Kotaku - PAX Panel Attempts to Define "Gamer", Sparks Casual Controversy

You can read the full overview at Kotaku but basically, every year at PAX there is a panel where they discuss something relevant to gaming.  This year, the theme was "Game Culture: How Gamers Impact Society & How Policy Affects Gamer Culture."  At one point representatives of games studios and the ESA had some discussion about what it means to be a gamer or whether that term is still necessary.  Well, some guy eventually chimed in and had this to say:

"[I define] ‘Gamer' as someone dedicated to the perfection of fun. You can't do that in 10 [minute intervals]."

Now, already, the gamer definition debate is a hot one across message boards especially in this day and age when certain terms are used with reckless abandon and even moreso seem to have meanings entirely lost on their users, but this response is definitely the kind of thing you would see tossed around message boards.  The "perfection" of fun and the notion that such a thing can't be done in ten minute intervals?  You can read the remaining Kotaku write up to read about the reactions from the crowd to this statement, by the way.

The writer of the article, AJ Glasser, makes a great observation though.  The commentator's comment does seem to do one of two things if not both:

1)  Alienate the casual audience
2)  Imply that shorter games don't count as games (or rather perfection of fun)

Indeed, there may be a rift between various gamers on experience/understanding/etc. at one point can anyone draw a line and define who is or isn't a gamer or have any real means of determining the worth of gamer as a title based on what a gamer plays?  Across the net there are those that will distinctly argue these differences, that there is an understanding of what makes or doesn't make a gamer but not one person has been able to make clear that distinction.  At best, AT BEST, they end up saying something akin to what that PAX commentator said, at worst, they outright deride and cast aside the casual audience.

So yeah, if anyone has anything to say, what do you think?

Personally, I find the comment uncouth and I'm surprised that when the guy said it that he didn't smack his head and go "arggh!" realizing the minefield he walked into.   The actual wording is very elitist (for lack of a better word) suggesting that gamers are drawn to the "perfection" of what it means to have fun, suggesting this path as an impossibility for an audience that embraces those games.  Considering very few games score perfectly and even moreso, those that do are constantly in debate about their "perfection" that was already off the bat the wrong word to use, but even a milder substitute would burn just as badly.  What makes Call of Duty to a hardended CoD fan any more fun than the Sims to a hardened Sims fan?  What about those that are fans of both?  What about those that spend their time playing 30+ hour epics versus those that spend half an hour each night before bed playing Peggle? 

Granted, I understand the vast differences in appeal between hardened fans and their respective games and those gamers that simply spend some consistent amount of time with those very games, but that's the point I'm trying to get across in how different the gaming population is.  Personally, I'd rather play CoD than the Sims but that's more out of a preference than any credo of living up to the "standards" of what makes a gamer who they are.  These days there are times where it seems like "casual" is a dirty word or a term inherently associated with an understanding of lesser quality. (and I mean this by apparent quality, not production value) 

I always thought "gamer" meant someone who plays games.

Me too but 'views' like this abound http://www.vgcats.com/comics/images/090423.jpg

The definition of gamer is someone who plays games.

Man, "Casual Gaming "as a phrase and a concept (the fact that there are various levels of gaming) makes me feel kind of awkward. I don't know what it is but I just hate it. Like, you get these adverts where there's these old ladies playing Brain Training on their DS and it feels awkward. I don't really have anything against it (i am not the fun police) but it just feels wrong. I can't form any justification for my beliefs but it just feels wrong. I guess it's just me assuming that I am the target market for games and no-one else is.

Not that I disagree with you at all (and I don't on the bolded) but that's the thing with this kind of debate because people tend to completely overlook that simple concept.  Either that, or they know it well and just prefer emphasize that there is a hierarchy among different types of gamers and that's probably the point where the shit hits the fan.

@ Ciox

Pretty much, though I think VGCats' take on the issue is a bit more extreme than what you commonly see.  Then again, I suppose when people constantly refer to casual gamers as being less than gamers, maybe their take is right on the money.

What do you care? You see us as you want to see us... in the simplest terms and the most convenient definitions. You see us as a role-player, a sports gamer, a casual gamer, and a Guitar Hero. Correct? That's the way we saw each other at seven o'clock this morning. We were gamers.

Gamers are people who have no appreciation for the arts sorry

Impossible, just look at all the "gamers" that keep trying to classify games like Shadow of the Colossus and Killer 7 as art and fighting for the games industry to be recognized as more than a games industry.  Well, at the very least they try to show their appreciation by tossing around labels to define the object of said appreciation. :P

@ Kentona

Damn straight, better than warm milk.