Ultimately, I think that a combination of creative, convention-defying works and time will be the only thing that will lift 'games' from the cultural ghetto they're still dumped in.

But I think it's wrong not to just ignore the anti-game prejudices you see in the press. I think it's fine to deliver focused responses against unresearched, and unthinking criticisms where appropriate.

How is 'gamer' any different than 'cineaste' 'cinephile'/'moviegoer', etc?

Bravo! Very nice piece.

Re: Obama and Clinton; it's a good thing gamers don't vote. (Kidding. Maybe. There was lots of gamer support behind Ron Paul, but look where that went.)

I think the near sociopathic gamer behavior---spurred not only by blogs but some message board communities---risks making the argument that being a gamer turns you into some sort of deviant. Just think of Xbox Live players in pick-up games; that's a Dateline disaster waiting to happen.

There was a discussion on a forum about how horrible Gamestop/Ebgames employees are; why wouldn't they be horrible? Look in the mirror, folks; they are you and me. They are a public manifestation of message board posters.

This isn't unique to gaming communities. Just read the user boards at IMDB to see similar toxic behavior from movie fans. Still, as the article makes clear, fans who want some credibility for their hobby, who don't want it viewed as a waste of time or some deviant activity by the masses, should consider how their own public and private activities related to gaming reflect on it as a whole.

Mark: I don't think he's saying people should ignore anti-game; it's just the responses should be mature, logical, and not some sort of mob justice. Pick the fights worth fighting, make your case and your arguments, and don't stoop to the level of your critics. (Or in the case of most gamers, go well beyond them.)

Great argument. The term "gamer" will slowly fade, maybe at the same rate that the term "video game" fades and all media start to blur into each other. I don't really think its all that outlandish for somebody to make a political decision based on a candidate's treatment of video games, because right now video games are a sort of stand in for larger issues. When a politician comes down on games, they're really pandering to a segment of the public who react to fear and want to legislate morality. It's a bellwether of other tendencies and as good an indicator as any that a candidate will make decisions that limit, rather than expand freedoms.

Well, I'm just not quite sure who this piece is aimed at. As you mentioned, just look at the IMDB boards (I might also add aint it cool news comments) to see the same sort of juvenile banter for a completely different medium. I don't think there's any way to quell the flood o immature forum posters. But I also don't think the medium is judged by immature forum posts.

I think it really just boils down to unfamiliarity with games, and the prevalence of the crap games in the market which are easy to find and dismiss. So it's just going to be a matter of time. Wait until we have a president of the United States who grew up on Civilization and Grand Theft Auto.

http://4lfa.com/wetcoma/hardgay.png

copypaste if you care, your comment system is supergay.

I am terribly impressed. I voted for Obama in my state's primary because 1: I didn't think there was any real difference between him and Hillary other than 2: in a question asked by the candidates from either the parents television council or focus on the family(I can't seem to find the article right now) Hillary Clinton declared her support for the censorship of video games and Obama did not. I find that to be a perfectly acceptable use of my vote. Gaming, for me, is not the only issue, but it is an issue for me. And frankly if medieval censorship organizations like focus on the family and parents television council can have political power, then I think that gamers should exercise their franchise more.

That first sentence should read "terribly unimpressed." My proofreading error

The problem with gamers and politics is that most of us, like the average american citizen, don't know the first thing about American politics, or even care enough about current events. This ignorance leads to people saying they won't vote for Obama due to a single soundbite. As long as that ignorance remains, we will always look like royal retards in the eyes of the government.

Ceci n'est pas UN gamer! UNE is a female article, so in the title your talking only about women gamers. In french, when you want to talk about both genders or leave it inderteminate (is this a word in english) you use the male article, in this case UN.

Hmm... Sounds like normal geek behavior to me. Does anything really need to be said?

You know, in German we have a specific word for someone who is as much into movies as a gamer is into games - thta's called a Cineast. And even after movies have gone an everyday phenomenon, there still are these Cineasts. They are similar to what you describe as a gamer, only replace everythign game-specific with something movie-specific. So, if that didn't fad, neither will gamers.

My apologies for messing up some letters up there. Last verb was supposed to be fade.

The difference, "shadaik," is pretty obvious: Whereas everyone likes movies and a tiny minority considers themselves "cineastes," everyone who plays video games is stigmatized. There just isn't a comparable divide in mainstream social consciousness, as there is between fans of "Die Hard 4" and fans of "Citizen Kane."

Of course, mainstream society is slowly but surely warming up to video games, as an ever-growing percentage of adults thinks of consoles with fond memories rather than as tools of the devil. And the Wii, certainly, deserves some thanks for helping to bridge the generation gap a little faster.

