Slashdot Mirror
Gamers Aren't (Always) Geeks
wo1verin3 writes "CNN is reporting that not all gamers are the anti-social folk they are hyped to be by parents and the media. Roughly two-thirds of college students play video games, but the image of a nerdy guy who spends all day in a dimly lit room blowing up computer-generated bad guys is off base, according to a new study. Full story here."
It pains me that this is news 2X over on slashdot in 2 days. Although it points out that while not all gamers are geeks, many of them ARE or this wouldnt be news. BTW, I'm both a gamer and a geek and proud of being both.
Articles such as these, just make me mad. Why do people have to conform in society in order to be accepted? Why can't we leverage from richness in variety within our organizational fabric in order to attain greater heights intellectually?
Different points of view are important for progress in technology and science. It's absolutely vital that we continue to nourish the development of the nerdy kid in the dimly lit basement playing Star Wars galaxies. It's more valuable to have him focus on this activity than to obtain social skills that will just hamper him in the pursuit of his research once he completes his post-graduate degree.
I say, bring back the pale geek! Cherish him! Protect him! Buy him the latest Everquest expansion pack! But do not send him out in the wild where he, God forbid, has to interact with other people. They're are a precious resource and should be treated as such.
Wearing pants should always be optional.
Yes people: Even beautiful girls play Wolfenstein!
What exactly is the point of this story? Not all alcoholics beat their wives, but that doesn't mean we should give people cart blanch to get drunk.
It's obvious and scientifically verified that those who play video games are far more likely than their non-gaming piers to avoid social interaction, do poorly in school, resort to violent behavior, and lead unhealthy lifestyles (leading to problems like obesity and depression later in life).
This study shows that there exists a glimmer of hope for chronic gamers, which is good. However, spinning it as if it makes gaming healthy is irresponsible, and indicates a bias on Slashdot's part.
Boromir, son of Faramir, King of Gondor and Minas Tirith
I think it still depends on how you do your gaming. Non-geeks are way more likely to be into console games than PC.
Also, the genres of games being made show that it's not just for geeks anymore. A lot more sports games, GTA3, etc.
I think the tendency for FPS and RolePlaying games to be online first, still shows the PC is home of the geek gamers (leading tech edge).
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
I consider that bullshit.
It's either they were talking to the wrong people or the wrong people were responding to the survey.
I was a "gamer" since the C64 days. I was not allowed to have a console machine when I was younger (parents told me I had a computer and it played games, that was that... fair enough). I got hooked on Quake1CTF in my freshman year of college... I still went out w/my friends drinking, I was an active D1 athlete, and I was dating. I had several friends that I played CTF with that were exactly the same.
I figure that they interviewed Internet junkies or the "typical gamer" which is not interesting to the opposite sex.
I want better information on the type of individuals interviewed before we start jumping to conclusions.
they still only socialize with other gamers
Excuse me, but what is your point? Golfers hang out with other golfers, quilters hang out with other quilters, runners hang out with other runners...
Anyone with a hobby, likely socializes with others who have the same hobby.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
wo1verin3 writes "CNN is reporting that not all Slashdot readers are the anti-social folk they are hyped to be by parents and the media. Roughly two-thirds of college students play video games, but the image of a nerdy guy who spends all day in a dimly lit room blowing up computer-generated bad guys is off base, according to a new study. Full story here."
Every lan party I have ever been to has been anti-social folk. That is why we are at a lan party, and not out drinking, and sleeping with the opposite sex.
Nerdy guys, and Nerdy girls shooting each other, and vying for mines.
Since we've grown up, we are more attractive, hold better jobs, drive nicer cars, etc.
But we are still all a mangled verison of that.
http://use.perl.org
"Actually a lot of people I know are occasional gamers. They arent obsessed with them and associate with "normal" people... The problem is when you become addicted and sit in front of your computer all day."
Every Lan party I've ever been to, an hour into the gaming, even the normal gamers are addicted.
It is just fun to play a competitive game with friends. Especially when you don't have to run or jump to do so. It's pretend!
Girls also have a realistic chance to be competitive. Stupid starfall.
http://use.perl.org
..that doesn't exist, and produces product nobody consumes.
hahahaha!
..don't panic
Er... that may be so, but how many of those jocks had their N64s and PlayStations almost solely for playing racing, sports, and the occasional shooting game? I don't know what the article's talking about, but when i think of "gamer", i think of somebody who plays A LOT of games, and very involving, generally time-consuming games. Like RPG- and CounterStrike-players. Those are the people that "parents" and "the media" are talking about, i think. Not the 3-or-4-hours-a-week kind of gamer. :/
Those people are not what I call a "gamer" - they just happen to enjoy spending some time playing computer games, but computer games are not the dominant activity in their lives.
