'Gamers' don't have to be your audience. 'Gamers' are over. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;45828226]Even Gamasutra's comments are always a great read. I really don't understand is what exactly is meant by [I]gamer culture[/I]. So many different things come to mind and most of them seem to have their own cultures.[/QUOTE] Two sides Dudebro gamers: CoD, MLG - that shit. "Neckbeard"/lifeless nerd WoW players - the other end of the spectrum. These are what people would think of when you say "gamer" not "Oh I enjoy games occasionally"

nobody at all I know in real life cares about any of this shit he keeps talking about the "faces" that "gamers" present to the public, but they barely present a face at all. the public vaguely knows that COD and GTA are big business. that's it

what a hypocritical douchebag "look at these consumerist scum lining up for things they care about and wearing hats, what a bunch of virgins go fuck yourselves" - advocate for equality 2014

I wonder why people look at the lowest common denominator of people to prove their point? You don't see music journalists claiming that the music community childishly toxic because of their hatred towards pop music. You don't see film critics openly condemning movie-goers for that recent incident involving Ben Affleck. It's priceless whenever journalists from geek communities who constantly try validate the integrity of their niche medium when similar issues constantly surface in other mediums. It's incredibly silly to expect any community to be utopian.

[QUOTE=NoDachiUK;45828251]I found it a pretty accurate observation when compared with my own observation[/QUOTE] so maybe your own observation is a generalization that's more than a bit unfair then

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;45828190] [QUOTE]You know, young white dudes with disposable income who like to Get Stuff.[/QUOTE] Was that entirely necessary? I'm not trying to sound like somebody who's getting angry at nothing but that's kind of a dumb thing to say.[/QUOTE] "white dudes" "straight white males" and etc are just buzzwords these people use when they think they're being edgy and progressive. It's sorta like how stormfronters slap "jew" or "black" onto stuff they don't like but with a lot more self-loathing.

High-ho click bait [I]AWWWWWWAAAAAAYYYYY![/I]

[QUOTE=smurfy;45828155]"gamers" became irrelevant around the time they started rejecting certain games for not being 'real games'[/QUOTE] its pretty fucking retarded how so many people (including a lot of facepunch) say that games like Gone Home aren't "real games" just because they don't like them. That's like saying a short art film isn't a film just because it's experimental and you find that pretentious. The fucking fact that something has a system where there's an input and output is what makes it a game, and even that's a pretty arbitrary way to describe it.

I'd call myself a Gamer not because I'm some unimaginable other being from the next dimension thats incapable of human interaction outside of the digital world, but that I like playing vidya games, and quite a few of my friends play vidya games, and the other half doesn't, so wouldn't that make me and my friends Gamers?

[QUOTE=NoDachiUK;45828251]I found it a pretty accurate observation when compared with my own observation[/QUOTE] Confirmation Bias.

Remember when Gaming News sites actually focused on videogame news, and weren't staffed with Video Game Culture Writers telling you what a fucking nerd you are?

This article is shit flinging just as much as the people he's talking about, the guy is a huge hypocrite but does make [I]a few[/I] valid points. I wouldn't discredit it entirely, but I wouldn't use it to back up anything. "Gamer" is a retired term, but it doesn't necessarily mean that a "Gamer" is somebody who scratches their nutsack while ranting about why women are shit on forums. Article is conflicted, hypocritical and basically makes every point he says cancel each other out in some form.

[QUOTE=kaine123;45828306]its pretty fucking retarded how so many people (including a lot of facepunch) say that games like Gone Home aren't "real games" just because they don't like them. That's like saying a short art film isn't a film. The fucking fact that something has a system where there's an input and output is what makes it a game, and that's a pretty arbitrary way to describe it if anything.[/QUOTE] I'd say it's a game but a shit game at that.

[QUOTE=kaine123;45828306]its pretty fucking retarded how so many people (including a lot of facepunch) say that games like Gone Home aren't "real games" just because they don't like them. That's like saying a short art film isn't a film. The fucking fact that something has a system where there's an input and output is what makes it a game, and that's a pretty arbitrary way to describe it if anything.[/QUOTE] Films have historically, especially dicey ones or ones that challenged the norms been removed of film status. Same with Literature, HP Lovecraft's writings were insulted and completely ignored until the 1970s.