But Simon is absolutely right: As long as the mouthpieces of the video game-playing community continue to speak and act like immature and foul-mouthed brats, they will remain marginalized. And as long as people who play video games prioritize access to their fringe recreational media over more serious issues, video games -- and the people who play them -- will remain relegated to Charles Herold's abysmal biweekly column in the Times, unless they do something particularly embarrassing.

Voting because you really like games and would like them to not be taken away is only as stupid as voting because you really like your guns (in a collector/hobbyist sort of way, not self-defense) and don't want them taken away.

"Voting because you really like games and would like them to not be taken away is only as stupid as voting because you really like your guns (in a collector/hobbyist sort of way, not self-defense) and don't want them taken away."

Hah, way to make the point about how uninformed gamers are about political issues.

Or maybe you're being ironic, in which case, good job!

(Single issue voting, whether it's guns or abortion or games, is detrimental to a functioning Democracy. Well, maybe "Iraq policy" might be a legit single issue, since it has an impact on multiple parts of society/government.)

"(Single issue voting, whether it's guns or abortion or games, is detrimental to a functioning Democracy. Well, maybe "Iraq policy" might be a legit single issue, since it has an impact on multiple parts of society/government.)"

I consider freedom of speech to be a legitimate single issue, too. The difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in that regard is that Obama just seemed to be making a general criticism of society, whereas Clinton has shown that she is willing to legislate media consumption.

My main gripe with this gamer fundamentalist mentality is that it (perhaps rightly) creates the perception that we are not open to debate about media. Hardly anyone would bat an eye if I said that idiotic television shows are melting the minds of our children, but if I say that idiotic video games are melting the minds of our children in a public forum, the collective gamer community gets up in arms. Is the idea that senselessly violent video games are classically conditioning children and off-balance adults to accept violence more readily? When our founding fathers established freedom of speech as a fundamental principle of our nation, they didn't do so because speech is always necessarily harmless. If speech couldn't effect change, good or bad, protecting it wouldn't be so important.

But the gaming community seems to have this idea that evidence that some games can be harmful equates to their regulation rooted so deeply in its collective conscious that anyone who approaches the topic immediately becomes a technophobic invader looking to control something they don't understand. Anyone researcher who comes to the conclusion that games increase aggression or violent tendencies must necessarily be funded by this vast political conspiracy to scapegoat our fledgling medium.

*Is the idea that senselessly violent video games are classically conditioning children and off-balance adults to accept violence more readily really that far-fetched?

*Any researcher

So Doug, in the Mass Effect case, what should have gamers done?

Wrote letters to Fox News? Turn it off? Boycott the biggest entertainment corporation in the world?

At the very least that action will make Cooper Lawrence think before speaking in public, and isn't that better than having another nobody spout crap about gaming?

I understand what you're getting at here, and I'm inclined to agree with some of your points--mostly about the isolation of the self-identified gamer subculture, and about the predominance of juvenalia within that grimy little corner of the wider culture.

I also agree with you in principle that single-issue voting is rather foolish. However, you are far too hard on people for doing the responsible thing: stepping up to show support for their hobby in the political realm. There is legitimate historical precedent for people who enjoy, appreciate and make games to be scared that their medium of choice will be neutered by ill-informed scaremongers. Ignoring that and instead championing some kind of disaffected indifference would be stupid and lazy.

"However, you are far too hard on people for doing the responsible thing: stepping up to show support for their hobby in the political realm."

I think he'd agree they should step up; it's just how they step up frequently doesn't put gaming in a good light. Amazon.com ratings bombs, combative and horrible e-mails to writers, etc.

The response to the Jack Thompsons of the world isn't to meet them on their level; you're just making their case that gamers are social deviants. Engage them using logic, intelligence, and maybe proper spelling and grammar.

This article is such a load of crap. The author sounds worse than the media friezy he believes is public opinion. Because the media hypes something such as "the mass effect incident" does not mean anyone really cares. Saying gamers "pigeon holed" themselves with their own argument is exactly what you are doing with your half understood notion of the gaming world. Just because you played some old games and proclaim yourself to be an expert because you went to a convention or two doesn't mean you know anything except you are a "spectator". The more I read your rubbish of an article the more I picture you with horse blinders on. Is there actually anything you can comment on that involves you seeing past your nose?

Let me take your logic... I am an expert on this topic because I owned a trash 80 and played Starflight and Sentinel Worlds on PC's before they had hard drives. I learned chess on a zenith monochrome which used 9 1/2 inch floppy drives and oh yeah I want to a PGL tournament and attended E3 before it was E3 so I proudly stand on my soap box and proclaim myself an expert.

