5 ms·

I get your point, but I think it's more accurately framed like so: "Over three billion people are now drinkers" "If you count having a glass of wine once

by fuzxi 6y ago

I get your point, but I think it's more accurately framed like so: "Over three billion people are now drinkers" "If you count having a glass of wine once a week then sure" The perceived snobbery is less about whether these people are playing games and more about whether they can be accurately described as "gamers", a term which has meaning beyond simply "players of any game(s)" due to its many (largely negative) connotations.

wgerard 6y ago
I'm confused why there's some implication of diminished frequency with "casual" gamers. On the subway, it's not uncommon to see people playing games like candy crush on their commute to and from work. The average subway commute is an hour long each way. Playing two hours a day is a decent chunk of time. Engaging in any other hobby for even 30 minutes a day would put you squarely in at least the "enthusiast" category by most definitions. Even excluding commutes, it's quite common for me to see people playing mobile games during e.g. their lunch break. So, I think a better analogy would be more like: "Over three billion people are now drinkers" > "If you count drinking a budweiser every day then sure" Which, yeah, I would.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > On the subway, it's not uncommon to see people playing games like candy crush on their commute to and from work. It may have to do with the difference in "I will play this game instead of staring into the void" vs "I will buy that game and set aside time to play it". Would people on the subway play candy crush if they didn't have to commute? There's a fine line, I believe. And then there's another fine line with regards to what counts as "video game". Is computer chess a video game because it's played on a computer, or is it simply chess? How many people would say "I'm going to play on the computer" vs "I'm going to play some chess" when they're going to play chess on their computer? "Video games" aren't the same as "mobile games" in my opinion, though there are video games on mobile devices, but e.g. Solitaire isn't a video game. And last but not least: I'm pretty sure most people who play Minesweeper on their commute but aren't otherwise into computer games would self-identify as "gamers".
  - wgerard 6y ago
    > It may have to do with the difference in "I will play this game instead of staring into the void" vs "I will buy that game and set aside time to play it". Would people on the subway play candy crush if they didn't have to commute? There's a fine line, I believe. That seems like a weird distinction to draw, given the numerous other activities you could be doing with that time (reading a book, for example). Clearly, they downloaded candy crush with the intention of playing it. The time they set aside is their commute. If I purchase a Switch solely to play e.g. Octopath on the subway, am I no longer a "gamer" simply because I'm just using it as an alternative to staring out into the void? FWIW: IIRC Candy Crush's most popular "day of the week" is Sunday, meaning people ARE setting aside time to play. > And then there's another fine line with regards to what counts as "video game". Is computer chess a video game because it's played on a computer, or is it simply chess? Yes, that's true. I think that leads to interesting questions about what qualifies as a video game. Do all the e.g. sim games (bus sim, flight sim, etc.) count as video games? What about Madden/etc? However, I don't think any of that's relevant here: There's no real-world counterpart to Candy Crush. > "Video games" aren't the same as "mobile games" in my opinion, though there are video games on mobile devices, but e.g. Solitaire isn't a video game. I think that's a pretty reductionist view of mobile games, especially given the roots of video games. Candy Crush isn't any more simplistic than say, Ice Climber or Tetris (or substitute that with most other early NES-era games). I don't think you want to put arbitrary complexity requirements on games to be considered "true games", otherwise we'll have to re-evaluate a lot of titles: E.g. are Telltale games "video games", or are they just choose-your-own-adventures on a computer? What about Tetris? And that's to say nothing of the other point you mentioned, which is that increasingly "modern" games are available on mobile devices. One of the top sellers on the iOS app store is Minecraft, which I think everyone would consider qualifies as a video game. Epic is currently