Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Gamers Aren't (Always) Geeks 338

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gamers Aren't (Always) Geeks

Comments Filter:
  • by Randolpho ( 628485 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @09:33AM (#6390501) Homepage Journal
    ... 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.
  • Nearly 70 percent of those questioned said they were in elementary school when they first played video games. By junior high and high school, about half said they had tried computer games -- software-driven games from cards to shoot-'em-up adventures such as Doom -- and 43 percent said they had tried online games over the Internet. However, 92 percent of those that played games said that it replaced their regular social life, including dating. Most of the survey participants still had never gone on a date.
  • whatever (Score:3, Interesting)

    by claude_juan ( 582361 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @09:34AM (#6390523)
    bullcaca!

    yes there are lots of non geeks who play video games. but all the people who i know who are "gamers" do spend their days in dimly lit rooms, not showering, and eating crap all day.

    the non geeks play gran turismo for an hour or so while chilling with a few friends on a lazy day. don't deny the existance of geeky gamers. they created the stereotype because of the truth.
  • Comparison study... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @09:35AM (#6390526)
    I'd like to see a comparison study of gamers vs. non gamers from the same demographic. Included would be what thier GPA is/was, how far their career has progressed, amount of income, etc... My experience is anedoctal, but in virtually all cases, non-gamers seem to do better then gamers.
  • Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Matey-O ( 518004 ) <michaeljohnmiller@mSPAMsSPAMnSPAM.com> on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @09:35AM (#6390541) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • by Transient0 ( 175617 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @09:38AM (#6390580) Homepage
    It's true. And when I was in university, all my friends who were ravers, punk rockers and football players were seriously into games like starcraft and quake.

    The difference is that, although they played them heavily, none of them would have dreamed of subscribing to a gaming magazine or going to a LAN party or gaming event.

    Point being, the gamers that we tend to call "hard-core" are the ones who look to video games to provide them with a social life or community of friends through things such as mailing lists, on-line forums and even live events. These are the gamers who are almost inevitably "geeks".

    The gamers who are the "cool kids" see gaming as something that they do for fun but which isn't really an important part of their life. They see it this way because they get their social life and sense of community from other things such as sports, fraternities or concerts.
  • by chia_monkey ( 593501 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @09:49AM (#6390696) Journal
    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...
  • 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...
  • Creeping Doom (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mobileskimo ( 461008 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @09:57AM (#6390775) Journal
    IMHO I believe everyone is attacking the wrong side of the problem. Social issues are just budding only recently. Why is this? Gamings been around for a while. It hasn't been common widespread until the last 5 years. And now its about to explode. What is going on here? Much of it has to do with the fact that these games are now Internet Multiplayer.

    [1] Internet has made the gaming activity less non-social over conventional games from past. I guess this is good atleast people are interacting with others instead of just "the machine"
    [2] It has also made gaming more anti-social by reducing accountability through anonymous screen names and providing a means to act out fantasy irresponsibilities. ie. killing, stealing, maiming, torturing among other players. This is bad. Even if we understand this is fantasy, are we letting the dark side enjoy too much time out of its box? Nobody would call you deranged if you pulled the wings off a fly. Do it all day and I'd say its getting to you.
    [2] It has made the activity more addicting due to the unpredictable nature of other player interactions, almost replacing social real life interaction.

    So now they are spending the time socializing in virtual environments, when they could be with their next door neighboor in the vacinity of moms, dads, other kids, older, younger, shop owners, policemen, firefighters, accounts, doctors, garbage collectors, and any other people that might be wandering as they ride on their bike down their street.

    My point being our children are growing up spending a good chunk of time in an environment where consequences are not real. And please nothing about "They know the difference between real and games". Judgement be what it is, behavior is learned. Especially when its repetitive. Everyday. For 3-5 hours a day.
  • by Randolpho ( 628485 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @10:01AM (#6390815) Homepage Journal
    You may make that distinction (probably because you like to be distinguished ;)), but the world at large does not.

    And these jocks were hardly 3-4 hrs a week. A couple of hours every other day is more in keeping with their schedule.

    Of course... our football team really sucked. Hmm... coincidence?
  • Anti-social is bad? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @10:02AM (#6390819)
    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.

  • Far from it. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mantera ( 685223 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @10:02AM (#6390823)
    Ironically, I introduced my senior at work, who is more than twice my age and approaching retirement, to PDAs and he reintroduced me to video games. After less than six months working together he bought a handheld and i bought a PS2. Erik Erikson, the Einstein of psychosocial stuff, had a book with the title of "Play". In that book he mentions a follow-up to a study of some children, whom when interviewed decades later were found that those of them who managed to retain a playful attitude to the world had the most satisfying lives.
  • by adzoox ( 615327 ) * on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @10:13AM (#6390917) Journal
    I played Intellivision a lot as kid. I also played Tetris on my gameboy in high school. However, I didn't have a budget for games. I never bought them. I depended on my parents to buy them or exchange games with friends.

    The next door neighbor boy spends his average summer day inside about 4 hours playing video games. He also spends a substantial amount of his allowance and money I give him to wash my car on video games. To top it off, he spends a good portion of his time thinking about video games, talking about video games, and buying/trying out video games.

    In my day, we would blow an allowance in an arcade, but it just seems kids spend a lot more money and invest a lot more time into them nowadays.

    In part, I think it accounts for the decline in event sales. (Termed Arena events) Kids just aren't interested as much in live action / interaction anymore. This contrasts to my childhood where going to play a video game was just that, GOING to play. Video arcades at least allowed interactions, walking, standing, and well... an event. What is eventfull about sitting on your bed?

