeal until they hit a brick wall of "oh I have to play some stupid game here too" hidden beneath some accessible surface and lost a kid's attention to something that *doesn't* smack them in the face for trying to play with it. We are hurting both ourselves and our non-gamer friends by encouraging this trend of painting everyone who's got a controller in their hands with the same brush.

tl;dr - nobody wants "dumbed down" games. Gamers don't want their intelligence insulted, and nobody else wants to be forced into some kind of game just to "unlock" all the chapters in a story they want to see, all the legos in the kit they bought, or to keep a virtual pet from suffering some horrible fate.

A lot of people I know enjoy Farmville and the use it to pass the time and of course they enjoy it. My wife used to play a game Chinese game like Farmville all the time but hasn't played it since. Is she a gamer? No. This is a unnecessary argument that just sound like people wanting to label. Its defining that anyone who gets their hands on a game is automatically a gamer when there will always be something that will interest someone at some point. I'm sorry but I disagree and the people I know that plays these games would too. Hell my wife would laugh at the thought of being a gamer.

When they don't play Farmville anymore, are they suddenly not gamers?

Why do half the people in here sound like angry old men who've just had a complete stranger walk into their favorite bar? Sheesh.

NamesAreHardToPick:
In general, people who play videogames for some reason other than mastering the underlying game aren't gamers and it's not doing favors to anybody involved if we try and treat them as such... I'm not worried about ignoring people who really do care about games in favor of the much larger number of people that don't, we're well spoken for because this medium started off as ours exclusively. I've got a bunch of non-gamer folks in my family, like everyone besides me. They spend hours on the PS3 collecting stuff and role-playing and smashing cars and hugging chickens and making toys. They rarely-if-ever enjoy mastering the actual games contained in each piece of software... at best they put up with it in order to fulfill some other purpose.

Err. No, I vehemently disagree. I play games purely to experience the story and setting, and while yes I do find myself getting caught up in the grind and gameplay, this is rarely the reason I'll buy anything the the first place. Who here can claim the likes of Fallout and Fallout 2, or Baldur's Gate and Planescape Torment were the pinnacle of -gameplay- of their day? And, keep in mind, apart from the numerous RTSes and a smattering of FPSes, my rather largish collection consists mainly of RPGs and Adventure games.

Am I thus as you say, -not- a gamer because I don't play purely to be challenged? Admittedly, I have finished most the games I've played, but I'm rarely rushing to do so, and it's not uncommon for me to leave a game for a week or two, even months before completing them.

Further, while I agree that it's not ideal to make a product that appeals to everybody, I don't really think this is much of a problem, as while yes, the casual market seems to have overtaken more traditional games, there's still enough of a varied platter of genres and styles that everyone can find a game that suits them.

In the end, this all seems like a lot of selfish posturing by angry people who don't like the idea that other people are interested and enjoying in something they perceive as theirs alone, and feel that anyone who wants to be a gamer needs either to join em' or get lost. And indeed, feel the rise of casual games is a major threat to that interest. (Not against you specifically NamesAreHardToPick, your points were very well put out :) )

Although I couldn't care less, I would say you get the sense of "how much" of a gamer someone is - even if you can't define why (going back to the casual/hardcore debate).

GothmogII:
Am I thus as you say, -not- a gamer because I don't play purely to be challenged? Admittedly, I have finished most the games I've played, but I'm rarely rushing to do so, and it's not uncommon for me to leave a game for a week or two, even months before completing them.

So your lot, the bros all on MW2, everyone playing Farmville, suppose we call everyone who sometimes plays videogames "gamers" even if they have other hobbies... what new word to you call people who play games for the sake of finding all the secrets, beating all of the seemingly-impossible bits, posting lap records or high scores, min/maxing characters, etc, until it looks to any reasonable person like a bunch of work?

Je suis joueur de les jeux! Not sure if that translates to what i want it to say. anyone?

Yeah it doesn't really matter what they play if the do it semi-regularly then they can be a gamer, i dont care really. I play farmville, pretty decent at it. figured how to easily grind levels.. I also play BFBC and SCreed 2 very regularly. and if my computer would straighten out i could play any of the multiiple games on there. So Je suis joueur de les jeux et je jour Farmville. also if anyone check the first sentence, is this one right too?

OneBig Man:
I don't think people who play casual games are "gamers", but rather people who play video games. Then again, I don't consider people Who spend their lives trying to be lvl 80 in WoW or try to be top ranked in CoD "gamers" either. To me, gamers enjoy every part of gaming from the RTS to the FPS. Gamers love to get headshots, but they also love to get to finish the quest and get to the next stage.

