What Makes a Gamer?

[Neon Ignition]

This is kind of a return to the old casual/hardcore gamer arguement however there's a twist.

See, over the last few years it's settled into a fairly us and them discussion on the net when it comes to this kind of bracketing. What's clear though is it's not so easy to define, most gamers like to consider themselves hardcore gamers or core games as is more commonly used now. Though it's somewhat of an over simplification.

For example, many of the Wii gamer market were considered casual. For my Mum even that formats titles were too much of a faff, though give her a cake making game on a laptop and she's away for hours. A gamer who is in the elite players list of Tekken players is considered a hardcore gamer, except really he very well might not be as the focus on one title could well mean he has limited knowledge outside that series, it's immediate rivals and knows not too much of gaming as a wider whole.

I myself find myself often knowing more about games and industry goings on than many of those around me in addition to having a long, long gaming career playing many varied genres and series imported and domestic and yet I'd freely admit that there's no single game I'm world class at and whilst I could inform on some stuff I could never tell you the really technical aspects of hardware specifications or software engine aspects like several on here could.

It all suggests that either you take the world peace solution of saying there's only one type of gamer: The Gamer, or our two catagories are too narrow and there's in fact more.

So assuming that, how many types of gamer do you think there is and what would you name them and describe them as?

[endo]

God knows how many categories of gamer there are, but it's certainly more than 2 these days.

On the issue of industry/tech knowledge though, I wouldn't say that that necessarily makes anyone 'hardcore'. Knowledgeable yes, but 'core gamer', not necessarily. For example, I know lots about how pharmacovigilance and clinical trials work because of my work, but that doesn't make me a doctor or a pharmacist. Far from it.

Whether you actually play games and how you play them is more of a deciding factor, I'd say. Clearly, someone who's world-class at, say, SFIII, must surely be considered 'hardcore' in a sense, purely because of the commitment and hours you need to put in to get to that level. Knowledge of the wider gaming world is largely irrelevant in that scenario.

Gaming is now much more fragmented than it used to be in terms of categories of gamers, but, outside of marketing and consumer strategy, whether someone's hardcore or not is largely irrelevant. Gamers only tend to be bothered about these labels when comparing themselves with others and trying to make themselves look good, and anyone who would label himself as hardcore usually isn't. As far as I can see anyway.

[Dogg Thang]

As of yesterday, there were 47 categories of gamer but only 5 of those have been deemed socially acceptable, at least among the EU territories. 12 categories are legal targets of ridicule (both online and offline) for any of the other groups. 3 groups are deemed elite and are admired by 8 of the other gamer groups and yet still legal targets of ridicule for the remaining groups. 6 groups have been listed as protected, being in danger of extinction. By contrast, organised culls of 3 groups (including the Flappy Bird Collective) will be taking place in the coming weeks.

Interestingly, early studies found many gamers crossing over into multiple groups. Those have since been eliminated through selective breeding and now that almost never happens.

Source: EU gaming commission study and action recommendations 2014, sections 6 and 9.

[endo]

It's a massively broad topic this, and I haven't got time to think about it too much right now, but in terms of types of gamer, as per the OP, I'd say there's definitely been an emergence of 'knowledge gamers' (is there already a term for someone like that?). You find them all over the place these days, highly knowledgeable people who know everything there is to know about any given hardware and/or software. They might not necessarily play a lot of games, but they clearly have a deep interest in gaming and enjoy reading up on it and discussing it in minute detail. Sort of like the trainspotters of the gaming world.

[charlesr]

There are 3 types of gamers.

1) People who play games
2) People who play games and talk about them on the internet - the ratio varies
3) People who talk about games on the internet

[kryss]

The Collector. Happy to buy and not play, even extremely expensive items that'll never be unsealed. Also known as the "The Retro Hoarder", with their foreign-friendly relative, "The Import Amasser".

The Parent. One game at a time for a little a week for themselves, but only too happy to play something easy with the kids.

The Obsessive. Focuses on one game series or genre obsessively. Gamers in this category tend to play MMORPGs or FPSs.

edit::
Actually, I recall making an odd Venn diagram with at least 10 different types on there.

[Jay]

I struggle to see why anyone would care, to be frank.

Do film fanatics discuss this sort of thing?

[kryss]

Who would decide the difference between a Film Fanatic and Film Buff if they didn't?

[wakka]

Distinctions between 'types' of gamer seem to only ever be made by people who consider themselves in some way superior to other gamers. Which is annoying.

Everyone is a gamer now, anyway. Everyone's got games on their phone they have a little burst on, or Facebook games they dip in and out of. Then you've got the super hardcore players who only play 1 or 2 fighting games and nothing else. There are a whole multitude of subcultures, and I think that's a better way of classifying it rather than 'hardcore' and 'casual'. Which is just an excuse to be wanky to people on forums because you've spent 900 hours memorising combos or know how to wire a PCE for RGB.

[endo]

That's a good point though actually. Are there film forums where people argue about how they're better than everyone else because they know more about such and such a director, or have seen more films, or only watch certain foreign films?

[endo]

Distinctions between 'types' of gamer seem to only ever be made by people who consider themselves in some way superior to other gamers.

Exactly. It's generally people comparing themselves to others to make themselves look (feel?) superior. Without getting into pop psychology, is it all just born out of insecurity/an inferiority complex?

Anyway, I'm way more hardcore than all of you n00bs. That includes films too.

[Guts]

No one get offended!

[wakka]

That's a good point though actually. Are there film forums where people argue about how they're better than everyone else because they know more about such and such a director, or have seen more films, or only watch certain foreign films?

It's a given really, isn't it? I'm sure elitism isn't the exclusive provenance of gamers.

[Guts]

It's a given really, isn't it? I'm sure elitism isn't the exclusive provenance of gamers.[/COLOR]

Yep. Elitism applies to everything mankind has ever made/done be that music, film, literature, art, games, cars, food etc. etc.

[fuse]

I really couldn't give a monkeys how hardcore / skilled / knowledgable someone thinks I am in relation to games, but I do still manage to consistently annoy myself by getting defensive when I explain to new, non-gaming acquaintances that I'm "into games" and then get asked if that means first person shooters and FIFA.