Quantcast
are you a true gamer?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - are you a true gamer?

Who cares? I don't need a title to feel superior to other people. I play what I like when I want on the system I want...



Around the Network
Vodacixi said:
Who cares? I don't need a title to feel superior to other people. I play what I like when I want on the system I want...

It's not about feeling superior. It about knowing who's in the know. Who can hold a real conversation about games, the game industry, and compare games in an objective manner.



Only true scotsmen can be true gamers!

You know you have a problem in your argument, if you need the qualifier 'true' without ever really defining it. In this case it means: you are an old-school gamer (as I am by the way) and you have seen yourself as a gamer for years and now your hobby has extended to other groups, but you don't feel familiar. So you say: these may be gamers, but I am a true gamer! In this regard your point 'true gamers play every system' is quite telling: you name gaming consoles, but no flash games, no mobile games, no text-based console games, no MUDs. So, are you yourself according to your own definition not a true gamer? Or does a 'true gamer' only need to play on 'true gaming systems'?

There are better qualifiers than 'true'. Console gamer. PC gamer. Mobile gamer. MOBA-player. Shooter player. And so on. Why not stick to these, as these don't try to classify and give a value judgement (as 'true' has a positive connotation) at the same time.

I am myself an old-school gamer. For a long time I never touched a console. I played on DOS: Monkey Island, Indiana Jones, Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, Dynablaster (european name of Bomberman for PC), Micro Machines, XCOM:UFO, Civilization, Colonization, Return to Zork, MUDs, Pinball Dreams/Fantasy, Starcraft, Dune, Baldur's Gate, ... I started to grow away from the gaming in the 2000s, but felt unsettled. Then Nintendo roped me into console gaming with the Wii. So my experience is a complete different one from yours. If I talk about old-school it is something completely different than for you.

As an example: you say a true gamer doesn't care about frame rates. As old-school DOS player I know that many games back then hade a simple code to show the frames. And I saw frames in the hundreds. Not always. But it happened. The discussion over 30fps vs. 60fps feels off for me, as I saw much higher frame rates. That is obviously because the PC platform had wildly differing specs and moved back then pretty fast. Even if you had the game two or three years later your PC usually could show the game with excessive high frame rates. Or the game was designed for VGA or SVGA and you had a Voodoo card or something.

My point is, that gaming is pretty diverse. And a mobile gamer or a player of flash games is as much a 'true' gamer as a console or PC gamer. And in the future the Stadia players will be as well. As long as you play games and have fun with it, you are a 'true' gamer. If you want to group gamers into different buckets, you need more specific definitions.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

vivster said:

While technically true, this narrative just serves publishers to increase their ingame costs. Games might have become cheaper on their initial price but at the same time they lost content that has to be purchased separately. On top of that we have online subscription costs on consoles.

I'd say things have not really changed much as games can be cheap but they can also be pretty expensive, which is the same as in the earlier gaming years.

As Replicant said, the additional costs associated with DLC and other post-launch content are purely optional. Online subscriptions are optional as well. You do not need Xbox Live Gold or PS+ to play single-player games.

Also, what would you prefer: New games costing $80 new, with any add-on content being free, or games remaining $60 with the option of buying DLC/expansions/MTX?

The declining price of software combined with the rising cost of game development (which is not offset by market growth) meant something had to give at some point. While I don't defend the increasingly aggressive and often predatory ways many publishers monetize their games post-launch, I do completely understand why these businesses might seek to monetize their games at all.

vivster said:
Replicant said:

While bold is true, it's up to you to decide whether you want to spend money on additional content. I never buy DLC or microtransactions but instead wait for complete editions (e.g. The Witcher 3 and Horizon: Zero Dawn) or simply just ignore the DLC. So far, I haven't felt like I'm missing out on anything. I don't care about some fancy skin for my character that's exclusive to e.g. the game's $100 Special Edition. I'd most likely just choose the standard skin anyway.

You're right about online subscription cost. At the moment though, I'm not subscribing as Apex Legends doesn't require PS Plus which seems to be the case with many of the most popular online games (Fortnite, Paladins, H1Z1, Warframe, Smite, Crossout, Brawlhalla, Neverwinter, Warface, Dauntless, etc). So if you don't care about skins and similar DLC, gaming is in a lot of cases cheaper than ever.

Good for you. Doesn't change the fact that we're getting less for the same money.

