What's a true gamer?

I'd call myself a true gamer. I'm a mac user, I don't go for latest and greatest graphics cards and consoles just because they're new (that's not a gamer, that's a gadget freak). I adore gameplay in any form. I see through graphics and orchestral music. Cheap "sex sells" tactics won't wash with me. Maybe I'm just a stuck up gamer who has the pleasure of owning an Amiga that taught me aaall about gameplay and how Atari, EA and co are slowly destroying the love for games.

I think we're ok in the UK. the BBC openly embrace games, which are a major power over here. if american politicians put clamps down on gaming, on the developers and producers, then ho hum for you guys. Then again I don't think we've had Doom and GTA related killings (i know that's not true, but our media don't put a game spin on things). yea! Blame the media. boycott, fight, there's a Jack Thompson for anti-gaming, now one of you smart law-fueled gamers get up there for the pro-gaming! or something.

Not one of my friends own a games console and none of them play PC games, they look at me like I have a childs hobby, not suitable for anyone over the age of 21 yet alone someone in their thirties, and aren't in the slightest bit interested in what I have to say regarding my latest gaming adventures.

I spend many a lonely hour in the pub, eager to blurt out all the exciting new online features in my latest purchase, but the conversation turns to what they all spend fifty hours a week doing instead - keeping up with half a dozen dreadful soaps or the price of cotton socks at tesco.
I'm sure they see me as a "true gamer" as I carry on regardless of their derision. It's fair enough though, as I see them as soap watching zombie-sheep.

I'm just a gamer, it's a pastime.
(they are all still zombie-sheep T.V. trash losers who should get a life of course.)

True gamers PWN everyone in every game!

I school n00bs in BF2 every night.

But, still, I do lots of other things you know, like, read stuff at Joystiq, post coments. And also, like, post in BF2 forums, show them my screenshots of the ppl i pnwd last night...

And like, sometimes, I eat...

The number of adult gamers is growing, but the people in power still only see the sensationalism of the anti-gaming crusaders. Our congressmen and women did not grow up with video games, so a lot of them still have the disconnect between the ideas of video games and mature themes. Until that changes, we can expect a lot of attempts at legislation, and there's no reason to believe that something won't survive a Constitutional challenge. If you're of voting age, you should be doing something, and doing it now. It doesn't take much effort. I added my digital John Hancock, and sent the email to my senators. It took about 45 seconds.

I have every confidence that video games will join rock & roll and comic books as accepted, harmless forms of entertainment, but the longer people like us delay, the longer it will take for that acceptance to come. Do we really want to see what will happen to the industry in the meantime if the Jack Thompsons of the world are the only ones with a voice?

I've been thinking about this many times. I consider myself a gamer, I own all the systems and playing is my primary hobby in life. I want to play every good game there is, as long as the game interests me. I know how the gaming industry works, I follow gaming news daily and there's not been one week when I haven't bought a game for a long time...

Sometimes I buy a PAL release of a good game (for example Ignitions SNK releases) just to support the publisher so we'd get more releases here. And I boycott bad PAL releases like Final Fantasy X-2 since it runs so horribly slow and has huge borders. I do get to play the game eventually since I have friends who buy the games I might not.

I never listened to music until I played some Final Fantasy game and then I decided to get some mp3's and have since started buying CD's, all of them are video game soundtracks, except for a few anime soundtracks.

What I don't consider a gamer are "casual gamers" like my friend who only ever buys the latest Need for Speed, NHL and GTA games. He doesn't even play them that much. A true gamer is someone who shows interest in gaming in general and wants to play great games. Just like if you watched movies occasionally, real movie hobbyists wouldnt' consider you a movie watcher unless you really spent much of your time with movies and knew all the directors and actors and all. Real gamers should also know the popular names of video game industry.

My partner will attest that I qualify as a 'true gamer', and I would definitely agree with that statement. I've been playing both console and PC games now for over 25 years and never stopped. In fact, I watch less than 3 hours of TV a week when it's not football season, while my library of games has become an actual problem for the space of our 1 bedroom apartment.

I actually do keep up with news via on-line and print newspapers but my inaction to do anything has little to do with being a gamer. I don't think there is much that would spur me political activism because the politics I grew up with have made me very cynical about the political process. I just don't think that grass roots efforts have the same kind of effect on Washington that they did in the late sixties and early seventies. I personally feel that lobbyist and big corporations hold much more influence than the individual voter.

