hehehe, guess what the biggest demographic in gaming is?

Links234

It's as absurd a distinction as saying someone who reads a book casually on a bus or somewhere isn't a real book reader because here's someone who's got a dedicated study and nice fancy leather lounge chair, spends money on hardbacks and first editions. That filthy paperback casual isn't a real book reader, I bet they're even reading something banal like Twilight.

orubiru

Links234 wrote: »

It's as absurd a distinction as saying someone who reads a book casually on a bus or somewhere isn't a real book reader because here's someone who's got a dedicated study and nice fancy leather lounge chair, spends money on hardbacks and first editions. That filthy paperback casual isn't a real book reader, I bet they're even reading something banal like Twilight.

Of course I would imagine you would see the same kind of thing when it comes to cars or music etc.

I'd imagine that an Arsenal fan who spends 1,000s of pounds a year going to every single match imagines themselves as "a real fan" over the guy who just watches on TV.

Why shouldn't it be that way though?

Someone who invests a lot of money in their hobby is obviously going to be held in higher regard in any community that surrounds that hobby than someone who is just "casual".

I am damn sure that certain posters on here are seen as more respectable due to considerably higher post counts. Wouldn't you agree?

I would never say "I'm not a real book reader" but if I went round to a friends house and he had a study stacked full of books, loads of rare editions, the big leather chair and I know myself that I have maybe 10 books on my kindle and a few graphic novels then yeah I am not going to try to compare myself to that guy in terms of being a "reader" or even "someone who likes books". To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't feel anything about it if he said "Pffft, Kindle?! You're not a real book reader!".

Just as I would agree that posters with higher post counts do contribute much more to the "Boards community" than those who post less often. I have no problem with that. Why would I?

So, I don't really understand why people are up in arms when it's suggested that mobile gaming might not be as highly regarded as console gaming, and console gaming might not be as highly regarded as PC gaming. It makes perfect sense.

kunst nugget

orubiru wrote: »

I'd imagine that an Arsenal fan who spends 1,000s of pounds a year going to every single match imagines themselves as "a real fan" over the guy who just watches on TV.

Why shouldn't it be that way though?

So, the only factor that counts in being a real fan is the ability to spend lots of money on your hobby and then being able to browbeat others because they don't spend as much as you or who are not as knowledgeable about your team? To be fair, I wouldn't hold a person like that in high regard, I'd be more inclined to call him a dick.

Honestly, people who call themselves 'real fans' are usually saying it to put others down.

K.O.Kiki

Links234 wrote: »

And you know, there were plenty of games we played as kids like Tetris or Puzzle Bobble that if they came out today some people would be all like "urgh, they're not REEEEEL games!" So I think a lot of this fracturing over what makes a game a game is just silly, there wouldn't have been that sort of distinction before.

The difference is that Tetris & Puzzle Bobble ARE "real games" and only a numpty would argue otherwise! :pac:

orubiru

kunst nugget wrote: »

So, the only factor that counts in being a real fan is the ability to spend lots of money on your hobby and then being able to browbeat others because they don't spend as much as you or who are not as knowledgeable about your team? To be fair, I wouldn't hold a person like that in high regard, I'd be more inclined to call him a dick.

Honestly, people who call themselves 'real fans' are usually saying it to put others down.

Not the only factor, no. It is a factor though, whether we like it or not.

I bet, for example, if you had spent 10k+ studying a subject at University you wouldn't be so willing to let a 15 year old with a basic understanding to debate you in that subject by saying "yeah, I've invested all the time and money and effort in to this but your thoughts are just as valid"?

At the end of the day, people who put more money, time and effort in to something will generally be more highly regarded. Otherwise nobody would ever bother to invest time or money in anything.

The difference here is that if I went round to my friends house and saw his 3k gaming PC I'd be pretty impressed by it and would almost certainly consider it a superior machine to my Wii U. Sure, I love Nintendo games but I also acknowledge my friends investment in his hobby.

As I see it, there are some people who will see a guy driving a new Lamborghini and think "wow, awesome" and there are some people who will say "I bet he has a tiny small penis, you can get from A to B just as easily in a Ford Escort".

If people who invest more time, money and effort in a hobby have more "respectability" then that's OK with me.