Why dont you look at it from another perspective for a moment. Gamers are concerned with how their games are being or going to be regulated by governments instead of world hunger, war, crime, starvation and all those horrible things because gaming is whats in their world not starvation. Your point is pointless because from an "advanced societly" where gaming is mainstream media and not starvation then gaming is important. I think you should go join green peace because I have been in war, had friends die next to me and been in life ending danger but I say here and now... gaming is important. Gaming is my hobby and I am very passionate about it. Not because I dont have a live or friends. I kayak, ride bicycles and motorcycles with friends weekly and host social gatherings ever 4 weeks. So yes I am an obsessive gamer because among the many things I do I dont have to worry about governments restricting how large the tires on my motorcycle can be or what color my kayak has to be or dare I say where I can ride my bicycle. Gaming CAN be influenced by the government so what am I do do except go to the "blogsphere" and state my opinion because in my advanced society I CAN STATE MY OPINION for something as meaningless as a game.

Great piece but I do disagree with your point about the spamming of the book by the so called "expert". The point of contention is this. While the moral high road and not "stooping" to the level of the detractors is certainly appealing it lacks a very fundamental necessity. Attention. Geoff was polite and well mannered in that interview and was constantly cut off and mocked. Does this make the people conducting and participating in the interview look bad; unfortunately it does not to the target audience. It's a lose lose situation of look bad or get ignored. It's easy to say "take the high ground" but in practice is it an effective tool. How do you get attention when battling detractors who are as shiftless and unscrupulous as JT, Fox, and others who use half truths and outright lies to defame a perfectly legitimate form of expression and entertainment? Especially when they have such biased engines of information dissemination on their side. In the end I believe a combination of both high ground and guerrilla tactics are going to be needed to reach an understanding.

"The difference, "shadaik," is pretty obvious: Whereas everyone likes movies and a tiny minority considers themselves "cineastes," everyone who plays video games is stigmatized. There just isn't a comparable divide in mainstream social consciousness, as there is between fans of "Die Hard 4" and fans of "Citizen Kane.""

Not anymore, but this certainly used to be different with movies when cinema was something new (that is, the first 40-50 years of its existence). I see the history of motion picture and video gaming as similar in that both are novel and become mainstream only after some decades of early experimentation have passed. Thus I argue, "gamer" will go the way of cineaste as a term - indeed, it already does, what with all that "real gamers" stuff.

There was a time (in the fifties and sixties) that comic books (like spiderman and superman) had a reuptations similar to the on video games have now. That being, a reputation of turning young enthusiasts into cold homicidal maniacs. Media censorship has been an important political issue to people on both sides of it's fence for a long time. The addition of new types of media to censor doesn't make the issue more or less valid, it jsut adds more ground for it to cover. Everyone's got different priorities. To some censorship may be a big deal, to others it might seem small compared to other more 'real' issues (like healthcare). For me personally, I think of Freedom of Speech as a small part of a whole collective of personal freedoms which I feel are very important. To undermine any one of them, in my opinion, undermines all of them. The disappearance of the term 'gamer' seems a bit trivial to me. I don't really think what the subculture is called matters as much as the way it behaves. In my opinion the most valid point this article has to make is: Intellect is the most powerful weapon that can be used to defend freedom. Any action that undermines your intellectual highground is counterproductive, even if it makes your opponent looks stupid as well.

I personally think the "Une Gamer" gaffe is the best part of the article! In any case, I agree it would be nice to see gaming grow up a bit!

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I must say that this is a symptom of not just gamers, but just about everyone. People decide upon candidates (or for that matter just about everything around them) based on things that they can relate to. This could be religion, guns, social policies, economic policies - or, like in this case, video games.

This has nothing to do with gamers, but rather the population at large. Now, to me, video games are largely indicative of how people perceive media that they cannot relate to.

If a political candidate indicates that s/he will pander to the public at the expense of free speech by censoring video games, that is indicative of a larger problem. Video games are merely the symptom.

Of course, in a few years, we'll have candidates who perhaps grew up in a generation which played video games, and a lot of the debates will probably seem ridiculous. But until then, while I'm certainly interested in the world's issues, I'm more concerned about my own.

While there may be larger problems around us, that by no means makes the smaller issues meaningless. If anything, sometimes it is easy to lose sight of the smaller things in life while focusing on the big picture. And what better way than video games? :)