To sum it up, I think a gamer may love one genre, but that doesn't stop them from liking the other ones.

I completely agree with this, it doesnt matter how good you are at gaming or what type of games you play, if you feel that gaming is a hobby of yours, then you can probably call yourself a 'gamer', but i seriously doubt that all those farmvillers seriously condsider it as this, rather than just a way to avoid working

Gamer use to mean something, akin to hobbyist or enthusiast... now adays it sadly means consumer. Nothing less nothing more.

And consumer means brain dead zombie as far as I am concerned you people have the numbers to force the industry to focus more on qaulity but you are to busy to give a damn even if it means mainstreamization brings us more pissed down crap....

Ya ya hate me because I am a media nazi...not because I am incoherent....oh wait!!
:P

PS:Mega man died 5osh years ago the series is stagnant...ALL of them.... take bits of lost planet and Soylent...er... Bionic comando with Mega man legends(or metroid prime) with some good FPS options so you can play 3P or FP. THis is a game I would pay 100$ for..well...as long as its at elast 20 hours long........get it done capcom..... we are waiting.....

we are........we....are......there is another........ bbrraaiinnnsssssss......

Where down the line was the term "gamer" became synonym with "professional videogame performer" exactly?

Random Bobcat:
Unfortunately humans like to promote segregation which supplies artificial superiority. "Gamers" don't like being part of the social mainstream, much like punks or goths don't.

TheGreatCoolEnergy:
Well, I agree with the view of the article. But I also have a theory about why people do this: they need to feel superior.

VioletZer0:
Let's just get rid of the word ''Gamer'' from now on.

Do we have a name for people who watch TV or movies? No.

Well, that saved me some typing time. Thank you.

ArcWinter:
If you play Tetris, you are a gamer. There is no game more hardcore or awesome than Tetris.

Particularly because the Tetris god is a harsh and cruel deity.

GothmogII:
Why do half the people in here sound like angry old men who've just had a complete stranger walk into their favorite bar? Sheesh.

Because like drunken bitter old timers, the "hardcores" tend to be very protective of their self-denominations.

Same for old punks and metalheads. Particularly annoying people when they start to age, surprisingly. As a kid, I always thought they would be the cool old people of the world.

Funny how things turn out...

It's kinda funny that you mention WoW in the article as an example of what people would list as a requirement to be a gamer. Not even a year ago we were having a brief discussion while getting a raid set-up. I forget exactly what the conversation was about because I was drifting in and out while setting-up some other things, but I remember coming in at one point to hear one of my RL friends remarking with shock at how someone would call a person who only plays WoW a gamer. I guess I'm not really sure where he had set the quota, but the idea of someone being considered a gamer for only playing one game was completely alien to him.

Over-all though, I have to agree with the article. A gamer is a gamer. Now, if someone wanted to say that they're a hardcore gamer and their entire catalog basically consisted of Farmville and a few Popcap games, then I'd have to argue against him, but just plain "gamer" is a very broad term. It's like when people try to argue that games can't be art just because they don't usually conform to one strict definition of a term with dozens of definitions.

BlueInkAlchemist:
I'm reminded of the following.

I'm glad someone had the sense to link that. Anyone who is offended by that is obviously not a gamer.

That said, I've never cared about the title gamer. I've only cared about who's a n00b and who's not. A n00b is someone who knows squat about games and doesn't care to learn. They're only there to be a pest to everyone else who was already having fun. I make sport of ruining their day. They are as much of a cancer on gaming as the corporations that pander to them. Instead of quality games, the companies pump out over-hyped crap for the morons who don't know and don't care about what quality even is. They(n00bs) just throw money at these companies so they can mash buttons and watch the pretty pictures.

Thanks to them, we get a flood of mediocre at best games that have pretty graphics but gameplay and story that don't even compare to the quality of games made 10+ years ago. Occasionally, you get lucky and a game escapes mediocrity and is actually something worth playing. It wont win any awards since the fanbois are always too busy praising the latest iteration of over-hyped crap to hit the 360 but those of us who know what quality is get some relief. The immense popularity video games has enjoyed over recent years has caused nothing but pain for people with a sense of taste.

What ever happened to quality control? Not only do we have to suffer stories that look like that were written with all the inspiration of a 5 year old on Prozac but the characters are paper thin, control schemes that look like they were designed by Lucifer himself, bugs that crash and destroy, poor to no support, nickled and dimed for every piece of the game possible and many more atrocities have been visited upon those of us who can only look back in longing at the days when games were made by gamers for gamers and not by greed for greed.