I'm not gonna say that someone who plays games on mobile phones is not a "real gamer" but I'm not gonna put them on the same level as someone who spends 1000s of Euros on their hobby.

The idea that people who are really into their games are "basement dwelling misogynist nerds" or "the ethics crowd" (as mentioned in the OP) and that they should be dreading an imminent change in gaming is little more than the equivalent "oh, he's only got that really expensive sports car because he has a small dick". It's tedious.

orubiru

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

The difference is that Tetris & Puzzle Bobble ARE "real games" and only a numpty would argue otherwise! :pac:

Also, when games like Tetris were released the technology that was used to create and play these games was of a similar level across the board.

In general, games from the 1980s through to the early 00s were played on dedicated gaming systems that had been purchased for the purpose of playing games.

The closest we would have gotten to this "not real games" argument was between Super Nintendo and Sega Megadrive.

The difference between games on a PS4 and games on a mobile phone is huge. Would a mobile phone these days even be able to run games that would have been considered cutting edge on Nintendo 64 around 17 years ago?

The article linked in the OP seems to be a pretty lazy baiting of "Reddit and 4Chan Gamer Nerds" or making the point that the stereotype of gamers as young men is way out of touch with reality. The very obvious follow up question is "what happens when you take away mobile gaming stats".

Presumably, very few people buy a mobile phone for the sole purpose of playing games. However, I doubt that many people have bought a PS4 without intending to use it almost exclusively to play games?

So I think "what happens when you take away mobile gaming stats" is a perfectly valid question. I feel like people objecting to that question being asked are doing so because they know that if we look at demographics of people buying gaming consoles or PCs with the intention of using them to play the most cutting edge games (in technological terms) then the story may be very different.

It's kind of dishonest, I think, to push a particular narrative, that is rather simplistic, when a look at the statistics would reveal a more complex situation.

Creamy Goodness

orubiru wrote: »

The difference between games on a PS4 and games on a mobile phone is huge. Would a mobile phone these days even be able to run games that would have been considered cutting edge on Nintendo 64 around 17 years ago?

Yes, look at Infinity Blade (it's a bad game, but looks exceptional certainly don't remember the n64 looking that good), cutting edge argument is kind of invalid as how do you define a cutting edge game. only by grapics which to me is the tiniest amount of why I play games.

Presumably, very few people buy a mobile phone for the sole purpose of playing games. However, I doubt that many people have bought a PS4 without intending to use it almost exclusively to play games?

emphasis mine, Presumably people have bought a PS 4/XBox One for media server/tv capabilities.

kunst nugget

orubiru wrote: »

I bet, for example, if you had spent 10k+ studying a subject at University you wouldn't be so willing to let a 15 year old with a basic understanding to debate you in that subject by saying "yeah, I've invested all the time and money and effort in to this but your thoughts are just as valid"?

That's not a valid comparison at all. Spending a lot of money on an education is not the same as spending a load of money on a gaming PC or on a season ticket for Arsenal.

orubiru wrote: »

At the end of the day, people who put more money, time and effort in to something will generally be more highly regarded. Otherwise nobody would ever bother to invest time or money in anything.

The difference here is that if I went round to my friends house and saw his 3k gaming PC I'd be pretty impressed by it and would almost certainly consider it a superior machine to my Wii U. Sure, I love Nintendo games but I also acknowledge my friends investment in his hobby.

Some people might invest a lot of money, not for the bragging rights or to be held in high regard, but for the pure love of whatever their hobby is. I'll respect someone for putting money, time and effort into something but only if they don't use it to put others down.

orubiru wrote: »

As I see it, there are some people who will see a guy driving a new Lamborghini and think "wow, awesome" and there are some people who will say "I bet he has a tiny small penis, you can get from A to B just as easily in a Ford Escort".

If people who invest more time, money and effort in a hobby have more "respectability" then that's OK with me.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the Lamborghini analogy. Should we respect someone purely because they paid a lot of money for a car? I don't have any interest in cars myself so why should I respect somebody doing something I've not got any interest in? I wouldn't be going down the 'he's obviously got a small penis' route but it would baffle how someone could pay the price of a small house in the country for a car. But like I said, I've no interest in cars.

orubiru wrote: »

I'm not gonna say that someone who plays games on mobile phones is not a "real gamer" but I'm not gonna put them on the same level as someone who spends 1000s of Euros on their hobby.