Now remember, that's just my own personal opinion. I'm sure there's some political science major who might read this and feel appalled by my statements, but I'm not looking for a debate on the political process.

The point I would like to make is that gamers come in all kinds of different shapes, sizes, and political theologies. While one could make an argument that the sterotypical gamer is seen as some lazy slacker who sacrifices cleanliness and personal and professional duties and is a complete addict, I don't believe that our community suffers from a lack of political clout because we're all lazy bums. Perhaps we have other, valid reasons for not becoming involved.

Logging into XBOX live when a game first comes out, even before the single player missions are played, to Consequently take headshots and be pwned is what I think a true gamer really is. You see its not always about winning the game but how you take your stand. (Too MUCH GRAW)

I love SONY, NINTENDO, and SOMETIMES MICROSOFT, HIP HIP HOOORAY for games.

I think we should be very clear about what we're concerned over.

Mr. Cole seems to be concerned that the government will create a Video Game Code similar to the Comic Book Code. I wasn't around in the 1950s, so perhaps this isn't true, but I believe there is more political pressure on video games today than there was on comic books then. However, there is also a much larger market for video games, so retailers have much more to lose if video game sales were to decline. The Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association is always beside the ESA whenever a proposed law deals with video games. So whereas a comic book that didn't carry the Comic Code couldn't be sold in the 1950s, today, the retailers are much more cooperative with the game industry, so that's one reason a Video Game Code is unlikely.

Plus, we have to remember that the gov’t doesn’t have a great track record when it comes to regulating media. For example, take the 2 Live Crew obscenity ruling Jack Thompson likes to gloat about. It was eventually overturned by an appeals court. The Comics Code is more of an exception than the rule.

Next we should consider that despite all the proposed laws, none have managed to stick.

Finally, we have to look at the laws themselves. No law I know of is trying to "interfere with developers' constitutional rights to produce content for gamers of all ages." Video games are free speech. Even though it was once ruled otherwise, they are now covered by the first amendment. No one is contesting that.

All laws have targeted the marketing and selling of Mature-rated games (or "violent" games) to minors. All previous laws have been over-ruled because they violate the free speech of minors. Because there is no strong evidence that video games are harmful to minors, minors can't be barred from buying them.

At first, it seems there is little we can do to prove that video games aren't harmful; the research that does exist is very inconsistent. For every study that finds one answer, another finds the opposite. And few seem to be looked at in comparison to other forms of media.

Even though the question is based on science and not politics, it's important for gamer's to know what their dealing with. Think about this, if the number of violent games is increasing every year and if violent games do lead to aggressive behavior, what should be the outcome? We should expect some increase in aggression and violence in certain segments of society, specifically the minors targeted by the aforementioned laws.

But this is what we find:
(Note: This data is all from the US.)

"SCHOOL VIOLENCE RATE STABLE, LOWEST LEVEL IN A DECADE"
That is the title of the press release for the "Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2005" which is a report put out by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/iscs05pr.htm

The rates of all types of violent crime by teenagers are down.
Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/jvo03pr.htm

ALL violent crime rates are down and are the lowest in a decade.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/17/crime.rate/index.html

Are these the signs of a society that is more aggressive because of video games? These are the types of things we need to stay focused on. I don't know enough about neuroscience to discuss that part of the debate. All I know is that if there is a strong link between aggression and video games, that link is not manifesting itself into real life violence.

We shouldn't be concerned with free speech debate because we've already won it. The focus is on whether video games cause aggression and whether that aggression is harmful. That debate is hard to deal with because the science isn't all there. But we can focus on what we do know, and inform others as well as we can.

The problem with the way you are thinking is that it's fundamentally flawed. If you start to think of your politicians in one issue ( i.e., is he/she for or against abortion ) you start to get the problems that you have now. George Bush = Against Abortion, there for, George Bush = Good President, and we all know that that one isn't so true.
The problem you're having is that you can't see a broad picture of the way government works. Are Senators scaring senior citizens into thinking that video games are turning children into killing machines to raise money for their base? Yes. Are they introducing laws that censor and remove videogames from stores that make it to the house and the senate? No. ( Well, maybe in local states where politicians need to introduce a bill to get any TV time at all )
If you reduce your politicians to one issue, you end up being dictated to in every other issue there is.

"free rein"
"...before all...understand..." OR "...for all...to understand..."

"I have every confidence that video games will join rock & roll and comic books as accepted, harmless forms of entertainment..."