I don't hate the corporations for pandering to the n00bs(that much) but I hate the n00bs with every fiber of my being.

So, it's not really about whether you're a pro gamer, casual gamer, newbie gamer, etc. It's all about whether you're a total waste of oxygen called a n00b or not.

I refuse to believe that Farmville is an actual game.

Farmville is the digital equivalent of banging two rocks together to pass the time.

NamesAreHardToPick:

tl;dr - nobody wants "dumbed down" games. Gamers don't want their intelligence insulted, and nobody else wants to be forced into some kind of game just to "unlock" all the chapters in a story they want to see, all the legos in the kit they bought, or to keep a virtual pet from suffering some horrible fate.

Woah, sorry i kinda lost track of your point around the whole "toy store" analogy there, so I'm mainly going to reply to your summary.

Not every game is made for "challenge" gamers. There are some games made for people that like stories. There are some games made for socializing. etc.

You are right that challenge can frustrate some of these other gamers, and well, that's why some games are getting easier. Contrary to what you seem to be arguing though, this is actually good design. If the main focus of my game is on story, why the heck would I want to make my game so hard that only 20% of it's audience reach the end?

veloper:

boholikeu:
Believe me there are PLENTY of good games on the market. If you can't find any it's more a result of your prejudice against "casual" games than the imaginary decline of the industry.

Believing doesn't figure into this. Last year has been a very poor year and 2008 wasn't much better.
There were *some* games in 2009 worth buying, like dragon age and tropico3, but not enough.
A promising game like asscreed 2 turned out to be way too easy, while games like demons souls and dragon age actually got criticized for being "too difficult". Even game reviewers are becoming casual.
When the real gamers shut up, the only games the industry poops out will be simple enough for drooling idiots.

You're only affirming the comment I said in my last post (especially if you think Assassin's Creed was bad because it's "too easy"). After all, if difficulty were really the main draw for every game then you'd only see reviewers talking about how challenging the game was instead of mechanics, story, etc.

Personally, I think the casual influence has actually helped the game industry much more than it hurt it. It directly led to games having better learning curves, UI, pacing, storylines, and presentation. If "real gamers" hadn't become the minority we'd probably still see idiotic mechanics like grinding or trial-and-error learning.

boholikeu:

veloper:

boholikeu:
Believe me there are PLENTY of good games on the market. If you can't find any it's more a result of your prejudice against "casual" games than the imaginary decline of the industry.

Believing doesn't figure into this. Last year has been a very poor year and 2008 wasn't much better.
There were *some* games in 2009 worth buying, like dragon age and tropico3, but not enough.
A promising game like asscreed 2 turned out to be way too easy, while games like demons souls and dragon age actually got criticized for being "too difficult". Even game reviewers are becoming casual.
When the real gamers shut up, the only games the industry poops out will be simple enough for drooling idiots.

You're only affirming the comment I said in my last post, especially if you think Assassin's Creed was bad because it's "too easy". After all, if difficulty were really the main draw for every game then you'd only see reviewers talking about how challenging the game was instead of mechanics, story, etc.

Challenge is what I want from games. Challenge also happens to be what seperates casual gamers from gamers.

Story is a nice extra. When I simply want a story I'll read a book or watch a film.

The mechanics is how a game achieves both difficulty and fairness. A good challenge is hard but fair. This is the main draw of gaming. It's what we want from our games.

With game reviews, you need to know where the author is coming from and what audience they have. So yes, you see game reviews where points are deducted for games that have a reasonable difficulty. Those reviews are not for us.

I think the whole point of the "gamer" thing is just the badge some players like to brand themselves with... I consider myself a gamer because games (video games, pen and paper RPGs, etc) always have been a part of my life as a means to spend my free time. If you make the decision to spend your time playing something because you enjoy it, you are a gamer. the whole "hardcore" vs. "casual" is the same thing in my opinion; it doesn't matter what you play on what system or format or whatever, we're all in it to enjoy ourselves.

I think most of the issue comes from people who sees it either as a merit badge (the "you're not a gamer unless you have finished battletoads/mega man/halo on legendary/insert game and difficulty here" population) or as a negative remark (the "gamers are filthy useless geeks who live in their mom's basement and I'm above all that kid's stuff/games are evil" crowd)

veloper:

Challenge is what I want from games. Challenge also happens to be what seperates casual gamers from gamers.

Well by that definition a whole lot of game developers aren't even gamers. =)

Again, the industry is changing, and just because games are no longer mainly catering to your demographic doesn't mean they're only fit for "drooling idiots".