The problem is when you become addicted and sit in front of your computer all day.
I'm not sure if that alone is the problem - to me it's more the people who do this to the exclusion of going out and seeing people (non-gamers!) face-to-face in the real world (and I don't mean at LAN parties). I suppose it's like anything that has the potential to be addictive.
The real difference (and danger I guess) is that it is entirely possible to create another world and not have to interact with anyone through gaming, effectively withdrawing themselves from society - most other activities don't have this "potential".
"Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
Yeah, CS _was_ a rather addictive fad. I wish I could regret the fact that I dedicated at least an hour per day (for several months) playing it.
However, something good did come from it. Once you decide to stop playing CS, you honestly don't miss the crappy game, and it makes it so much easier to swear off video game addictions completely, and simply feel content with gaming only in moderation.
I just feel sorry for those of ya'll still addicted to Everquest. Unlike Half-Life (cs), that game really is junk.
I'm not sure if that alone is the problem - to me it's more the people who do this to the exclusion of going out and seeing people (non-gamers!) face-to-face in the real world (and I don't mean at LAN parties).
What is wrong with meeting people at lan parties?!
Or BBS gatherings. Or Chess clubs. or any other perceived geek gathering place?
There is nothing wrong with it. You just dismiss it because it isn't the way that you would meet people.
Science Fiction conventions, and model airplanes, tis the life for I!
http://use.perl.org
No kidding - a few months ago, the Economist had an article (premium content, can't find it right now) about how the videogame industry had surpassed Hollywood in terms of annual sales. Somebody other than the pencil-necked geeks (RIP, Fred Blassie) has to be buying, then!
Bottom line, this is just another slow media day filler - why else would an article like this get posted? I'm sure the next story will be something insightful like, "economic status found to correlate with computer use/internet access."
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Almost everyone at my college plays counterstrike. I suppose that as soon as it reaches a certain penetration, it becomes a social norm.
Which is why it (mildly) bugged me that the headlines for this study's results said something like "Surprising Facts About Gamers." Why should this be surprising? It's only those who never lost their narrow view of what these games are about and who plays them who are surprised - anyone who plays the games, reads about them, or looks at the people in EB could tell you that there's no one subculture surrounding them. Yes, perhaps the hardcore gamer still mostly fits the picture, but why should the extreme examples define the majority? With games moving into the mainstream in a huge way, it's damaging to the industry's and the individual gamer's image to allow these ignorant stereotypes to be perpetuated.
Just my $.02 + karma bonus. Now I'll be thinking about Jedi Knight II all day until I can get home and play it...
Was that out loud?
Is this some kind of perverse Onion article gone legit? Maybe CNN could do a "Not All Old People are Angry Can-Wielding Geezers" article and see how well that goes over with the mass audience. Grr.
Monster Zero is the reason we cannot live on the surface, but must live forever live underground like this.
What's wrong with this? I know, so-called (and self-dubbed) "normal" people who sit around and watch/play sports all day. I know others who go to parties all night long and even if they don't end up stoned or drunk are pretty much useless during the day. What's wrong with planting yourself in front of a game?
It's wrong when it starts to interfere with your ability to function in society, be it as a student or a member of the workforce. Other than that, who the hell cares.
If I enjoy playing golf, am I not a golfer even if I don't play every weekend? Likewise, am I not a paintballer if I don't play every weekend.
If I am not mistaken this is what adjectives were made for. "Avid Gamer" "Obsessed Gamer" IMHO, the fringe should not define the majority. The CNN story simple states that not all people who play games are anti-social geeks who do not interact with the greater society outside of LAN parties and online chat.
My clan has an architect who surfs, a storm chaser, a cop who is an angler, a psychiatrist, mothers, fathers, and even a grandfather in addition to the programmers and sysadmins. You don't have to be a full time hermit to be a gamer.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
Well, when people don't understand something and/or it deviates from what they've been taught as the Proper Way (TM), they'll either:
A) be against it and claim it's dangerous ("it's turning kids into mass murderer snipers!")
B) find some way to make it sound like an insult (e.g., "it's only for geek who have no life")
C) both the above.
It's not even just about games. Just about anything reasonably new and even slightly different has went through the same things.
Mozart's music was called decadent at the time. Just like rock, metal, punk, rap, and just about every other music genre were called in this century.
