The terms "gaming" and "gamers"

Sorry if such a thread exists and in which case it can be merged thank you

Alright so discussion in another thread had me wondering about how we define these terms since there is no distinct definition we seem to all adhere upon.

This is mostly to help discuss the terms relating to notebooks as in "gaming laptop" and such.

"Gaming" to me was a pretty straightforward definition, it meant playing games >_> Not really much to add there lol

As for gamer... I once assumed that the "levels" of gaming were relative to the time spent on the activity of "gaming". As in, someone who "games" a lot would be considered a "serious/hardcore gamer".

But then I wondered...it seems that the term "serious gaming" seemed to be related more so with the actual games rather than the time spent on them.

Apparently, according to my older definition, someone who plays Diablo II for 10+ hours a day would be considered a "serious/hardcore gamer" by my standards, yet what he does apparently would not be considered serious or heavy "gaming" and when considering the term "gaming laptop" would not be required for a "gamer" of this caliber.

But yet, does someone who plays heavy games, but maybe once every month considered more of a heavy gamer than my Diablo II guy? Surely, the latter would require a more powerful "gaming laptop", but does that overall make him more of a "serious gamer"?

So yeah, what do you guys define as "gaming" and a "gamer"(as well as a casual one, hardcore or serious one)?

 

It relates partially to the game played, partially the means it's played through (console vs PC), partially the amount of time spent, and primarily the competition level you play on.
I'll expand on each of those.
If you're playing only single player games and you're playing 40 hours a week, I still wouldn't consider you a hardcore gamer.
If you're playing on a console I consider you a much less serious gamer than someone who plays on the PC, assuming other things are the same. Even a PC gamer who plays slightly less I would probably consider more serious - consoles simplify games too much.
If you only play an hour or three a week, it's hard to be considered a "serious gamer," but I could consider someone a serious gamer with as little as 10 hours a week on one game.
The most important thing is your competition level. I would not consider you serious unless you played in some league. The league you play in will determine just how serious you are.

 

And don't forget ' gamey' which a gamer becomes after too much gaming thereby neglecting to shower/bathe.

 

I think it should be based on the time you spend gaming per week, given that we don't define TV junkies by the quality of the television they own or the programs they watch; likewise, you can't label someone a "gamer" of any kind just because they have a powerful computer or based on what games they play.

 

its all crysis's fault, it redefined "gaming".

 

lol yeah Crysis kind of changed the settings a bit didn't it?

The thing is, when we say "gaming" in the semantic sense, we can talk as much about Crysis and GTA4 as we can talk about The Sims 2 and Warcraft 3... Therefore, the term gaming and stuff like "something is good/bad for gaming" is void and useless or useless without a particular list of games.

 

Oh please - spare me the "PC Gamers are better than Console Gamers" crap. PC gamers are just more gullible to accept games that are released to the PC community before they're ready - at least console games have to meet a standard prior to release. I got so sick and tired of playing a game that stopped because the thing didn't have a driver released yet for my new hardware, wasn't compatible with something or another, etc., and the company didn't get around to releasing the updates until a couple months after they pocketed their cash. They do it so they can get a quick ROI on their games, whether or not they're ready.

And even that's now in jeopardy with the newer consoles' ability to download update content. I've been seeing it more and more with newer games - they're released into the field and require an update as soon as you plug it in. Before online update ability with consoles, games had to work, period, to console standards, or they face a massive recall and lost revenue. Nowadays they can release whenever they feel the need to release it if it's close enough. There are a few developers out there like Kojima that wouldn't let a bad game out the door regardless, but his kind are few and far between. As a former QA manager, it's just plain and simple poor QA on the game developers' side. In fact, they're missing more and more now that consoles have update ability that PC gamers have always had.

The only thing that a PC Gamer has over a console gamer (I'm both by the way, if you were wondering) is that the PC Gamer is more likely to spend the $$ and time required for an optimum system. But even then, most fall short - I see lots of people spending hundreds on a killer system, and then have a turtle-speed network hooked to it. Speed is everything, and the difference between getting fragged and making the next bracket.