I done all those things before, but I think of myself as a gamer for completely different reasons, and everyone else most likely considers themselves gamers for different reasons as well.

boholikeu:
Woah, sorry i kinda lost track of your point around the whole "toy store" analogy there, so I'm mainly going to reply to your summary.

Not every game is made for "challenge" gamers. There are some games made for people that like stories. There are some games made for socializing. etc.

You are right that challenge can frustrate some of these other gamers, and well, that's why some games are getting easier. Contrary to what you seem to be arguing though, this is actually good design. If the main focus of my game is on story, why the heck would I want to make my game so hard that only 20% of it's audience reach the end?

The bold part is what I disagree with. Challenge doesn't frustrate gamers. Challenge is the reason that people who like games (not in the "videogames" sense) get out of bed in the morning.

Anybody who thinks otherwise is welcome to their opinion but I don't think it's in their interests to try and get in on the group-hug under the "gamer" label... not just because of GET OFF MY LAWN, but also because game developers would be given a shot at actually catering to other groups' interests if there were people playing videogames who identified themselves properly instead of saying "oh! me! me! I'm a gamer too!" and hating what you get when you the software assumes you love solving linear optimization problems, memory challenges, etc.

Even for me, I play a lot of games that I think would be 100% better if they didn't try to be "games". Burnout Paradise, Uncharted, Sim Animals... they all take away from the overall experience by adding a "game" to toy cars, an adventure story, and a petting zoo respectively. Even for me, and I love being challenged in games.

BrotherhoodOfSteel:
Those required measures to be a true gamer are beyond Bizzaro.

A game is a game. You can call it what you want, but when a person plays that game it's now an act of gaming, making them a "gamer".

And don't worry Susan. Everyone else sucks at Megaman too.

Megaman was made to be sucked at.

... did that come out wrong?

It did, didn't it?

I have died more times than I have lived in Megaman, I've never played Braid, nor will I ever play it, and the Playstation will always be like a distant land to me.

And still I call myself a gamer.

NamesAreHardToPick:

The bold part is what I disagree with. Challenge doesn't frustrate gamers. Challenge is the reason that people who like games (not in the "videogames" sense) get out of bed in the morning.

Anybody who thinks otherwise is welcome to their opinion but I don't think it's in their interests to try and get in on the group-hug under the "gamer" label... not just because of GET OFF MY LAWN, but also because game developers would be given a shot at actually catering to other groups' interests if there were people playing videogames who identified themselves properly instead of saying "oh! me! me! I'm a gamer too!" and hating what you get when you the software assumes you love solving linear optimization problems, memory challenges, etc.

Even for me, I play a lot of games that I think would be 100% better if they didn't try to be "games". Burnout Paradise, Uncharted, Sim Animals... they all take away from the overall experience by adding a "game" to toy cars, an adventure story, and a petting zoo respectively. Even for me, and I love being challenged in games.

The bolded statement really interests me because it seems like the same argument I'm trying to make here. Certain experiences are just better without the "game" part, and yet as developers figure this out and lessen the challenge, "gamers" complain that the industry is being dumbed down. It's not being dumbed down. These are simply games that aren't meant for the "challenge" gamer. Story-based games, for example, need to be beatable by everyone simply because why would you bother spending development time creating an engaging story if you don't expect everyone to experience it.

Edit: ahhhh nevermind, I think I see your point now. Basically you don't mind the existence of non-challenging games, you just don't think their fans should be called "gamers", right?

Well, I still think the general usage of the term "gamer" seems to refer to "one who plays video games". In my experience when people talk about challenge gamers they usually say "hardcore gamer". I suppose you can try to argue against the general usage of the world, but anyone that's taken linguistics 101 knows that this is a pretty futile endeavor.

boholikeu:

veloper:

Challenge is what I want from games. Challenge also happens to be what seperates casual gamers from gamers.

Well by that definition a whole lot of game developers aren't even gamers. =)

Again, the industry is changing, and just because games are no longer mainly catering to your demographic doesn't mean they're only fit for "drooling idiots".

Possibly. Game devs don't HAVE to be gamers, they can also be casual gamers or maybe even interested only in one aspect of gaming, like gfx,music or coding.

Whatever they may be, when the developers turns to easy games for casual gamers (idiot or otherwise), the real gamers get left out.

We are a minority now, even though there's more gamers now than in the 90s. If we do not label the casual gamers, but instead pretended to be part of the same group, then the industry would ignore us for no good reason.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here