Honestly, I wouldn't tend to look at my hobby of playing games in my spare time in terms of levels. I play them in a way that suits me and I can afford. I can't say I feel beneath someone who has invested 3k in a gaming pc. Fair play to them but I have neither the money nor the inclination to do that.

Generic Dreadhead

In before someone says having more than one current gen gaming console/PC at a time is a requirement of being a "gamer"

orubiru

Cormac... wrote: »

In before someone says having more than one current gen gaming console/PC at a time is a requirement of being a "gamer"

Ah, you didn't get the memo?

Apparently, Gamers are dead.

K.O.Kiki

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

Yes, look at Infinity Blade (it's a bad game, but looks exceptional certainly don't remember the n64 looking that good), cutting edge argument is kind of invalid as how do you define a cutting edge game. only by grapics which to me is the tiniest amount of why I play games.

Aso someone who has played Infinity Blade, let me be the first to remind everyone that it is a pretty dumb game that's barely above Fruit Ninja in terms of gameplay.

kunst nugget

orubiru wrote: »

Ah, you didn't get the memo?

Apparently, Gamers are dead.

They actually just levelled up and are now beings of pure light.

Retr0gamer

orubiru wrote: »

The difference between games on a PS4 and games on a mobile phone is huge. Would a mobile phone these days even be able to run games that would have been considered cutting edge on Nintendo 64 around 17 years ago?

I'm making it my mission to remind people how ugly N64 games look every time I hear a silly comment like 'it looks like N64 graphics'.

Kirby

Those type of screeshots arent really representative of how the game looked. We gamed on CRT monitors back then and the jaggies you see in that screen shots had natural anti-aliasing due to the tv technology used.

If you have an old CRT tv try hooking your old consoles up to it and then hooking them up to your LCD/LED/Plasma. The difference is frightening. Some newer sets have methods of dealing with 240p and 480p.....but most deal with it terribly and it looks much worse than it did 20 years ago.

It's worth keeping that in mind when you look at old games and think "Oh my god, I cant believe how bad it looks! How did I ever think this was pretty?" It actually looked better on the old tv's.

Shadows of the empire looked pretty great for a launch window 64 game.

Agricola

orubiru wrote: »

As I see it, there are some people who will see a guy driving a new Lamborghini and think "wow, awesome" and there are some people who will say "I bet he has a tiny small penis, you can get from A to B just as easily in a Ford Escort".

This is exactly why so many get their knickers in a twist if you make a distinction between pc/console users, and mobile. They always see it as a negative judgement on the person who spends less. Someone with a €2000 PC or someone with every console and most new releases, thinks they are better than a person who just picks up the odd game on their phone. The BASTIDS!

It's not about who spends more money in order to boast about their disposable income. It's simply that the people with the dedicated gaming platforms are obviously more committed and invested in the hobby. Many of them would frequent this and other similar forums.... could that be said of many people who just play the latest angry birds like fad on mobile. Probably not. Thats the only distinction.

Retr0gamer

Kirby wrote: »

Those type of screeshots arent really representative of how the game looked. We gamed on CRT monitors back then and the jaggies you see in that screen shots had natural anti-aliasing due to the tv technology used.

If you have an old CRT tv try hooking your old consoles up to it and then hooking them up to your LCD/LED/Plasma. The difference is frightening. Some newer sets have methods of dealing with 240p and 480p.....but most deal with it terribly and it looks much worse than it did 20 years ago.

It's worth keeping that in mind when you look at old games and think "Oh my god, I cant believe how bad it looks! How did I ever think this was pretty?" It actually looked better on the old tv's.

Shadows of the empire looked pretty great for a launch window 64 game.