going through a massive battle with Apple over them kicking Fortnite off the app store. > And last but not least: I'm pretty sure most people who play Minesweeper on their commute but aren't otherwise into computer games would self-identify as "gamers". I will posit that is largely because of the stigma around being a "gamer", partially warranted (gaming communities can be notoriously toxic) and partially not. This is somewhat self-reinforcing because many adults who should identify as "gamers" don't want to be associated with that term (I count myself in that group, which is partially why I'm so passionate about this topic). Viewpoints like "mobile games don't count as real games" don't help either, by excluding everyone but the most diehard. Again, I think with any other hobby it would be hard for you not to qualify as at least an enthusiast if you spent an appreciable amount of time engaging in it. If I read novels for 2 hours a day, it would be quite appropriate for someone to label me as a "reader".
reificator 6y ago
> The perceived snobbery is less about whether these people are playing games and more about whether they can be accurately described as "gamers", a term which has meaning beyond simply "players of any game(s)" due to its many (largely negative) connotations. Video games have been a large part of my life since I could hold a controller. The sooner I can mention the game I played last night in casual conversation without people assuming I'm a controller-throwing, gamerword-spewing child with no impulse control or social intuition, the better. The last time I mentioned I played Dark Souls the conversation turned to how horrible the community is, with the implication that I spend my time telling people to "git gud" and invading new players to make them miserable. Never mind that I helped probably 10-12 people beat Capra Demon that night with no ingame reward past "humanity" which I already have more than I need.
throw149102 6y ago
Adding onto this, imagine how you would feel if someone said "There are 3 billion Spanish speakers worldwide" But then you learned that only 500 million were really fluent, and the rest ranged from broken Spanish that was enough to get by in a Spanish speaking country to people who were forced to take a Spanish class in highschool and never used it again. I think this concept of "fluency" in games is probably a more useful metric. The question is, if I dump you in front of a game that you've never played before, but it conforms to the language of video game design, how quickly can you beat it? I would imagine that someone who only played Candy Crush would not understand how to move their camera around in a 3D environment, for example.[1] You could extend the metaphor further, for example Spanish is spoken in many different ways around the globe, and therefore some people who speak one dialect of Spanish can't understand another dialect of Spanish. The same could be true for games, and we would need to classify and understand these dialects. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax7f3JZJHSw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax7f3JZJHSw Interesting video talking about what games are like for a non-gamer, shows an example of not understanding how to move the camera and the player at the same time.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  > I would imagine that someone who only played Candy Crush would not understand how to move their camera around in a 3D environment, for example Now would someone who only played NES games, or Civilization VI, or Papers Please. Are we defining 'games' as meaning '3D walk-y about-y games', here?
  - setr 6y ago
    Given the notion of "fluency" proposed by the GP, the idea would be that a "fluent" gamer would not be described with "played only X games". You would be fluent if you could "communicate" in multiple genres -- having a sufficiently thorough vocabulary.
    - meheleventyone 6y ago
      But this is just weird gatekeeping. You could for example be extremely fluent in a single genre but uninterested in others. For example I've been playing games for over 30 years and don't really know the genre conventions of match-3 games beyond the obvious. Similarly I know very little about MOBAs or gacha style games or visual novels. And I'm a game designer! IMO one of the worst aspects of modern "gamer" culture is this insistence on purity tests particularly when they're aimed at games that are extremely popular with women. Even in terms of market segmentation I don't think the distinction of "overall gaming fluency" is very measurable or meaningful.