To Douglas Wilson and Euclidean Crisis, I think that for someone who is writing a paper on how people of a certain cultural area need to expand their views, yours is rather limited as well. You are asking a group of rather militant kids and predominantly teenagers, to drop their Identity as a whole, and embrace a new idea of identity that is coming from, what would appear to them as one of the people who want them to stop playing video games. i'm well aware of the fact that that is not your goal. but any time an academic association starts telling a counter culture how it should run its self, its only putting gas on the flames. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_148/4869-Quibus-Lusoribus-Bono-Who-is-Game-Studies-Good-For
now i don't agree with this article either, but i'm just showing you what kind of reaction starting a paper with: "I can't stand gamers." gets you. Yeah, great sound bite, good hook. you just lost any chance of getting anyone from your so hated "gamer" community to listen to you. you could have the cure for cancer in the text below that line, and it wouldn't make them listen to you any more. from that point on, you are the enemy to these kids, who are i may remind you. belligerent teenagers. there is such a wide range of people who play video games, and so much more culture and criticism of our American culture than you give them credit for. If you have actually played half the titles whose names you've dropped then you would know that there is plenty of political satire. hell, have you even played the GTA games? i haven't seen such a harsh social satire from an American source of media that has made it into the mainstream ever. It's doing precisely what you claim this "Gamer" culture is stifling. As for your "Gamer" tag, that is not entirely self appointed. you can thank the news for helping that one stick. If you actually cared to remedy the alleged "problem" with the lack of meaning full content in games, you would complain about the rich white men in suits who sit in board rooms. They are why mainstream movies suck ass right now, why mainstream games are not full of higher minded messages, and why America as a whole has the cultural awareness of a bowl of microwaved mayonnaise. Now i realize that this is probably some menial paper that you have to do to get that Phd, and that you probably haven't read the comments on this more than once. so i imagine you wont ever read this. If you want to have a discussion with a kid who is in the middle of the culture, but not a part of it. hit me up and get some fact straight.

@Dr_Beef:

Actually, I do read the comments. Some of your criticism is quite fair. Some of it is not.

The purpose of starting the article with such a strong sentence - and then contradicting the thought in the second sentence - was not only to start a conversation, but also to chart my own conflicted reactions to the Cooper Lawrence story, and to try to focus on the concept more than the people.

You'll also note that in the last sentence of the article I identify myself with "we" - as one of the "gamers" I'm criticizing.

I will agree with you that the sentence did more harm than good. I was hoping that people would read the full article and see that the article was framed as a self-conversation feed into a larger conversation that we're all having right now.

I am not asking gamers to "drop their Identity as a whole" and I don't think that's a fair reading of the article. I do think that we "gamers" could stand to re-frame ourselves a little, as I argue in the article.

As for GTA, I personally have some issues with the game, especially as political commentary. But I would love to read a good take on GTA IV that argues that the game does indeed effectively get people to think about political issues in a meaningful and productive way. In fact, I promise to keep checking this space in case you want to leave another comment with your own arguments.

Finally, I don't think it's fair to suggest that I haven't actually played the titles I "name drop." The one thing that isn't debatable is the fact that I've been playing games obsessively since as long as I can remember, for better or worse. I wasn't trying to sound "smart" by mentioning my PhD research. I was merely trying to show that I'm so obsessed with games that I felt compelled to study them. This is why I was so surprised by Robert Travis' piece.

And, to be clear, Travis was extremely unfair in summarizing my article. I of course do not "hate" gamers and I never implied that. It's almost as if he didn't read the second sentence of the article.

Whether or not the article succeeded rhetorically is certainly debatable. It seems like I should have written the piece somewhat differently. But it isn't fair to put words in my mouth. Especially a loaded concept like "hate" which I find distasteful, to say the least.

Intriguing article, and some interesting responses. I must say: I agree, the banal and immature reactions to people like Jack Thompson don’t reflect well on “gamers” as a whole, but I don’t think attacking the mega-conglomerate will fair all that well either. I think the article emanates a message to its readers that (unintentionally) declares the “hardcore gamer” to be a social recluse with no choice but to abandon their modus operandi for a totally different perspective. This being like telling a devoutly religious person to stop believing in their chosen deity, I think you can see why it would create conflict. As far as the “Obama just lost my vote” thing goes, I simultaneously agree and disagree. While I agree that we should consider the other issues a candidate proposes, I believe that concerning ourselves with the effects of politics on our hobby is a right and a significant concern. The problem here being that most tend to look exclusively at that one sound bite, utterly ignoring all else. This makes many of us comparable to unscrupulous characters like Jack Thompson. We muck up our arguments and opinions with blind subterfuge, allowing debates to go on fruitlessly.

The title of “gamer” isn’t really something I use. Most people I know need an explanation, making it rather inconvenient to mention. I don’t think that gamer fits an entirely negative connotation, but it can produce the same social stigma that L.A.R.P.ing does, which, if presented to the “average“ person, would seem deviant and possibly consistent with negative stereotypes seen in the media. As for the comparison to cineaste, I believe the ever present internet makes a term like gamer more likely to stick around for a while.

On another note: I turned off a rather interesting history channel documentary and opted to not play the game I was planning to consume the rest of my night with to read this. It’s nice to see a discussion about videogames, of any kind, that doesn’t resort to Kotaku-level tripe about why one console is better than another or some idiotic crusade to subvert the latest mad rant of Jack Thompson with a poorly coordinated (and horrifically spellchecked) amalgam of emails. Bravo.