Einstein's theory of relativity was called "bolshevik". (Just to show that scientists are _not_ always smarter than to act that way.)
Basically the whole gaming hype is nothing new. It's just the current step in this neverending chain of new stuff, and of angry self-righteous respectable parents and citizens being against it. But it's not the last. There'll be another such hype after it.
Basically people don't like changes. They don't like learning to understand and deal with new stuff.
It's been like this always. I bet that at the dawn of time, some cavemen were discussing about how this new "fire" thing is just for geeks and turning kids into bad members of the tribe. And then it probably was about how wearing sabertooth tiger skins instead of the traditional wolf skins is decadent, immoral, and turning kids into dangerous maniacs. And then it was about how this "wheel" thing is for nerds without a life, and turning kids into dangerous criminals. And so on, and so forth.
So what else is new?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
This is something that has bothered me...well, barely bothered me, but bothered nonetheless. Why is it that almost every female video game character is, in some way, a sex object? I'd be perfectly content with playing a game that had, as a main character, a female that didn't have a rack bigger than her head. Tomb Raider immediately comes to mind.
OK, maybe a sorceress in Diablo qualifies, but you hardly get a good view of the character... Blizzard can afford to make the character unattractive because she's too small to matter. Seriously, when was the last time you played a game that had a male main character that, in another situation (ie: not shooting at bad guys), would be a sex object?
IWARS.
People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
...two anime ("Serial Experiment Lain" and "Legend of Black Heaven") that have scenes were a mother is sitting down and playing a Playstation with her young son. We need more parents actually playing video games with their children, sharing in the experience with them, and offering their point of view. This needs to be done the very first day that a game console is brought into the home. It needs to be done at least once a week or so. You must engage yourself in your child's life in order to know them.
I have seen far too many people using a game console as a surrogate babysitter and never, ever playing with their children. These people are irresponsible parents. There are far too many.
Everyone who uses stereotypes are racist, bigoted, neo-Nazis!
(If you don't get the irony, go back to school.)
I think you have hit the nail on the head - and I agree with you in so many ways. I keep wondering why everyone makes this association between games causing people to be anti-social, when that isn't it at all - in fact, I think it's exactly the opposite. Games are an outlet and are chosen by people who are inherently anti-social. Games are also played by social people as well, just as reading, watching tv and many other activities are enjoyed by social and anti-social people alike.
I am fairly anti-social, so I choose to game, read, watch tv/movies, etc to pass time - these things did not make me anti-social. I do socialize, but it often seems a chore, so I generally do not enjoy it - and I don't imagine the people I talk to do either - except those few who I have a connection with where conversation doesn't seem like a chore at all.
There is nothing wrong with being anti-social.
I have a number of friends who I occasionally see in the really real world who I talk to online all the time, and who I got to know online before I ever met them. Their behavior online is well-representative of how they act in meatspace, as is mine.
I met my girlfriend, who is not a computer geek (though she is fairly competent in the use of computers and the internet) through an instant messenger. I love her, and we are very happy together. If that's pathetic, then you can stick your whole social scene up your mainstream ass, America. What am I supposed to be doing, going to church meetin's? Picking up chicks in the produce section, making eyes at her over the broccoli? (I know that's hard to do because the broccoli is usually off against the wall, but please, grant me a measure of suspension of disbelief.)
One nice thing about the internet is that it's inexpensive. I get enjoyment out of my high-speed internet access every day. I am exposed to people and media that I would otherwise never have had a chance to experience, and it only costs me $720 a year. That's not enough even to take a serious vacation. It doesn't stop me from doing things outside, either, we go camping more or less year round and go on walks and drives and so on, but even if we didn't, what's wrong with that? Some people are simply more comfortable behind their computer, and there's nothing wrong with those people. Well, not all of them, anyway.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
but the image of a nerdy guy who spends all day in a dimly lit room blowing up computer-generated bad guys is off base
I heard the Oval Office is very well lit, and the computer-generated "bad guys" are now so realistic its hard to tell the difference between them and real people.
*rimshot*
Why are you knocking Ray Charles? The man plays piano without his eyes. You probably can't play piano with your overrated hand-eye coordination. I'm certain that if there was a way to convert different areas of a game screen into audio, he'd kick your ass at hockey.
Since you are severely analogy-challenged, perhaps you should stick to simpler language like, "all of them have poor hand-eye coordination."
But this is /.--a place where some geeks act out on their desire to be cool.
Laws are for people with no friends.