I can only find emulated pictures of the N64. It's even worse on original hardware. The N64 had horrendous anti aliasing that blurred the entire image like early PS3 games only worse.

johnny_ultimate

Given phones even a generation or two old at this point can run impressive ports of everything from Resi 4 and GTA: San Andreas to The World Ends With You and the new Xcom, technology sure as hell ain't a problem. Touch screen controls on the other hand :pac:

That said, many games have transferred over extremely well, especially for iPad. And much more interesting is how it has provoked other developers to experiment with form and innovative input schemes. And yeah, I'd confidently state many of the great and even not so great mobile games boast art styles and graphical
Oomph beyond all but the most exceptional N64-era titles. Games like Monument Valley or Device 6 will still look as striking many years hence.

kunst nugget

Agricola wrote: »

Someone with a €2000 PC or someone with every console and most new releases, thinks they are better than a person who just picks up the odd game on their phone. The BASTIDS!

Why should they think they are better?

Potatoeman

People can call themselves whatever they want but it's not going to change the marketing of games. I don't fall into the target market as I buy most of my games on sale.

Chris_Heilong

kunst nugget wrote: »

Why should they think they are better?

Its a status thing and a form of snobbery. You will find it in many facets of society .

As far as mobile gaming vs "real" gaming IMO its more about how much of an experience you are willing to allow your self to have with a game. A lot of people are afraid of the perceive time sink that many console/PC games seem to offer and are more comfortable just playing something they can pick up and put down 5 minutes later.

Agricola

kunst nugget wrote: »

Why should they think they are better?

I'm beginning to think Im speaking swahili!

They obviously shouldnt think they are better and many don't. I have a decent gaming PC and Ive owned consoles since the mid 90's. Do i think Im better than someone who games on phone? No, Im in my early 30's and have a shred of cop on. It would be fairly sad if I thought that.

My point is that's what seems to be popping into people's heads when someone just points out that there is a distinction to be made between the type of gamer who, says, religiously uses this forum, and a person who plays the odd 5 minutes on their phone on the bus but is otherwise completely divorced from gaming

kunst nugget

Agricola wrote: »

I'm beginning to think Im speaking swahili!

They obviously shouldnt think they are better and many don't. I have a decent gaming PC and Ive owned consoles since the mid 90's. Do i think Im better than someone who games on phone? No, Im in my early 30's and have a shred of cop on. It would be fairly sad if I thought that.

I picked you up wrong in terms of how you phrase it. Apologies.

Agricola wrote: »

My point is that's what seems to be popping into people's heads when someone just points out that there is a distinction to be made between the type of gamer who, says, religiously uses this forum, and a person who plays the odd 5 minutes on their phone on the bus but is otherwise completely divorced from gaming

But it isn't really an either or situation. Just because you use a mobile phone to play doesn't necessarily translate to only playing the odd 5 minutes every so often. My brother uses his iPhone to play the Walking Dead Series, Grand Theft Auto Liberty City and Dead Space amongst others. What about people that spend many, many hours on Tapped Out or Clash of Clans? The Mobile Games forum here would attest to their popularity. There does seem to be a perception amongst a lot of people on here about mobile gaming and there does seem to be a certain snobbishness showing through. I'm not sure why there seems to be such a need to be protective of what the term 'gaming' actually means and why people need to put caveats on it.

BMMachine

to me, statistics like this are becoming irrelevant very quickly. Might as well ask "whats the statistic on people that watch movies" or something. The term "gamer" should be dropped completely imo. Labelling people or yourself isn't healthy and only promotes stupid behaviour

Eoinmc97

I don't think a 'Gamer' is someone who buys the most games, or builds over the top PC's with Quad Titan Z's.
I believe to truly be part of any hobby, one has to look for something new, or get excited for upcoming titles, offer constructive conversation into a discussion about gaming in general.
They also should be interacting with other players, as that's what makes gaming a great oppertunity.

Console players do generally do all of these, after all, the console wars are often rifest among friends, and many famous PC games are also on consoles.
Mobile gamers...? I don't think people really talk about how far they got in Candy Crush. Of course, a player of the 3DS could easily chat with a PS3 player, or a PC player etc.
The groups are not exclusive if you don't own the playform. Rather, you are excluded based on what you know (or don't usually)

orubiru

Agricola wrote: »

I'm beginning to think Im speaking swahili!

They obviously shouldnt think they are better and many don't. I have a decent gaming PC and Ive owned consoles since the mid 90's. Do i think Im better than someone who games on phone? No, Im in my early 30's and have a shred of cop on. It would be fairly sad if I thought that.