White Rose, I wonder if you are familiar with the Comic Code of 1954? Never enforced, but it had an irreperable impact on the status of violent comic books. While I agree that eventually people will accept games all around, once the old politicians are themselves people who gamed in their youth, we should still be aware of what can happen when the ignorant take drastic measures

One thing that would help is if gamers knew about what kind of issues are out there that they care about. And from a gamer perspective, not from a developer association.

Let's take, for example, the Digital Millennium Consumer Rights Act, first introduced by U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA). This law would amend the draconian DMCA, and would legalize among other things mod chips. Obviously, this bill is opposed by the ESA and no group started by them would ever support the law.

While I'm all for gamers organizing, we shouldn't rely on groups like the ESA to do it for us - they're only out to support the industry, not the gamers themselves.

In the meantime, though, meet with your elected leaders. I've contacted people from the office of my representative (U.S. Rep. Mike Capuano, D-MA) to let him know my thoughts on the law. I'm going to contact my senators (Edward Kennedy, D-MA and John Kerry, D-MA) on the matter as well. I recommend all gamers do the same.

Finally, a note on liberal vs. conservative. Joystiq, I think you mean cultural conservatives. The politically conservative thing to do would be to not interfere governmentally with a business's operations - which would mean not restricting by law the content of video games. Or what one can do to their game consoles.

Thanks for this joystiq, I checked out the site and never registered, but now I have. I will convince all my friends offline and on to do the same. Hopefully this will make a change.

"What's it going to take before all gamers over the age of 18 to understand what's at stake here? For the love of all that is pixelated, get involved!

Maybe the nature of our hobby breeds lazy, politically inactive citizens?"

People have been asking "what's it going to take before people over the age of 18 to care about ANYTHING and vote" for a while now. There's a disturbingly high amount of sheer apathy among the 18-35 crowd. Voter turnout for the group is low, dissent is almost nonexistent and while it's clear that most of us don't like the administration and/or their policies, nobody seems to give a shit.

I've pontificated enough on this subject in various different places, so I don't feel like I need to go on and on here. Suffice to say that I agree freedom of speech is a big issue (don't ignore the real issue here - it's not politicians vs. games, it's politicans vs. a form of expression).

HOWEVER, there are far greater things that concern our country today than whether or not little johnny can walk into wal-mart and buy GTA. Preaching to the choir here, since anyone who's taken the time to respond obviously DOES care, but I'd like to see a this apathy turn around not just in regards to games/gamers.

Unfortunately many gamers don't vote (some just aren't old enough) and that's enough for politicians to see an easy target that they can get voting parents (but mostly grandparents) behind. More and more politicians are drifting away from causes that all Americans can agree on (like child abuse and ) and choosing to champion very polarizing pseudo-religious debates (because that's what civilised people do right?)like abortion and assisted suicide. Unfortunately right now, the loudest morons are democrats, who should be focusing their effort into wrestling power away from these revolting neo-cons (the name says it all right there) who have taken over the country. So as a NYer, I'm voting independent this year (probably the green party; they actually look out for consumers) because I'm sure as hell not voting for Hilary. My choice may not get in but at least I'll have my dignity.

I think this whole strike against video games is a sham by politicians to get millions of lobbying dollars from a largely untapped industry. The question is, should the companies give in to the political bullying and start hiring a Jack Abramoff type to shovel large amounts of dough to these d-bags? I'm of the opinion now that we should ignore them because there's nothing that these morons could do to censor video games. Especially these Democrats; they couldn't stop a retarded monkey from stealing two elections. That's incompetence.

"This gives politicians free reign to vilify video games on national television in a bid to appeal to conservative voters." Come on Vlad, is Hilary Clinton a conservative?? Lieberman? NO!!! This is more than pandering to conservative voters, it's an attack on the first ammendment. Liberals are just as guilty. Now, in the future can we have accurate data posted!? Please? I'm starting to lose faith in the credibility and integrity of some of your posts. Thank you.

Why should I care if some 15 year old can't get a copy of GTA 15: Cop Killers Who Kill Cops Then Have Sex? I'm 30. I can buy games without getting carded. I literally don't care if they are rated M or Adult or whatever, and in fact, maybe the 15 yr old shouldn't be playing the game with those ratings. Its up to the parents to decide, and last I checked most parents of 15 year olds are over 21, so they should be able to purchase the latest Horribly Violent Game of The Week if they think their kids can handle it.

Politicians like Hilary and Lieberman *think* issues like this will establish them as centrists, when in reality, true conservatives see it as nothing more than pandering.