  • Duh... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by m0nkeyb0y ( 80581 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @10:15AM (#6390929)
    Being a college student, and having spent two years in dorm life, I can tell you it's a rarity not to see a came console in most people's rooms, be they jock, geek, or otherwise. The most commonly played titles are sports games, mostly Madden 200X and NBA games. Bond and Mario Kart were the N64 games. Fighters are popular, but you only really saw various iterations of Mortal Kombat. I never really saw any of the female population playing console games, but quite a few enjoyed PC games like The Sims, Rollercoaster Tycoon, and simple puzzle games like Snood (which tookover everyone's life during exam week).
  • Living Proof (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @10:20AM (#6390974)
    If you walk into my room you'll find monitors, cases and parts all over. I don't know a single person at my school who knows half as much about video games as I do.

    Meanwhile, I was the president of my junior class, and during my relationship with a very *hot* and certainly not geeky girlfriend, I had to be pretty damn careful because other girls seemed to be trying to ruin our relationship (but don't we all *think* that). All this, and the only nights I spend out are with my girlfriend and with my silicon friends. And yes, I have plenty of other friends, otherwise I wouldn't have gotten where I am now.

    I've seen plenty of people balance these out. And I'm not including the people with an xbox and an n64, I'm talking about the kids who brag about their graphics cards. I admit the two conflict. During my relationship I came to a point where I decided, "You know what, I haven't been playing enough video games" and so I would stay up a couple of hours later after spending the night with her. Certainly there are the couple that feel awkward away from the flickering screen, but I've known that's a horrible generality for years
  • by mr_luc ( 413048 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @11:15AM (#6391672)
    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"?
  • by SolemnDragon ( 593956 ) <solemndragon.gmail@com> on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @12:20PM (#6392484) Homepage Journal
    stereotyping is bad. Oh, wait, that's a generalisation- generalisations are- oh, wait... darn. Never mind that, i'm going in cirles...

    Stereotypes are there because they are perceived, whether the perceptions are actually accurate is another question. I'm the chick who hides in the kitchen at parties, (first grab at food and the company of those creative enough to be putting things together and not just consuming the results.)Not all non-geeks are living it up. They have hobbies, too, they have everyday obsessions. I've asked.

    I'm not really a geek. Do i have an active social life? Yes, although it probably isn't 'active' in the college coed sense. Do i game? yes, occasionally, although see above re: college coed. I'm just not as into the social games, EITHER kind, and it would never occur to me to pay for an online group game. My point is that i agree with Saige: 'social' needs to be a little more clearly defined here. (i can hear bill watterson of Calvin and Hobbes fame... 'Define "well adjusted."')

    For me, a lot of my social does get done online. Group conversations (not random chatrooms), posting boards, things like that, because that's where my mobility lies. I do get out, i do meet people, but i don't go to bars and clubs like my work peers do. I do have an S/O and we did meet in a bookstore. (A science fiction bookstore. Technically, right outside a science fiction bookstore.)

    I think we had this discussion somewhere about the stereotype against girls playing pinball, too. There are girls who hide in basements reading comic books and playing computer games and there are some of them who are fantastic and some of them who aren't. Not all girl geeks are alike, either. Stereotypes by nature only describe a spectrum, not an individual (that's a generalisation again. *sigh*) Adding 'girl' to a label might shock some people, but it won't shock girls, because we know that we're people, and that we do things. Some girls play football, some girls play rugby (and tend to be even tougher than the girls who play football, in my opinion, and i mean BOTH kinds of football) some girls can sew renaissance costumes and then wear them to beat the tar out of some unfortunate SCAdian, some girls play video games. some do all or none of the above. (My rugby days are over.) The world works that way.

    So i see no reason why the geek world should work any differently, namely why it should consist, well, completely of geeks. There isn't some threshold at which point the robot trundles up and stamps your forehead with the secret seal- (and if it were, i wouldn't tell you what the threshold was it was or what the seal looked like, although i will say that it's only visible by the light of a monitor, a flexible worklamp, or a librarian's special geekreader lenses) so while the rest of the world gasps in shock, the geeks will peacefully keep on with what they were doing. Including the girls.

  • by FunkSoulBrother ( 140893 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @01:30PM (#6393184)
    having played much counterstrike, I feel qualified to say that CounterStrike does not require (Nor does the counterstrike community possess) more braincells than a console game.

    Thats a ridiculous distinction.

    Sure, the highest end computer wargames are more complex than the highest end console games, but the popular games on both are at the same level.

    Its not 1989 anymore, PC games are no longer aimed at sn audience that is comprised of well educated programmers.
  • by SaturdayNight ( 540943 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @01:43PM (#6393314)
    'Normal Gamers' don't go to Lan parties. I know plenty of 'normal' gamers, well adjusted, fairly into the hobby, and pretty knowledgable and up on the latest stuff, and not one of them would be hard-core enough to go to a LAN party...
  • by Magus311X ( 5823 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @07:16PM (#6396356)
    I've played a MUD (GemStone III [gemstone.net]) for about 8 years.

    About two years in a met a girl and hung around with her in game, and after 4 or so years, she decided that we should meet and hang out for the week, despite about a 1500-mile distance issue. She was a pretty hardcore player. Definitely consumed 15-20 hours a week of her time (I played about 10-15 in comparison).

    Well, went to T.F. Green in Providence to pick her up. Just waiting around... holding up a sign with her last name on it. Then all of a sudden some attractive, blonde, Britney Spears lookalike comes up to me and hugs me shouting "Rob" quite happily.

    Yeah, I'd say that the stereotype is pretty off-base! ;)

    ----- ----- -----

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.

Working...