When you see the word ‘gamer’ what do you think of? Who do you think of? What do they look like? Enjoy doing? What do they do for work? Are they successful? Well, if you ask anyone this question, the images they might come up with likely rely on stereotypical images from the media of a typical gamer. But what you really should think of is…most people! It turns out that being a gamer doesn’t require someone to dedicate years of their lives to one game’s storyline and quest, even if that is an honorable and impressive feat. All it takes is an electronic device and somewhat of a habit of picking up that device (in whatever form) and engaging with a game. According to Mirriam-Webster, a video game is “an electronic game in which players control images on a video screen.” The dictionary also defines gamers as “a person who plays games. Especially a person who regularly plays computer or video games.”
These definitions immediately brought the mass obsession with phone games such as Episode, Clash of Clans, Candy Crush, 2048, and – most prominently – the recent worldwide love of NYT Games. I doubt that most people on the street, namely the 50+ crowd who diligently solve the Wordle every morning, would call themselves gamers, but, it seems they are. That brings up the question – do they deserve the title of gamer? Is the definition of a gamer accurate to the massive demographic that the definition covers – which is currently most people who have a cell phone? I wonder if so-called ‘hard-core’ gamers who have completed the most sophisticated, well-crafted and designed games would accept this reality or if they are proprietary of the title. More than anything else, however, I have been enjoying pondering the motivations for gaming amongst broader populations.
Some scientists have identified that many people are hooked to the ‘bite-sized fun’ and small amounts of serotonin that come from completing the Daily Mini or Connections (CNBC), but I feel as if it might go beyond that. It’s almost as if people’s competitiveness about these small games has turned into a fight for intelligence. I know people who have gotten so competitive about the NYT Games, that they will claim higher intelligence over a friend who has a lower score than them that day, or who took a few more minutes to solve the crossword. It’s a bit troubling, but I also find it totally fascinating as a dynamic. It is a genius game design and a perfect way to get people addicted to competing in games. It seems that the motivations and players of both mini games and massive online video games are not so different after all.
At the end of the day, completing a game – whether it be a level of LOTRO or the Wordle-spinoff Globle (https://globle-game.com/) – allows for a sense of accomplishment and gratification that the modern workforce and society can rarely provide everyone. It is about feeling like you can, everyday, step up to a challenge and complete it, however small, and come away with a sense of having at least attempted at really getting something right that day.
I think it is quite wonderful that there are so many different populations, ages, and identities that turn to gaming, of any kind, for an outlet. It is no wonder that it has become one of the most lucrative businesses and popular pastimes of people around the world. After all, it seems we are all wired to seek out accomplishment and gratification, and likely to become hooked to that feeling, whether it be in the real world or a virtual one. I wonder how much crossover exists between the mini New York Times gamers and those who play in vast virtual universes, and what we can learn about each other once we start looking.
– Mariah
Sources:
New Media: Storytelling in Literature, Films, and Games 
You must be logged in to post a comment.