by fuzxi 6y ago

wgerard 6y ago

I'm confused why there's some implication of diminished frequency with "casual" gamers. On the subway, it's not uncommon to see people playing games like candy crush on their commute to and from work. The average subway commute is an hour long each way. Playing two hours a day is a decent chunk of time. Engaging in any other hobby for even 30 minutes a day would put you squarely in at least the "enthusiast" category by most definitions. Even excluding commutes, it's quite common for me to see people playing mobile games during e.g. their lunch break. So, I think a better analogy would be more like: "Over three billion people are now drinkers" > "If you count drinking a budweiser every day then sure" Which, yeah, I would.

luckylion 6y ago
> On the subway, it's not uncommon to see people playing games like candy crush on their commute to and from work. It may have to do with the difference in "I will play this game instead of staring into the void" vs "I will buy that game and set aside time to play it". Would people on the subway play candy crush if they didn't have to commute? There's a fine line, I believe. And then there's another fine line with regards to what counts as "video game". Is computer chess a video game because it's played on a computer, or is it simply chess? How many people would say "I'm going to play on the computer" vs "I'm going to play some chess" when they're going to play chess on their computer? "Video games" aren't the same as "mobile games" in my opinion, though there are video games on mobile devices, but e.g. Solitaire isn't a video game. And last but not least: I'm pretty sure most people who play Minesweeper on their commute but aren't otherwise into computer games would self-identify as "gamers".
- wgerard 6y ago
  > It may have to do with the difference in "I will play this game instead of staring into the void" vs "I will buy that game and set aside time to play it". Would people on the subway play candy crush if they didn't have to commute? There's a fine line, I believe. That seems like a weird distinction to draw, given the numerous other activities you could be doing with that time (reading a book, for example). Clearly, they downloaded candy crush with the intention of playing it. The time they set aside is their commute. If I purchase a Switch solely to play e.g. Octopath on the subway, am I no longer a "gamer" simply because I'm just using it as an alternative to staring out into the void? FWIW: IIRC Candy Crush's most popular "day of the week" is Sunday, meaning people ARE setting aside time to play. > And then there's another fine line with regards to what counts as "video game". Is computer chess a video game because it's played on a computer, or is it simply chess? Yes, that's true. I think that leads to interesting questions about what qualifies as a video game. Do all the e.g. sim games (bus sim, flight sim, etc.) count as video games? What about Madden/etc? However, I don't think any of that's relevant here: There's no real-world counterpart to Candy Crush. > "Video games" aren't the same as "mobile games" in my opinion, though there are video games on mobile devices, but e.g. Solitaire isn't a video game. I think that's a pretty reductionist view of mobile games, especially given the roots of video games. Candy Crush isn't any more simplistic than say, Ice Climber or Tetris (or substitute that with most other early NES-era games). I don't think you want to put arbitrary complexity requirements on games to be considered "true games", otherwise we'll have to re-evaluate a lot of titles: E.g. are Telltale games "video games", or are they just choose-your-own-adventures on a computer? What about Tetris? And that's to say nothing of the other point you mentioned, which is that increasingly "modern" games are available on mobile devices. One of the top sellers on the iOS app store is Minecraft, which I think everyone would consider qualifies as a video game. Epic is currently going through a massive battle with Apple over them kicking Fortnite off the app store. > And last but not least: I'm pretty sure most people who play Minesweeper on their commute but aren't otherwise into computer games would self-identify as "gamers". I will posit that is largely because of the stigma around being a "gamer", partially warranted (gaming communities can be notoriously toxic) and partially not. This is somewhat self-reinforcing because many adults who should identify as "gamers" don't want to be associated with that term (I count myself in that group, which is partially why I'm so passionate about this topic). Viewpoints like "mobile games don't count as real games" don't help either, by excluding everyone but the most diehard. Again, I think with any other hobby it would be hard for you not to qualify as at least an enthusiast if you spent an appreciable amount of time engaging in it. If I read novels for 2 hours a day, it would be quite appropriate for someone to label me as a "reader".

reificator 6y ago

> The perceived snobbery is less about whether these people are playing games and more about whether they can be accurately described as "gamers", a term which has meaning beyond simply "players of any game(s)" due to its many (largely negative) connotations. Video games have been a large part of my life since I could hold a controller. The sooner I can mention the game I played last night in casual conversation without people assuming I'm a controller-throwing, gamerword-spewing child with no impulse control or social intuition, the better. The last time I mentioned I played Dark Souls the conversation turned to how horrible the community is, with the implication that I spend my time telling people to "git gud" and invading new players to make them miserable. Never mind that I helped probably 10-12 people beat Capra Demon that night with no ingame reward past "humanity" which I already have more than I need.

throw149102 6y ago

Adding onto this, imagine how you would feel if someone said "There are 3 billion Spanish speakers worldwide" But then you learned that only 500 million were really fluent, and the rest ranged from broken Spanish that was enough to get by in a Spanish speaking country to people who were forced to take a Spanish class in highschool and never used it again. I think this concept of "fluency" in games is probably a more useful metric. The question is, if I dump you in front of a game that you've never played before, but it conforms to the language of video game design, how quickly can you beat it? I would imagine that someone who only played Candy Crush would not understand how to move their camera around in a 3D environment, for example.[1] You could extend the metaphor further, for example Spanish is spoken in many different ways around the globe, and therefore some people who speak one dialect of Spanish can't understand another dialect of Spanish. The same could be true for games, and we would need to classify and understand these dialects. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax7f3JZJHSw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax7f3JZJHSw Interesting video talking about what games are like for a non-gamer, shows an example of not understanding how to move the camera and the player at the same time.

rsynnott 6y ago
> I would imagine that someone who only played Candy Crush would not understand how to move their camera around in a 3D environment, for example Now would someone who only played NES games, or Civilization VI, or Papers Please. Are we defining 'games' as meaning '3D walk-y about-y games', here?
- setr 6y ago
  Given the notion of "fluency" proposed by the GP, the idea would be that a "fluent" gamer would not be described with "played only X games". You would be fluent if you could "communicate" in multiple genres -- having a sufficiently thorough vocabulary.
  - meheleventyone 6y ago
    But this is just weird gatekeeping. You could for example be extremely fluent in a single genre but uninterested in others. For example I've been playing games for over 30 years and don't really know the genre conventions of match-3 games beyond the obvious. Similarly I know very little about MOBAs or gacha style games or visual novels. And I'm a game designer! IMO one of the worst aspects of modern "gamer" culture is this insistence on purity tests particularly when they're aimed at games that are extremely popular with women. Even in terms of market segmentation I don't think the distinction of "overall gaming fluency" is very measurable or meaningful.