[QUOTE=SonicHitman;45828210]you call them spectators...[/QUOTE] I misread the original post, that's why I snipped it. But regardless, you call them spectators or jockeys, not "people who watch sport".

[QUOTE=kaine123;45828306]its pretty fucking retarded how so many people (including a lot of facepunch) say that games like Gone Home aren't "real games" just because they don't like them. That's like saying a short art film isn't a film. The fucking fact that something has a system where there's an input and output is what makes it a game, and that's a pretty arbitrary way to describe it if anything.[/QUOTE] People have been criticizing art by saying it isn't art since the dawn of human consciousness. That's practically the impetus behind every major art movement in history. It may not be the best argument, but fucking everyone uses it and to expect the sentiment to just disappear in any medium is ridiculous. Abstract paintings aren't paintings. Books which don't follow narrative structure aren't books. Poems that don't rhyme aren't poetry. Games that don't have an arbitrary amount of interactivity aren't games. It's all the same shit.

[QUOTE=V12US;45828324]Remember when Gaming News sites actually focused on videogame news, and weren't staffed with Video Game Culture Writers telling you what a fucking nerd you are?[/QUOTE] I can't for the life of me remember a time when video game journalism was ever interesting or exciting

[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;45828269]I wonder why people look at the lowest common denominator of people to prove their point? I don't music journalists claiming that the music community childishly toxic because of their hatred towards pop music.[/QUOTE] Because it's so [I]easy[/I] to look at the lowest of a group and claim that they represent the rest. This applies everywhere. Nobody's interested in the normal people in a particular group; nobody cares about the sane non-fundamentalist Christians who are active in their community, nobody cares about moderate Muslims who condemn jihadis, nobody cares about the level-headed people working toward racial and gender equality, nobody cares about the socially competent members of fandoms, because they look at the bottom of the barrel and see the gross stuff there and claim that [I]that[/I] represents a group. This happens all the time and it's fucking frustrating because people get it in their heads that the quiet majority [I]does not exist[/I]. Why? Maybe it's because they're the [I]quiet[/I] majority and you never fucking hear about them or interact with them knowingly, and so your "personal experience" (which, as we all know, is 100% accurate when judging a group) trumps any other knowledge that might be presented. Someone claims that [group] is not all [negative characteristic]? Ha, fuck them, [I]I[/I] know otherwise because I've seen a few dudes on the street/in a forum prove the stereotype right!

Its almost as if Game Journalists are nothing more than hipsters who like some vidya. :v:

[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;45828359]Because it's so [I]easy[/I] to look at the lowest of a group and claim that they represent the rest. This applies everywhere. Nobody's interested in the normal people in a particular group; nobody cares about the sane non-fundamentalist Christians who are active in their community, nobody cares about moderate Muslims who condemn jihadis, nobody cares about the level-headed people working toward racial and gender equality, nobody cares about the socially competent members of fandoms, because they look at the bottom of the barrel and see the gross stuff there and claim that [I]that[/I] represents a group. This happens all the time and it's fucking frustrating because people get it in their heads that the quiet majority [I]does not exist[/I]. Why? Maybe it's because they're the [I]quiet[/I] majority and you never fucking hear about them or interact with them knowingly, and so your "personal experience" (which, as we all know, is 100% accurate when judging a group) trumps any other knowledge that might be presented. Someone claims that [group] is not all [negative characteristic]? Ha, fuck them, [I]I[/I] know otherwise because I've seen a few dudes on the street/in a forum prove the stereotype right![/QUOTE] If anything, this whole clusterfuck has made me respect the shit out of the rights activists who don't have their heads up their asses. It takes balls to stick with your principals when the figureheads of your community will ostracize you for it. If nothing else this whole shitstorm has given me a solid list of feminists who I can tell for a fact actually care about equality. There's a part of me that hopes that in separating the extremists from the legit good people we'll actually be able to start having a proper conversation. All of the shaming and entitlement has poisoned this topic for years, with that contained maybe we can start focusing on actually making things better for people.