As was mentioned in an earlier post, true conservatives will want the government to stay out of this issue, because the marketplace will take care of itself.

I'm a true gamer. I'm 38 years old and have been playing all types of videogame systems since Pong.

I pwn all of you.

Its funny. I thought that playing video games made me a true gamer. But you say to be a true gamer, I have to play games and vote? Im all about voting, but that is just silly. I declare that from now on to be a ture gamer you have to play games, vote and eat flapjacks with every meal. Only flapjack eaters are true gamers.

Don't get me wrong, I consider myself a true gamer. I don't agree that we should censor games more than any other form of media in the US. I just don't think that video games while ever be a big enough issue to make me vote for a certain candidate when I have so many other concerns about this country. I agree with the fact that there are politicians, republican and democrat, conservative and liberal, that seem to have a vendetta against games. I just don't think that voting against a candidate simply for their stance on video games is gonna make much of an impact. A lot of people felt that John Kerry's stance on gay marriage helped lose the last election for him. Do you think that next time around the democrats are gonna change their minds on that issue? I doubt it. Even though people voted against them specifically for that reason. So do you think that a politician is gonna change their minds about censoring games even if they lose? Listen, I'd love to get in the face of some self-righteous politician and give them a piece of my mind, I just think there are too many bigger issue that come into play while voting for our nations leaders. I'd love to vote against anyone who is trying to censor and attack the games I love, but in 2008 I'm going to have to go with the candidate that I think will make a better leader.

Jared wrote: "Come on Vlad, is Hilary Clinton a conservative??"

Jared, I think you're giving in to a reflexive impulse to defend Republicans. I'm not talking about Republicans. I'm talking about cultural conservatives and those who pander to them.

Hilary Clinton is very liberal, but her position on this issue is very conservative as a means of winning the critical swing voter who is more easily captured by cultural conservatism.

Can somebody please explain to me how this is any different from forcing minors to be accompanied by an adult when watching rated R movies, or being banned outright from viewing NC-17 ones?

Is anybody questioning the logic behind the enforcement of movie ratings? It seems to me that here, the legislators are just trying to get video games to be on par with other forms of entertainment.

I'm seriously trying to figure this one out

Anthony M,

Movie ratings are enforced by theatres, not by law. Same thing with movie rental, it's enforced by the rental company, Blockbuster, etc.

Pornography is different, and states all have different laws regarding its sale.

That's why this is a big deal. Nobody is questioning the logic behind keeping M-rated games away from 13-year-olds. What we are questioning is who enforces that. Basically, are we equating games with movies and letting the industry regulate itself, or are we equating games with pornography and regulating it by law?

I don't see what the big fuss is? Will it matter to me that I get carded for a rated M game? What is the difference between the government and the industry regulating the sale of these games? Regardless of who regulates it, I'll still be able to purchase it.

The game and retail industry might not like it because it forces them to comply with a government law and they may actually loose sales because a minor can't buy a game that is intended for Adults.

I'm open to anyone can explain to me why putting laws on the purchase of videogames would be a bad thing. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'd like to understand why this would be such a bad thing because regardless of the outcome, it won't prevent an adult, from purchasing a game.

All I see from this "A true gamer isn't..." blah blah blah or the "Violent games are training people to kill..." bullshit is the sign of $$$$. Politicians need controversy to get noticed and anything they think could give it to them, they will go after it. Now, in the case of Mr. Jack Thompson, all he sees is the possibility of lawsuits if a law implies that videogames are dangerous to minors, or any psychological study he can get his hands on, WHAT AN HYPOCRIT. If you look at what is exactly at stake here is just the fact that even when many games are labeled for adults, how many gaming magazines are geared for adults? 3, 4 maybe? the rest of the magazines just hype games and most of the readers are kids, then these kids go and get a hold of these games because the magazine said is good or it looks cool. I have been playing games for more than 24 years, and back in the day there was no need (or graphical capability) to show blood or explicit gore. If they pass a law to make it illegal to sell adult videogames to minors it means a lot of sales will just poof! disappear. There will be no more kid telling daddy to buy him this or that game for holidays 'cause if daddy does such a thing he could end in jail. It is a matter of MONEY people, less people to buy violent videogames means less violent videogames, and it just so happens that A LOT of money comes from violent videogames. New technologies are making graphics look closer and closer to the real thing, making violence and gore look very real. A mind in development could easily be affected by a violent scene or behavior, and since most violent video games are ending in the hands of kids because daddy or mommy are not doing their job, well, that’s why the government is stepping in. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE GTA and zillion other violent games, but I am totally against a kid playing these games, and misleading people with things like "A gamer is not this or that" is just an irresponsible way to make people get involved in a political topic. It is true that some of the legislations being proposed are very uneducated, but what other way is there but a law to make parents take responsibility of their kids when they go and buy games.

