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."
... are jocks. It's true. Or at least it was 5 years ago. Not a single one of the guys on the football team didn't have a Playstation or N64.
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
Looks like middle age hasn't been kind to action hero Duke Nukem. In a prerelease press preview, presented by Joe Siegler, the studly hero is bald with a huge beer-gut. "We wanted to flesh out the character of Duke", Siegler said, "we want to make him more a character that his fans can directly relate to".
In the new title, Duke is in a custody dispute with his ex-wife. Apparently, since he lost his job, he's in arrears on his child-support payments. When his (alien) wife kidnaps their kids and leaves for her mothers on Vega VII, it's butt-kicking time!
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.
Visualize the world of wine
Newsflash: Not all users of pornography are losers who can't get girlfriends!
Not that I look at porn. I'm not suggesting that. Oh no.
Even some girls like porn. A girl told me. Well, a friend who knows a girl told me.
So Pale Nerdy folks _aren't_ responsible for all the NHL, NFL, Baseball, and NBA games sold each year? (Which HAS to be a racket bigger than Quicken [current year]/TurboTax [current year])
And here I thought they were just playing out their latent desire to be coordinated.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
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
/. and downloading pr0n and the odd bit of coding. All night should be spent in a dimly it room blowing up computer-generated bad guys
We all know daytime is for posting on
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
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!
could actually be a 100% real female in real life?!
groovy.
More info on this topic can be seen here.
In other news, it has been determined that not all of the editors at Slashdot post dupes.
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"
New discovery: not all stereotypes are valid!
But there's still hope! And you - yes, YOU - can make a difference!
Clearly, we've been slacking off. This article is a clarion call for all us nerdy guys who do spend all day in dimly lit rooms blowing up computer-generated bad guys, to stop reading this and get the hell back to those pimp gaming rigs we spent hours casemodding, and get back to what's important in life: fragging n00b azz!
We've got an image to uphold, dammit!
Not all netadmin's are geeks either. Some of them are MCSEs.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
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...
Oh come on...this better not come as a surprise. Has the media really warped everyone's minds enough to have us all believe the only people that play games are geeks? Since the dawn of time, games were fun. My parents used to play the Atari 2600 (Mmm...remember Yar's Revenge?) with me all the time. And they are far from being geeks. And my grandmother was addicted to Burger Time on Intellivision.
I think the perception is that when you walk by the computer cluster at school, you see the kids playing Netrek and go "games are for geeks" and then you step outside and see the "jocks" playing football. What you DON'T see is everyone grabbing a beer and blowing each other up at Halo or Twisted Metal. In fact, I can think of more metal-heads and punks playing games than geeks...
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
"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
CNN has "Surprising findings about video game players"
:)
Well, if you are a 40+ year old person who uses the computer only to play Solitaire and solve spreadsheets, yes, that could be surprising (the fact that most computer players are NOT geeks or recluses).
This should however come as a natural for everybody who maybe learned to type sooner than (s)he could handwrite...
The "game world" is just an extension of the real world, with several advantages (interaction possibilities, a huge potential community, somebody "available" to talk to at any given time) and disadvantages (Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna' get (F.Gump) - never know who will be or how will be the next person you encounter and interact with).
I hope I don't need to remind anybody that information can be both a curse or a blessing, and that's what you get when you're "on-line-gaming" - sometimes too much information... It's up to you to deal with it.
In conclusion: everybody's playing, has played or will be playing...something... sooner or later. There are no limits to the categories that will play computer games.
So, stop acting surprised
On-line games are all about interaction and socual aspects, how do you expect to find somebody else playing it?
I mean, you wouldn't expect to find nuns playing American football, but you would definetely expect mathematicians playing chess...
By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
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)
BTW, I'm both a gamer and a geek and proud of being both.
Dude, seriously, there is a limit to everything.
I like playing games, probably spend an hour a day in average (I sometimes play an entire weekend, bringing up the average quite a bit). However, I am not the least proud of it, nor does it bother me. I do it because I think its fun, and I don't let it become my identity, which it appears is what you have done.
My opinions anyways...
There are a few meanings of the word "anti-social", everything from mass murdering rapists and software pirates, to people who prefer their own company. I will accept that the mass murdering rapist type definition of anti-social as being bad, but this does not appear to be the topic of the article. For the purpose of this post, consider anti-social to mean someone who prefers their own company.
What I do not understand is why people who prefer their own company are considered somehow "broken". I do not know of any facet of human physiology which REQUIRES other human contact beyond a base desire to procreate. Why is there such a bad connotation to being anti-social?
Society itself does not need a hive mind. In fact, I would argue just as strongly that it is dangerous, irresponsible and something we all should actively try to prevent in our children. The world needs independent thinkers, people who think outside the box and come up with original solutions. People who don't let the hive mind dictate their response. Somehow I see from high school that civics classes about the glory of democracy has led people to a very wrong conclusion: that the majority is always right. That's such a horribly incorrect thought that is so pervasive (esp in MTV pop-culture) that it makes me want to lock myself in a room and slay myself with a BFG-10k.
I am hard pressed to come up with any thing the hive MIND has produced that has either been correct or somehow useful. The hive mind has historically resulted in: slavery, bigotry, religion (in the "belief in unfounded/unproven philosophy in the face of contrary evidence" sense), senseless wars, mass murder, and most horribly reality television. Let's face it, "society" is valuable only as a workforce commodity. When it comes to thinking, we're better off with Forrest Gump than any 10 people.
Why is it that those who choose to not "join in" are persecuted? I contribute to the whole, and I make it possible for us all to walk forward. I do so just as much as the next guy. I am not taking anything away by not talking to you. Even if I firmly believe that you are all incredibly stupid and not worth my time, I'm not really hurting you am I? As long as I do my job & earn my keep, I have fulfilled my obligation to others. Leave us alone.
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
The geek/gamer revolution is really incredible, and an insane (probably not isolated) case of what happens when teen gamers grow up can be found in the evolution of the (recently troubled! hosting issues) tribalwar.com forum community.
This largely teen/early twenties group of gamers started off like any other gaming community, but they just blasted off from there. The LAN's these guys have organized have had 200-300 attendees, and they ALL KNOW EACH OTHER! Some of these kids are growing up, getting good jobs, and they're all helping each other out, staying in touch. They go out for a night of clubbing in New York -- and they bring their digital cameras to document it, and they post their pictures on the forums for others to live vicarously through them. "Pics or it didn't happen" has become a mantra there.
They help each other find apartments, sometimes even jobs, they room together, and they have LAN's whenever the urge arises.
An interesting example: one member of the TW community grew up and joined the Navy. With all of the money he's been saving, he was able to buy a beachfront house and property in the Florida Keys, all while being a 'internet geek'. He grew up, got responsible, and has more girls than he can handle (pics or it didn't happen) -- and he's a gamer geek. He's on the forums, he's playing the games. And he opened his house to ANYONE in the game community that could make it down to Florida, for a massive "Beach Party Extravaganza".
From the 35-year-old dude who wielded a claymore as UVALAN's "Security guard" (CF I think), to the people that proudly post pictures of their brand new BMW's, houses, chic 4-star restaurants, and children -- this is a community with a great proportion of thriving, economically stable, responsible people, who also happen to be part of a massive gaming subculture.
At what point do these people stop being "geeks"? At what point does the gaming "subculture" stop being "sub"?
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?
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."
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.'"
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.