Are we really though? We have countless massive wide-open game worlds with 60 hours worth of gameplay. Fighting games still have rosters as large as the historical norm (and back in the 90s, when you had a roster expansion, it meant an entire new full-price re-release of the game, as we saw with Street Fighter 2 and Mortal Kombat 3). Platformers still exist and are similar to or larger in scale than ones from several generations ago. Back in the 16-bit era, most games aside from JRPGs could be beaten in a single afternoon. If someone wanted to charge $80-100 for a 2-3 hour-long 16-bit platformer or action title today, they'd get laughed out of the room, yet that's what we paid for back in the early 90s. Today's gamers frequently don't factor in intangibles like replay value, and instead go by the length of a single playthrough (for single-player games, at least), and games last an order of magnitude longer on average now than they did 25-30 years ago when the cost of a new game was at its peak.

Sure, there's probably a few notable examples you can point to where a game has less content on-disc than a game in the same series did in the past, but in general video games are one of the best value propositions right now in terms of what you get for your money.



Echo_Djinn said:
Vodacixi said:
Who cares? I don't need a title to feel superior to other people. I play what I like when I want on the system I want...

It's not about feeling superior. It about knowing who's in the know. Who can hold a real conversation about games, the game industry, and compare games in an objective manner.

That's not what most people think a gamer is. Most people would say that a gamer is a person who plays games that are not mainstream or that are particularly hard or old school... while at the same time spends his time rambling about why people who only play mobile games are filthy casuals.

The definition you provide would be great, but it is not accurate.

Anyways... nice nickname. Felix/Echo > Isaac/Flint xD



Around the Network
Barkley said:
ipumpmygun said:
Gaming is a hobby or was since I was 6 going 29 years, but with increasing price I may stop playing.

I wouldn't say gaming is becoming more expensive. Especially if you take inflation into account.

N64 games regularly launched at over $60, some up to $80. With inflation that's like $95($60) to $120($80) lol. I guess it's expensive in other ways, but in terms of just game prices it's cheap, because the standard rate of $60 for a new title has been the same since the 360 launched in 2005.a

While there has been a lot of inflation over the years, the fact is that people's perception of game prices isn't going to go away. $80 still looks like $80 even if, in terms of being power, $80 is like $50 30 years ago. Until we get to a point where dollars are spent like Japanese yen, where consumer goods start costing $1000-5000, that's not likely to change.



I devote most of my free time to the world of video games, whether it is playing them, watching videos that talk about them, going to forums like this one, reading the news and opinions regarding video games. So I think I can say I'm a true gamer, Though I would use the words "hard-core gamer" but it doesn't matter what we call it, we are what we are, period.

I have a friend who's very casual and I don't mean that in a bad way, it's his way and that's fine too. Why do I say he's a casual? Cause he mostly only plays one game: FIFA, very rarely touches other games and when he does, he never finishes them or play them for very long.

Also he knows nothing of what's going on in the world of video games. He has no idea who are people like Jim Sterling, Yong Yea, Spawn Wave or Julien Chieze or what those peoples' points of views are and what they stand for.

He has no idea for instance that Activision or EA are scummy companies with their lootboxes and pay to win mechanics designed to prey on weak minds or that Bethesda that used to be an ok company is now one of the worst and so on... Well he knows a little but only cause I sometimes explain this stuff to him but he won't find this info by himself cause he doesn't care. In one word, he's a casual.

Last edited by CrazyGamer2017 - on 02 August 2019

.

In the afterlife if I get to be all powerful and mighty, I will torture and torment all humans to the end of time in the most evil and cruel way possible. In the meantime let's have a nice friendly time in the forum

One thing there video touched on (but doesn't detract from if you're a "true gamer" imo) that I hate is people who love companies more than games. Yeah, certain companies are pretty consistent when it comes to enjoyable experiences. I'm a fan of many. I just hate it when people become cheerleaders for certain game/hardware creators and it makes them automatically hate/dismiss another brand entirely.

Everyone has their pros and cons. It's cool to have a preference but I hate a closed mind. And I hate when people can't see shortcomings and flaws to the point where they defend something they'd condemn is someone else did it.



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

Co-workers: Do you have any hobbies
Me: ah, i like playing video games
Also me: whispers "im a true gamer"
Co-workers: LOL



"Wheel me out to the curb for garbage day"

I came here seeking validation and entertainment.

I am leaving and having remembered to thank my Mom.