"Politicians need controversy to get noticed and anything they think could give it to them, they will go after it."
Or maybe it is just good but misguided intentions that lead politicians into trouble.

"Jared wrote: "Come on Vlad, is Hilary Clinton a conservative??"

"Jared, I think you're giving in to a reflexive impulse to defend Republicans. I'm not talking about Republicans. I'm talking about cultural conservatives and those who pander to them."
I am a "cultural conservative" in the sense that I am pro-life, pro-family, anti-affirmative action, etc, yet I am against legislation that would regulate games in such a way as to deny people to right to purchase them (even if it has questionable content.) I bet that most "cultural conservatives" aren't against videogames, they are against sexual content/excessive gore and violence in videogames, when legislators who have the same views get into office they probably want to make a law concerning this, and thus it is just misguided intentions and the wrong "solution" for the problem.

"Hilary Clinton is very liberal, but her position on this issue is very conservative as a means of winning the critical swing voter who is more easily captured by cultural conservatism."
The swing voter is more easily captured by "cultural conservatism" then why do most independents tend to vote liberal?
Do you really think any "cultural conservative" would be moved to vote for Hillary over "my policy on videogames" come on, it's just too narrow.

Vladimir Cole, why are you trying to "activate" gamers what are they going to do you act as if there is a dire threat for gamers to get up off the couch and begin to hold pickett signs around Washington D.C. There really isn't a assault on videogames, only politicians who come up with bad ideas, but in the end they never really amount to anything.

It would be funny to see this article if it was about watching tv "What's a true tv watcher?" "Come on couch potatoes become politically active, social conservatives are ruining our country, run for the hills!"

"More and more politicians are drifting away from causes that all Americans can agree on (like child abuse and ) and choosing to champion very polarizing pseudo-religious debates (because that's what civilised people do right?)like abortion and assisted suicide."

Right, so let everyone have abortion, because who cares about the life of the child, and grandma's dying anyways, so why not whack her over the head with a frying pan and end her misery.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2004/01/a_wonderful_rev.html
http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2005/03/michael_schiavo.html

Trust me, I love video games. Give me a good game and enough time, and I'll forget time and play non-stop.

But that doesn't mean I'll stand up and vote just for the cause of videogames. We got more things to worry about, like the war in Iraq and paying off increasing college tuition. All right, so there's a law out there waiting to be passed. All it does is restrict sales of mature-rated games to minors, which I support. Games today are much more capable of rendering realistic blood and gore, and it chills my blood to see some 10-year-old watching guts fly all over the screen (and I'm 19). Please tell me you guys all went through childhood. Admit it, people. You were once all clueless little kids too, and need some sort of stimuli to snap to attention. That hasn't changed with today's kids. And to game publishers, how else to get their attention? That's right, folks - a good dose of blood.

I believe this particular law should make a good wake-up call for game developers to do something other than blood-filled fests in order to sell. Hey, I love blood in my games. But blood doesn't necessary make a game fun, nor does it constitute a great game. There are many other bloodless options that developers should think up if they wish to keep selling. And to boot, it wouldn't be a "kid's thing" to do. We adults enjoy bloodless games just as much as, say, Doom - as long as the games are fun. That's all I'm gonna say regarding this law.

As for Thompson, how much of an audience does he actually have? This guy's just blowing smoke. If he doesn't have good evidence to support his cause, no one's gonna take him seriously. Let him rant, and we can continue to laugh at him - while checking out the latest games.

@#29 "As for Thompson, how much of an audience does he actually have? This guy's just blowing smoke. If he doesn't have good evidence to support his cause, no one's gonna take him seriously."

Hilary Clinton met with him prior to her "Hot Coffee" conference last year. He has been on CNN numerous times. Mainstream society believes he is an expert on video games.

As for Hilary Clinton herself, I think we might be focusing too much attention on her. In December, Jack Thompson wrote an editorial about her proposed "Family Entertainment Protection Act" and how it is fundamentally unconstitutioal.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/13377085.htm

I'm Australian. So I can freely ignore this.

However, I think that a lobby group is a great way to move from "subculture" to "culture segment", but one should keep in mind: as games grow more popular, some of the things you love about games will go away.