Seminal video game journalist N'Gai Croal, of Newsweek's Level Up blog, brings to our attention an article one GameSetWatch, written by Douglas Wilson, a fairly scathing and critical op ed on the term "Gamer". Here's a snippet:
I can’t stand gamers.
No, that’s not quite true. I can’t stand the concept of gamers.
And no, I’m not some anti-gaming nutcase. Far from it, games have always been an important part of my life. As a child of the 80s, I grew up with the Nintendo Entertainment System. I watched my older brother play Sierra adventure game classics like Quest For Glory and King’s Quest.
When the Internet finally found its way to our house, I immersed myself in text MUDs and played real-time strategy games with my friends over TCP/IP. I’ve finished a hefty number of RPGs, including Final Fantasies I, IV, VI, VII, and IX (I gave up on V because, well, Squaresoft mailed it in on the storyline).In my heyday I could complete Paranoia Survivor Max on the highest difficulty. I was there at the first PAX, and I’ve attended E3 twice and GDC three times. Hell, I like videogames so much that I’m doing a friggin’ PhD in game studies.
The problem is, the “gaming community” has become a kind of cult. Organized around worship sites like Kotaku, 1UP, and Penny Arcade, the Church of Gamers congregates in Internet forums and online games, rallying against the Great Satan of Jack Thompson. Smitten with near-religious fervor over their hobby, these so-called gamers increasingly treat digital games as a devotional object, a thing morally good in itself.
It’s great to be a passionate about one’s hobbies. But when fans lose touch with reality, they also lose perspective on the more important parts of life. And in doing so, gamers ironically stifle innovation in the medium they so love.
The rest can be found here.
N'Gai chimes in shortly with his own assessment of the article stating:
The Reaction: Words have power, this is true. But is more widespread use of the term "interactive entertainment"--and with it, changing the term "gamers" to "avid players of digital games"--really enough to radically change the perception or reality of videogames and the people who play them. In our opinion, Wilson has confused his diagnosis of the symptom (the clannish, obsessive, unrestrained behavior of a vocal minority of, uh, gamers) with a variety of diseases (the youth of said vocal minority; the disinhibiting nature of the Internet; and the general ignorance about games in society at large). The fact is that there is no monolithic "gaming community." There's only an assortment of people with varying degrees of passion about their pastime, so pleading with them to reform its behavior is pointless. And what ails them is not the name they choose to go by.
The Verdict: Red light. There's nothing wrong with the concept of "gamers." But individual gamers could stand to check themselves.
I more or less agree with him, though I do it in a ham-fisted manner, as usual. My response:
This reminds me of the issue of the terms "comic books" vs. "graphic novels". Like with the term gamer, comic books seem to evoke the stereotype of nerdiness and adolescence, even when the medium has long since transcended those misconceptions (for comic books at least), the public perception hasn't followed suit. Therefore, some people have felt the need to shed the old label of "comic" to "graphic novel", a label that reflects the mediums maturity.
Naturally, some people have taken issue with this proposition. I among them, I think it cheapens the whole thing, to shed a large part of the medium's history seems nothing short of snooty. Take a copy of The Watchman and any comic off the $1 rack, both are still considered "comic books". Much like how Schindler's List and Meet the Spartans are both considered "movies". It's not the term that defines the quality, far from it.
Of course, this argument isn't directly applicable necessarily. Firstly, my argument references the medium itself, while this discussion seems relegated to the terminology of those who *consume* that said medium (and I'd like to point out, like how there's no "tuber" term, there's also no term for comic book reader). And secondly, modern gaming, sadly, hasn't transcended into something beyond, not in the way movies, comics, novels, or any other established artforms have. Though I think that's obviously a whole other discussion.
With all that said though, how do I feel about the term Gamer, surprisingly conflicted actually. I've come to embrace all things geeky, and I feel that "gaming" is a large part of my identity. However, I also feel that the term "gamer" is extraneous, and even alienating. The latter I sometimes prefer, given my elitism, but I know that the medium won't grow if the audience and pool of talent doesn't either.
With that in mind, I initially sided with Wilson's article, and felt it best if the term was abolished. But I realized that I just contradicted my "comic vs. graphic novel" argument. I've since had a change of heart, and I think it's best if we keep the term, and embrace it (more so?). That way, when Gamers *do* mature, and I hope they/we will, the public perception will change along with it.
Certainly no one still thinks D&D players are Satanists right?...
Feel free to add chime in here, or over at the Level Up comments section.
No comments:
Post a Comment