My point is that's what seems to be popping into people's heads when someone just points out that there is a distinction to be made between the type of gamer who, says, religiously uses this forum, and a person who plays the odd 5 minutes on their phone on the bus but is otherwise completely divorced from gaming

Yes, this is what I am trying to get at.

I am saying that there is clearly a distinction between different types of gaming on different formats. To the point where the term "gamer" or "gaming" is basically worthless.

However, the tone of the OP and the article that the OP has linked appears to be "Nerds are angry because women are playing games now, hehehe!"

It seems only a small step away from saying that folks spending more money or time on their hobby are basement dwelling Dortio munchers who still live with their parents. We should believe that these basement dwellers are pissed off because the main gaming demographic is women.

Indeed, when someone asks the question "what happens if you exclude mobile gaming from those stats" people quickly get on the "are you saying you are more of a gamer than me because you own an expensive console and play COD all day long" defensive.

The nothing wrong with acknowledging that mobile, console and PC gaming are completely different experiences with completely different demographics.

In reality, avid console or PC gamers are completely unconcerned with the fact that women are playing games.

orubiru

Agricola wrote: »

This is exactly why so many get their knickers in a twist if you make a distinction between pc/console users, and mobile. They always see it as a negative judgement on the person who spends less. Someone with a €2000 PC or someone with every console and most new releases, thinks they are better than a person who just picks up the odd game on their phone. The BASTIDS!

Yet, if you told the same people that you downloaded a CAM version of Mad Max Fury Road, watched it on your phone and thought it was a pretty boring movie? Well, they'd be right on your case that you should have watched it in the cinema on the biggest screen possible to get the full effect and how can you honestly have an opinion on the movie anyway since you watched a poor quality download on your tiny phone screen.

At the end of the day, this whole thing pretty much just seems like an excuse to bash the stereotype "nerd sitting in his basement spreading hate online thinking he's better than me with his 5000 dollar PC".

kunst nugget

orubiru wrote: »

Yet, if you told the same people that you downloaded a CAM version of Mad Max Fury Road, watched it on your phone and thought it was a pretty boring movie? Well, they'd be right on your case that you should have watched it in the cinema on the biggest screen possible to get the full effect and how can you honestly have an opinion on the movie anyway since you watched a poor quality download on your tiny phone screen.

That analogy doesn't work at all. Mobile games are optimised for mobile screens and phones.

orubiru wrote: »

At the end of the day, this whole thing pretty much just seems like an excuse to bash the stereotype "nerd sitting in his basement spreading hate online thinking he's better than me with his 5000 dollar PC".

Not how I would have characterized the discussion at all. Apart from some mention about the 'ethics' crowd, I think you're the only person that's brought up the cliche about the nerd in the basement. In fact, the first thing said after the OP was '95% of women play Farmville and Candy Crush' and I think there's probably more cliches about mobile gaming floating around on the thread than the usual PC master race basement dweller ones.

K.O.Kiki

Since when do Irish houses have basements?

Stormhawk88

To me a gamer is a person who is passionate about games and gaming in general. The whole mobile games Vs static games stations is turning into the next Pc Vs console war. Everybody wants to think they are top of the ladder and will defend this notion vehemently. To me each to their own. I personally don't play mobile games because I don't have time for them my phone is used for catching up on news, forums and e-mails.

On the original subject I believe that there is a lot more women in console gaming than we think. My own GF is a gamer with interests from Zelda to Halo and everything in between. She is not afraid to talk about it and genuinely enjoys it.

Also I read this article recently about female gamers and how a large majority don't wear headsets and use male avatars to avoid attention and harassment.

It is an interesting read but warning there is mention of Gamergate for whoever is sick of hearing or reading about it.

http://sciencenordic.com/online-computer-games-force-women-closet

K.O.Kiki

Stormhawk88 wrote: »

Also I read this article recently about female gamers and how a large majority don't wear headsets and use male avatars to avoid attention and harassment.

It is an interesting read but warning there is mention of Gamergate for whoever is sick of hearing or reading about it.

http://sciencenordic.com/online-computer-games-force-women-closet

I ain't sick of hearing about it.
I'm sick of disinformation.