The lights are on
Veteran Member - Level 14
In the early days of gaming, video games usually consisted of arcade games in bars and other businesses, where the player was faced with a fairly simplistic, yet challenging task. As games developed, the artwork became more intricate, music became more complex, stories developed better narratives, and the player gained a greater level of interactivity.
But as all this happened, something else took place within the gaming industry. Off shoots from the generally acknowledged forms of gaming emerged, whether it be the nostalgic computer games, social networking game, or game with motion controls. Gaming has expanded in greater ways to reach a broader audience, and has grown into a multi-billion dollar industry.Gaming has grown from something that was initially regarded as being taboo to something that is now enjoyed by tens of millions worldwide.
Yet, as this industry has grown in popularity, there has been a massive push against the newer forms of gaming that have developed. Often there are debates as to what constitutes a gamer. Where once, it was almost a derogatory title, gamer has become something that many in the gaming community feel must be earned through some unspoken, often un-thought out process of gaining cred.
So what constitutes a "real gamer?"
Is it someone who has played a certain number of classic games? Personally, I would say no. Setting a restriction such as this eliminates the possibility for many younger gamers to meet the description because they might not have knowledge of, or have access to older titles.
Is it someone who only plays "core games?" Again I think this is another completely ridiculous metric to use. Many of the games on social networking sites that "core gamers" take offense to are on par with some of the early gaming gems. So, how can you truly distinguish which is a real gamer and which is not? The answer is that you can't. It might not be the most thought provoking game, but it is still a video game.
Is it someone who only plays games on a standard controller, or mouse and keyboard? This has been a major issue that has arisen with the current generation of consoles. Many in the gaming community do not want to see their precious controller of choice be slighted in any way. So many have taken it upon themselves to use every article involving a motion control device to declare that the device needs to die. The problem that these people fail to realize is that there are games out there that utilize motion controls very effectively and some that a controller could never hope to match.
Recently, I bought a Kinect along with Kinect Adventures, Kinect Sports, Child of Eden, and Fruit Ninja Kinect. Each of these games has managed to utilize the Kinect in such a way that makes it fun to play, and could not be replicated by a controller. In the case of Child of Eden, the game can be controlled with a conventional controller, but the Kinect controls are vastly superior, both in responsiveness and immersion.
Essentially, motion gaming is in its infancy. Yet many would ignore the successful implementation of motion controls into "core games," just to justify their opinion, even if it means diminishing the potential audience for games. It is one thing to prefer one type of game to another, but another entirely to say that your preference is the only one that matters.
So who is a game? If you play games via a Kinect, Wii, or Move, you are a gamer, because you play and enjoy video games, even if they are not the most complex. If you play games on social networking sites, you are a gamer, because though they may be simplistic they still offer unique experiences for those that may not have an interest (look at that. Preference again) in more complex games (Hell, my mom play Bejeweled on facebook and kicks my ass at puzzle games). If you have only played more modern titles, you are a gamer, because you have taken it upon yourself to play a title/titles that are currently available to you.
In other words, if you play games, you are a gamer. End of the *** discussion.
Now that I've got that out of the way, I'd like to discuss one more issue and it's one that has become more and more alarming in the past few months. My issue is with the notion that there has to be a [insert video game name here] killer. This all seemed to have started in the early 2000's with Halo, because I honestly don't remember another game before it where marketing campaigns and gamers sought out a game that would, as the name implies, kill off a popular franchise.
I honestly can't stand this notion, and to be honest, I think Dan Americh summed it up very well with a Vlog back in June.
I'm honestly growing tired of opening up nearly any news article on this site and seeing the comment section reduced to a battleground for the MW3/BF3 fanboys. If you don't enjoy a game, that's fine, but be respectful of other users' opinions. In the end, these conflicts only serve to make our community look worse.