Yesterday I was talking with a friend who asked me what type of gamer I was. Because, according to her, there are three types of gamer. There's those who play retro games, there's those who mod the hell out of the games they play and there's those who buy up everything new (bling bling).
I wasn't aware that such classification existed but I don't really seem the need to. Really there is only one qualification to be a gamer and that is: you play computer and console games. Doesn't matter if the games in question are on tablet or from twenty years ago - you play games and that's it.
What is the need for such classification? Is it to introduce snobbery and a hierarchy within gamers? Such a thought pattern is bizarre considering that gaming has in recent years become more inclusive - it has become something anyone can do and not just the computer geeks. This is indeed a far cry from the original 'gamer' that spawned from the 1980s. Thus having 'gamer types' seems a far more regressive step.
And really the gamer types descried above don't make a lot of sense: I play a lot of retro games yes but at the same time, I'm very interested in modded games. So with a foot in two camps what does that make me? A freak?
Furthermore what defines a retro gamer anyway? Is someone who plays PS2 and (original) Xbox games a retro gamer? Does this also mean that someone playing the games from now in 2034 would be a retro gamer?
Really there is no point to these gamer types. As stated above, a gamer is really defiend by someone who plays games. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Thus, the guy who spends thousands of dollars on a top-of-the-line gaming PC is no more a gamer than the guy who plays games on his iPhone. Similarly, the woman who
plays games because her boyfriend does is no less a gamer than the guy
who invests many hours in hunting down that one XBLA achievement.
No comments:
Post a Comment