So by definition, I'd say the percentage of Serious Gamers is fairly small - probably only about 25% of the community, if that. Most are average, others are between, putting in a lot of hours of gameplay, but not really spending any time or money to be at any level higher than they are. A kid playing Frogger for 60 hours a week is NOT a serious gamer, just an addicted weenie gamer.

 

It's not about speed or looks or how "ready" a game is when I am talking PC vs console gaming.
It's about user input. A controller has much less finesse then a keyboard and mouse, and therefore forces the gap between a good player and a bad player to be smaller. Consoles allow noobs to play with good players and still get occasional kills. It's design - consoles are games for the masses.

 

I still don't get how the game itself necessarily impacts the term of "gaming". As Boq said quite well in his analogy, you don't judge a TV junky by the type of TV they have or even less by what they watch, but how often hey spend time in front of that screen.

Therefore, why should a gamer be defined by what type of computer they have or what they play on their computer?

Still though, I stick with my opinion that for the intense and purposes of this forum(i.e. talking about laptops and purchases and all that), these terms are quite void and without meaning if a clear list(or even an approximate one) of games isn't provided.

 

It doesn't change if you are a gamer or not, it changes the level of seriousness you have towards gaming.

My girlfriend is a gamer - she plays maybe 5 hours a month of Team Fortress 2, and lots and lots of Patapon on PSP. But she is not a serious gamer.

I'm a casual gamer. I play a blend of genres for different amounts of time, usually about 10 hours a week. I play single player and multi player games. I do not play competitively.

I used to be a serious gamer. I played about 40 hours a week of Call of Duty 2, and I played it in a competitive league.

Much like sports, you can play on various different levels - ranging from occasional pick up games to a recreation league, to even a professional level.

 

i guess a better question would be, where do you draw the line between casual gamers and hardcore gamers?
and i agree with Hep! about the sports part, you can get better at certain games but you can't really get better at watching TV now can you?

 

Anyone that is seriously into gaming, be it Solitaire, Minesweeper or Crysis is a gamer in my book.

Hardcore gamer: try to finish 100% of a game, willl go out of his way to further his gaming experience, looks down on the casual gamer(sometimes for good reasons...). Play games for the sake of playing game. Might break hardware out of frustration. Likes to brag about his Quad SLi GTX280 rig. Takes an extreme pleasure at humiliating other players of lower level of proficiency. Randomly decide to play Halo 3 on heroic only using pistols to boost his already oversized ego.

Casual gamer: Pick up and play type. Might play to spend time. Responsible for the creation of god awful games like Wii Music... Doesn't really do a lot of reseach when buying game. Do not play for extended periods of time. It prints money....

My alignment would be hardcore neutral. I do not care about the whole casual/hardcore thing.

 

A TV junkie can watch TV on a 20" CRT just as much as a TV junkie can watch it on a 50" plasma. Any TV (Assuming it can display a digital signal with the upcoming conversion over here) gets the job done.

However, there are some computers that are simply incapable of running modern games. So it's stupid to even compare television to gaming.

 

Well ok, the TV analogy doesn't work concerning the hardware, but it works concerning the type of games. A TV junkie is not judged by what programs he/she watches, but the fact that he/she watches TV often.

So if we do not include the category of people who play competitively, the general consumer population would best be described by the amount of time/effort they have concerning computer games rather than the games themselves.

My initial question comes down to what is the most crucial aspect that comes into mind when determining a gamer, and what type of a gamer one is. I once ought it was the time, but I'm wondering if that is the key factor anymore.

 

I think it's a lot less complicated then you're making it out to be.

When you go to purchase a PC, if the #1 thing you look for it to do is play games....whatever those games may be...and accept that if the computer fills that role it'll do fine for whatever else you do on it, then you are a gamer.

 

Well yeah, the term "gamer" was easily defined as "somebody who plays computer games".

My question is where do we draw the lines for within this label? Where does one consider himself/herself a "serious gamer" or a "hardcore gamer" versus a "light gamer" or a "casual gamer". Do "serious" and "hardcore" even mean the same thing for example? Are all these terms synonymous or do they have each a different meaning to some?

