The perfection of definition

Of contention to the game-playing masses of late (and by late, I mean since Nintendo learned how to make money by employing effective product-intigrated marketing) is the definition of the word ‘gamer.’

While I could simply write this off as “a person who plays games, subcatergorize as needed,” that would rob me of this wonderful oppertuninty to pen a long, deconstructualist, socio-linguisitc article. And we can’t miss that can we?

Welcome to history, population: you

Of more importance than finding some vague, non-insulting absolute definition, though, is dialouge. Gamers of all flavors are at a time in which they are doing more than merely existing and consuming; they are attempting to have an identity of their own creation. Despite gaming’s commonplaceness for many years, this is the moment where it is shedding the ‘sub’ from ‘subculture.’ And while it may be spurred by the fact that people who play video games of any kind are now the rule and not the exception, this dialogue isn’t caused because ‘non-gamers’ are playing Cooking Mama in statistically relevant droves. This dialogue exists because ‘gamers’ have started actually giving a damn about themselves culturally. This is a watershed moment in the sociological history of gaming. And the results are quite mixed.

I could talk about the old ‘hardcore’ vs. ‘softcore’ (more commonly known as “wah wah Nintendo wah”) arguments, but I’ve done that at far too great a length already elsewhere… and such things rarely result in civil discourse all around. Instead, why not explore a recent quote from Penny Arcade Expo?

As you may recall, not long ago at Penny Arcade Expo the following was submitted by an audience member when asked to define ‘gamer’ (as reported by Kotaku),

“[I define] ‘Gamer’ as someone dedicated to the perfection of fun. You can’t do that in 10 [minute intervals].”

Let’s explore

Gamer: Person dedicated to perfecting fun.

Does it hold up?

We already know that the game OF Perfection is no fun at all (especially Travel Perfection… what were they thinking making a version of a game designed to blow its bits across the room for use in a car?)

Let’s not split hairs about whether perfection is even attainable. Besides, having a lifelong goal you can actually accomplish only leaves you asking “Now what?” afterward.

The key elements here are dedication, to commit wholly and earnestly to a purpose, and the object of that commitment: perfecting fun. So, if your primary goal in life is not prefecting fun (apparently only possible through video games), you are not a ‘gamer.’

What assumptions does this make? It presumes that being a ‘gamer’ is a lifestyle choice. Those who make the commitment are, those who play games but are not as dedicated are not.

The qualifier of perfection being unatainable in 10-minute chunks DOES sound rational when you generlize the application. Could Michael Phelps have won eight gold medals only dedicating himself to 10-minute practices? However, this qualifier is ultimately redundant; nobody would argue that 10 minutes constitutes dedication to any but the most unbearable tasks (like reading fanboys fight over consoles in comment threads).

A friend of mine has logged more hours on Bejeweled than most airline pilots have spent in a cockpit. She’s certainly dedicated and having fun, but I can’t shake the notion that the person who put forth this definition would want to exclude her from it.

(Incidentally, if dedication is spending $4,374.08 on one single video game, then fun can just go and perfect itself, because I’m sure not gonna do it.)

These points really don’t cut to the core of the matter, my real beef with this definition: The so-called perfection of fun can only be done with games. There is no reason to think playing video games (or also tabletop games if he intended to include them as well) is a path to the perfect form of fun, let alone the only path. It’s far too specific a means to such a vague end.

Multiple Funtelligences

There’s no reason I cannot perfect fun while mountain biking, painting or just plain talking about nothing with friends. I admit there’s no reason why I WILL perfect fun with those activities, either. That’s the other problem with this definition: It uses an absolute measure of an relative concept. Fun is an entirely arbitrary experience from person to person. For some their fun is Kinetic, others Interpersonal, or Linguistic, or Logical, Musical, Naturalistic, Spacial, Spiritual… there are as many ways to have fun as there are ways to conceptualize the world around you. And, believe it or not, all these ways can be applied to any experience.

Have you ever scoured YouTube for Crysis physics demonstrations?

Do you play the support classes in MMO raiding parties or organize Guild activities?

Did you, like me, meet up with some friends after they picked up Super Smash Brothers Brawl, and then didn’t go out to dinner with them because you knew it would be the only chance to use the sound test to sample the hundreds of wonderfully remixed tunes?

Are you an RPGamer who needs a compelling story more than compelling gameplay?

Do hunger for games that make you think conceptually, inspirie thoughts beyond its content, or do you prefer calculated decision-making, owning and exploiting the underlying systems?

Have you ever dumped quarter after quarter into a DDR machine?

And haven’t we all gamed just to game? Kick back, enjoy yourself for a bit. No pressure.

What you find fun is probably less important than why you find it fun. If it’s a gateway to fun here, it stands to reason it can be a gateway to fun elsewhere. And this is where the definition finally meets its end. There are many funs and many paths to reach them. Finding which ways work for you is something I hope you have already done — and I’m willing to bet you never needed a video game to be your crucial guide to it.

While I doubt that perfecting fun is the defining characteristic of a ‘gamer,’ (or even anything more than a trying to diplomatically phrase the exclusion of casual gamers and serious players of causal games from the definition of ‘gamer’) you have nothing to lose by seeking grater quantities of fun regardless of some person’s perceived quality of it.

Thank you for reading my Schematic Nonsense. Now go out and think, and come back with a comment to make me do the same.