The problem with self-identified “gamers” is that they don’t much like games.
What they really like is outrage. Endless Twitter threads about Ubisoft. YouTube rants about EA. It’s the same cycle every year—and every year, they eat it up.
Now, yes—sometimes outrage does move the needle. Loot boxes got attention because people wouldn’t shut up about them. Steam’s refund system only exists because players demanded it. Fair enough. But let’s be honest: that’s the exception. Most of the noise is just outrage as lifestyle.
Because while gamers are busy fuming over Assassin’s Creed DLC, thousands of games are releasing—many of them incredible. Games that will never get a spotlight, because gamers would rather keep hate-watching the same corporations they claim to despise.
Kicker is, Ubisoft and EA don’t actually matter unless you make them matter. They don’t have a constitutional right to your wallet. If you stopped buying Assassin’s Creed, it wouldn’t exist. Yet you do buy it. Then you complain about it. Then you buy it again.
Meanwhile, you could be playing Baldur’s Gate, Silksong, or any of the other masterpieces sitting right there waiting. But no—better to log on and shout about how much you hate the thing you voluntarily gave $60 to.
So sure, outrage has its uses. But don’t pretend it makes you some champion of the medium. If you care about games—actually care—play the good ones. Otherwise, drop the gamer label. Because what you’re really into isn’t games. It’s the drama.
There’s just no point in identifying with a group based on entertainment as consumption. I play a lot of games but I don’t consider myself a “gamer”, in the same way a person who understands the language of cinema and the ideas behind film critique doesn’t consider themselves a “movie watcher”.
There are those who merely consume art, and there are always a few who think about art in its larger context and what the artistic choices of a piece represent to them. An artist will of course try to appeal to the consumer for practical reasons, but those practicalities exist in tension with the more genuine motives of creators, because art is the study of choice and mass appeal is an uninteresting, despite being understandable.
I don’t know why game consumers choose to be so readily fleeced, perpetually dissatisfied, and tedious about their preferred media intake. Small studios are creating incredible games that run perfectly on launch, require no special hardware, and actually make interesting creative choices. Maybe they’re enjoying their anger, who knows.
In any case, we shouldn’t associate with them unless they’re up in arms about something meaningful, on those rare occasions.
The more I think about it, the more I like this comment.
I could change the rules here to say, “No self-identified gamers allowed,” but I think something might be lost in translation if I did that.
I just wish there was a less wordsy way to explain that life should be an interesting and meaningful exploration of ideas rather than a mindless yet fraught pursuit of stimuli.
i want more 16 bit games
None of the self-identified gamers that I know behave like that.
I think the group you’re talking about would be better described as social media complainers. (These ones happen to focus on games.)
But as someone else in this thread already said, why do you need an identity for something you consume?
Most people enjoy movies. They don’t hang their entire identity upon it. It’s just something they enjoy.
Frankly, there doesn’t need to be gamer identity spaces. There’s enough of them, and most of them wind up being toxic.
You don’t. Identifying yourself as a gamer doesn’t imply adopting “gamer” as your identity. Some people might do that, but I very much doubt that most do.
Similarly: motorcyclists, vegetarians, dog lovers.
I’m not talking about descriptors. I’m talking about identities.
Yes—most people who play games don’t self-identify as “gamers.” But enough do, and they’ve poisoned the well. Look at what happened to Anita Sarkeesian. She put out a YouTube series, and the gamer crowd showed up in force to make her life miserable. GamerGate was just more of the same.
So if you self-identify as a gamer, and want to drag that culture in here, you’re not welcome.
I’m not talking about descriptors. I’m talking about identities.
I call myself a gamer. That is self-identifying as a gamer.
I have not adopted it as my identity, nor do I behave like the people complained about in this post. [edit: slightly rephrased]
The point is that you are, through the phrasing you have chosen, making an overly broad generalization about a very large group of humans, most of whom don’t behave as you describe, and it’s a bit insulting. Now that your attention has been called to it, you can choose whether to rephrase your argument.
Good day.
“Gamers” are not a marginalized group, nor a protected class. If you feel like this criticism is aimed at you, maybe that’s a sign you need to do some self-reflection—or simply step back.
You’ve got a choice. Be here as someone who likes talking about video games. Or don’t be here at all.
Not every community is for everyone. And that’s okay.
bro
The bside gaming comm is a pretty nice break from this, as is patientgamers.
I don’t call myself a “gamer” even though it’s my primary hobby and has been since early childhood. I play games because I enjoy playing games.
The terminally online noise is hard to sift through but there are some smaller circles of sane people - you just have to find them.