I mean, I see lots of statements saying "If you're serious about gaming..." or "If you're considering gaming..." or "For a real gamer...". But when in more than 75% of the times I've seen these lines, not a solid list of games played was provided, where did the people who made these claims get their delimitations for the terms they used?

 

I think my question comes down to... why does this matter?

 

Well why doesn't it?

I'm allowed to post about irrelevant things no? lol If you feel this as useless simply don't bother posting(that's what I do really >.>). I mean, there are still many threads with people saying they can play Crysis so why can't I make some thread? >_>

 

It's pointless to even try and draw lines. Games change and what's popular or what's enjoyable is all about personal opinion. They're like fads.

Serious, hardcore, and casual all come down to the individual and what part of her overall life is dedicated to the game she plays. You decide your level of addiction....it's not a checklist others created for you to fill out.

 

Well my point was that these terms are useless and statements like those I posted are kind of void.

That's why in the FAQ, the question asks a specific list of games and when the user fails to put in something half concrete, then it's hard to really gouge anything concerning what machine he/she may need.

I also abhor the term "gaming laptop" since that's soooo vague sometimes >_>

 

I think some games are casual by definition though. A game like bejeweled is a casual game, no matter how much of it you play. If you play is 60 hours a week, you might be a hardcore bejeweled player, or more likely an addict, but it doesn't make you a hardcore gamer. But as Phinagle has said, it's all about personal opinions.

 

I got crucified a few months ago for starting a brag thread entitled 'Ultimate Gaming Machine'...

I was bragging about my Dell XPS m1710 with a T7600G 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo and 7950GTX GPU...obviously, a few months ago, the machine wasn't even close to the best hardware out there...nVidia was on the 9-series GPUs and Intel processors had bumped up at least one generation...

But I wasn't really bragging on the hardware...I was bragging that I had hundreds of games (excluding emulators) from the early 90's (Warcraft, Abuse, Command & Conquer, X-Wing, Full Throttle, Master of Orion, X-Com, etc) up to recent titles (Crysis: Warhead, Dead Space, Bioshock, etc) running off the hard drive at the click of a shortcut...

What made my machine an 'ultimate' gaming machine wasn't the hardware but the software...

I think determining the connotations of 'gaming' and 'gamer' is a valid effort so people can determine what exactly their hardware needs are...a lot of us on here bandy around the word best 'gaming' laptop...but a 'gamer' doesn't necessarily need the best 'gaming' laptop...

I consider myself a 'gamer'...as mentioned, an easier term to define since one of my hobbies is playing computer/console based entertainment...my 6-year old son is a 'gamer'...he enjoys playing games on his DS or on the 360 (I don't allow him to game on my laptop...because it's slightly more complicated than turn on the power and wake up the gamepad and my laptop is still relatively expensive to replace compared to a console...there are some flash-based games on the internet though that he gets to by himself with a shortcut on momma's desktop...)...my wife is absolutely NOT a 'gamer'...she doesn't play Solitaire or anything else...every now and then you can talk her into doing Karaoke Revolution on the PS2 but that's about it...for a while, when I was deployed, she played The Sims...but not only does she not typically play games, she despises computer based entertainment...

The real trick, as mentioned, is determining whether I'm 'hardcore' or 'casual'...and I don't have a good answer for that...in my mind, a 'casual' gamer plays 'casual' titles...if you play Solitaire or Hearts or Minesweeper 80+ hours per week on an Alienware m17x, I think you are a 'casual' gamer (and a silly one to boot since you spent way too much money on the hardware to play those games)...

If you play games that cost more than $30 upon initial release in the 90's or more than $50 upon initial release in the 21st century, then I think you're moving towards 'hardcore'...and the degree of 'hardcore' may be determined by your hardware and time spent playing games...