When you make a game or write a blog post. you target an audience. "Gamers" isn't an audiance, it never was an audience, "Gamers" means nothing. Flappybirds and Call of Duty MW, never had the same target-audience. And this isn't a recent thing, 10 years ago you already had shitty super female oriented fashion flash games. Hell, even in the 1980th's you had casual targeted arcade machines. "Gamers" never meant 16 year old white kids, on their Xbox 360th. And the Gap between Dota and Flappybirds isn't gonna disappear any time soon.

'Gamers' have always irritated me to hell, because it's the term people call themselves when they treat gaming as a lifestyle rather than just a hobby. You don't bleed mountain dew pal, you are just a dude that also plays video games please can you stop embarrassing yourself.

'Gamers' aka 'GAMING IS MY LIFE' __ well okay automerge

[QUOTE=kaine123;45828306]its pretty fucking retarded how so many people (including a lot of facepunch) say that games like Gone Home aren't "real games" just because they don't like them. That's like saying a short art film isn't a film. The fucking fact that something has a system where there's an input and output is what makes it a game, and that's a pretty arbitrary way to describe it if anything.[/QUOTE] Gone Home really is on the edges of what could be considered a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game"]game[/URL] though [quote]Key components of games are goals, rules, [B]challenge[/B], and interaction.[/quote] as far as I'm aware, there's no possibility of losing in Gone Home and no competition. it's an interactive art gallery/work of fiction. that's not a bad thing though! a lot of adventure "games" fit this bill, such as my favourite, Beneath A Steel Sky (although you can actually die in that game a fair bit)

[QUOTE=Cold;45828437]When you make a game or write a blog post. you target an audience. "Gamers" isn't an audiance, it never was an audience, "Gamers" means nothing. Flappybirds and Call of Duty MW, never had the same target-audience. And this isn't a recent thing, 10 years ago you already had shitty flash games. Hell, even in the 1980th's you had female targeted arcade machines. "Gamers" never meant 16 year old white kids, on their Xbox 360th.[/QUOTE] You don't need to like all the Star Treks to be a Trekkie.

[QUOTE=V12US;45828324]Remember when Gaming News sites actually focused on videogame news, and weren't staffed with Video Game Culture Writers telling you what a fucking nerd you are?[/QUOTE] The magazines were my favorite, it's a shame that they've died out due to the internet. They were pretty inclusive and tame, they also refused to give attention to the bad area of the community. The developer interviews were my favorite too. That's how I found out about female developers like Corrine Yu.

[QUOTE=Turnips5;45828444]Gone Home really is on the edges of what could be considered a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game"]game[/URL] though as far as I'm aware, there's no possibility of losing in Gone Home and no competition. it's an interactive art gallery/work of fiction. that's not a bad thing though! a lot of adventure "games" fit this bill, such as my favourite, Beneath A Steel Sky (although you can actually die in that game a fair bit)[/QUOTE] Games like gone home fall into a grey area that's hard to argue one way or the other (probably why it just turns into an acid-flailing competition) But that's good! Games should challenge their boundaries, but let's not argue about Gone Home being a game or not though.

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;45828478]Games like gone home fall into a grey area that's hard to argue one way or the other (probably why it just turns into an acid-flailing competition) But that's good! Games should challenge their boundaries, but let's not argue about Gone Home being a game or not though.[/QUOTE] Its a good discussion to have, right now is that moment for such discussion.

[QUOTE=kaine123;45828306]its pretty fucking retarded how so many people (including a lot of facepunch) say that games like Gone Home aren't "real games" just because they don't like them. That's like saying a short art film isn't a film just because it's experimental and you find that pretentious. The fucking fact that something has a system where there's an input and output is what makes it a game, and even that's a pretty arbitrary way to describe it.[/QUOTE] people say art films aren't real movies too, and any music that is even slightly variant from what an individual person considers good is immediately lambasted as being "not music". people labeling some games as not games and others as real games just means that games as a medium is pushing the boundaries it needs to

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;45828190] [QUOTE]You know, young white dudes with disposable income who like to Get Stuff.[/QUOTE] Was that entirely necessary? I'm not trying to sound like somebody who's getting angry at nothing but that's kind of a dumb thing to say.[/QUOTE] I got the sense that that bit of the article was about how 'gamers' are percieved (and spoken to) by marketers. You only have to look at nearly ever single bit of game advertisement to see that, despite vast evidence to the contrary, marketing departments still only really target semi-affluent white guys when drawing up ad campaigns for games