I don't consider myself a 'casual' gamer...if gaming is not my #1 hobby/interest, then it's tied with reading (um, I mean spending time with my wife)...but I rarely, if ever, play more than 15 hours in a week...between work, church, and family, I don't have that much time...I follow hardware trends...I poke around in this forum...and I have lots and lots of games, most of which I have played through at least once...my hardware is not bleeding edge, but I am aware of what bleeding edge hardware is out there...

Even now, if you asked me what laptop a 'gamer' should buy this very moment, I would say an XPS m1710...there's not a game on the market that it can't run at a playable framerate...and only a dozen or so where I have to turn the resolution down to 1280x800, and then the game still looks great...but that's what probably eliminates me from the modern 'hardcore' ranks...I just find it humorous that the Commodore 64 was arguably the premiere 'gaming' machine from 1983 until 1987 or 1988 (even compared to the Atari 2600/5200, NES and *shocker* Colecovision), and now a premiere gaming PC doesn't even last six months before it's trumped by a few more clock cycles per second or 25% more pipelines on a GPU...game development cycles are longer than six months...if bleeding edge hardware defines you as 'hardcore,' then only the very, very rich (or very, very indebted) need apply...

 

I think this whole argument is somewhat ridiculous, but I'd define someone as a "serious" gamer, if, and only if, they took what they were doing on a video game seriously. Simple as that.

 

Console gaming and PC gaming are two totally different playing fields. You can be a serious gamer playing both, but most "serious gamers" on PC's have moeny to be able to continuely upgrade there system while a console gamer only has to buy the initial system. In my view if you go out and buy new games when they first come out and spend a good amount on video games every month then you are a gamer. You don't necessary have to be the best in something or be in tournaments or whatever to be a serious gamers, but if you spend most of your free time trying to be better at a game or get 100% in it or whatever then you can be classified as a serious gamer. And if you still have consoles from the 80's and 90's and still have a collection of games for them, then you too are probably a serious gamer.

 

i decided its mainly time put in. i only put in about 10-15 hours a week, i consider myself a casual gamer. however, if you play 100 hours of nancy drew games you are not a gamer... you suck. lol

 

That was my first reaction, but on a second thought, determining what's a "gamer" and how big a slice of the computer user pie we are has a market value. Or the industry would never even get to the "gaming notebook" concept.

So, for a marketing point of view, I think that a "gamer" would be the person that, when buying hardware, takes in consideration foremost the capacity of said hardware to run the games he wants, now, and for the near future.

 

Casual gamer minimum requirements: Owns a console or occasionally plays on a console or plays games on a computer

Hardcore gamer: Plays at least 10hrs a week on either console, computer, or combined

Professional gamer: Gets paid to play >.>

 

What does this mean? You have to play multiplayer games to be considered a hardcore gamer? That doesn't make sense. I find more and more than online is nothing more than a bunch of whiny teens who use hacks or spawn kill like crazy. Many also just concentrate on one skill only in one game, but play for hundreds and hundreds of hours. Does that make them a hardcore gamer? Hardly.

90% of my gaming time is with offline games, with BF2 being the exception. Games like Oblivion, Mass Effect, Fallout 3, Doom 3, Starcraft, C&C series, Sins of Solar Empire, Galactic Civilizations 2, etc lend themselves to all sorts of offline enjoyable game time.

I probably have one of the largest gaming collections of anyone here at NBR, partly because I'm older. I only get to game 10-15 hrs/week now due to other obligations, but I still consider myself "hardcore". I will still play the latest games, although I have to be more picky what I buy and what I play.

Many people can't afford a newer machine and are "stuck" with playing some older games, but still play them a LOT. I consider them more hardcore because they make use of what they have and still put the time into it. Although I am beginning to revisit classics because there's not a lot new out there that is all the ingenious any more. It's all about pushing the graphics limit.

It's all relative I guess...

I'd define hardcore as someone who makes the time to play games and push whatever system they have to their limits to make the game work.

 

I agree with this and your whole post (just didn't quote it all for space sake).

I am like you and have a huge gaming collection. I find I'm revisiting games from the 90's more and more because they have substance, despite the dated graphics. Does this make me a less hardcore gamer? I don't think so.