# Should People Who Only Game On Mobile Be Considered Gamers?



## Dradynosagequa (Dec 22, 2013)

Simple question.

There seems to be the attitude in the community that only gaming on mobile doesn't make you a real gamer. I do not think that this attitude is incorrect. Just because the platforms are best known for casual games doesn't mean that it's not a full-fledged gaming platform. Infact, due to the low bar to developement, you can often find truely innovative or "different" games, more so than on consoles. Mobile is a fast growing market and getting more and more hardcore games made for it. It also has some great emulators available for it. Android is undoubtedly one of the best emulation platforms available, second only to PC.


----------



## Ryukouki (Dec 22, 2013)

Hey, I actually had a similar discussion on this about a month or two ago. It's here.


----------



## Dradynosagequa (Dec 22, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> Hey, I actually had a similar discussion on this about a month or two ago. It's here.



More like 3 months ago. But it's a popular topic, why not have another go.


----------



## Ryukouki (Dec 22, 2013)

Dradynosagequa said:


> More like 3 months ago. But it's a popular topic, why not have another go.


 

Time flies when you're having fun.


----------



## Hells Malice (Dec 23, 2013)

Sure they're considered gamers.

That's one of the reasons the term "casual gamer" was invented imo.
Whether you consider casuals to be real gamers is a whole other ballgame.

EDIT: Oh, and I don't consider casual to be real gamers. Gamers game as a hobby, casual game simply to pass time or diddle around. It's  a bit more complex than that, but i'm just too lazy to type everything out right now.


----------



## Blaze163 (Dec 23, 2013)

Given that the modern definition of 'gamer' has been defiled by the endless sea of moronic 12 year olds on CoD, you can call casual gamers whatever you want, I don't care any more. When I was a kid you were only a true gamer if you could beat the arcade machines or knew all the secrets in the latest titles and such, These days gaming has become so widespread the floodgates have opened, and like all technology it got into the hands of the drooling mongoloid demographic and instead of gaming carrying on it sold out and made games solely for said drooling mongoloids. People bitch about mobile phone games but really, is that the biggest worry gaming has these days?


----------



## UltraMew (Dec 23, 2013)

Depends on what games.

Cut the Rope? Candy Crush? _Facebook?_NO.
Minecraft PE? Sonic 1/2/CD Stealth/Taxman remakes? Maybe, depends.
Hardcore titles? Playing retro games on Emu4iOS/iEmulators (preferably ROM hacks?)  Yeah.


----------



## a9cito (Dec 23, 2013)

Yes. if they play games.


----------



## UltraMew (Dec 23, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> Hey, I actually had a similar discussion on this about a month or two ago. It's here.


So?


----------



## tbgtbg (Dec 23, 2013)

Consider them gamers? More like lamers. 

But seriously, take for instance my mom, who probably spends more hours playing stuff like candy crush every day than I play games on real gaming systems. But I don't in any way consider her a gamer. I don't think she would consider herself a gamer, if the term gamer ever even crossed her mind. Just playing games doesn't make one a gamer, you have to be a bit of an enthusiast about them.


----------



## yuyuyup (Dec 23, 2013)

Attitudes toward segments of gamers don't matter, the only factor is what sells.


----------



## LegendAssassinF (Dec 23, 2013)

Depends on the games... I really wouldn't consider companies that are in it just to make money games that are geared toward gamers. Say Candy Crush it was a game solely based on Bejeweled and made free to play with pay to unlock more levels. It is strictly a game that is geared to make money off the people that enjoy it.


----------



## Pleng (Dec 23, 2013)

LegendAssassinF said:


> It is strictly a game that is geared to make money off the people that enjoy it.


 
Whereas Nintendo and Sony and Microsoft just do it for the love, man. Just for the love.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 23, 2013)

LegendAssassinF said:


> Depends on the games... I really wouldn't consider companies that are in it just to make money games that are geared toward gamers. Say Candy Crush it was a game solely based on Bejeweled and made free to play with pay to unlock more levels. It is strictly a game that is geared to make money off the people that enjoy it.


So, like a basically every game made? Almost all games are made to make money.


----------



## Xexyz (Dec 23, 2013)

LegendAssassinF said:


> Depends on the games... I really wouldn't consider companies that are in it just to make money games that are geared toward gamers. Say Candy Crush it was a game solely based on Bejeweled and made free to play with pay to unlock more levels. It is strictly a game that is geared to make money off the people that enjoy it.


 
*cough* DLC *cough* *sneeze* disc locked content *fart*


----------



## LegendAssassinF (Dec 23, 2013)

Pleng said:


> Whereas Nintendo and Sony and Microsoft just do it for the love, man. Just for the love.


 

Candy Crush is a game where making money was the only thought process not "I think this is a great idea and should be made." That was likely the only thing that cross their mind was "What makes money? What makes people easily addicted? What game is the most popular at the time? Let's make it free and charge for levels" It wasn't "Hey this is a great idea we should make a puzzle game that changes how we think of the genre"



king_leo said:


> So, like a basically every game made? Almost all games are made to make money.


 
No.... When they made Halo they didn't think what makes money they had the idea first and someone liked that idea so then it was made not until then they saw that it could make a ton of money.




Xexyz said:


> *cough* DLC *cough* *sneeze* disc locked content *fart*


 

Depending on the DLC.... I don't think Burial At Sea is a DLC that was just about making money since it does impact the story and evolve it slightly. Won't spoil anything but it is a great addition that even without buying it doesn't ruin the series. DLC like Map packs is strictly just to make more money.


----------



## Xexyz (Dec 23, 2013)

LegendAssassinF said:


> Candy Crush is a game where making money was the only thought process not "I think this is a great idea and should be made." That was likely the only thing that cross their mind was "What makes money? What makes people easily addicted? What game is the most popular at the time? Let's make it free and charge for levels" It wasn't "Hey this is a great idea we should make a puzzle game that changes how we think of the genre"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
There is great DLC like the GTA IV ones. DLC like Street Fighter X Tekken is what I hate.


----------



## Ryukouki (Dec 23, 2013)

DLC: good for commodities that _will not have a negative effect on gameplay. _Costumes, appearance modification, things like that. But fuck you if you make micro transactions to give players uber tier equipment.


----------



## ShadowFyre (Dec 23, 2013)

I throw up a little whenever I see a small child with a tablet rather than a dedicated gaming console.


----------



## UltraMew (Dec 23, 2013)

Xexyz said:


> *fart*


*fart* *bigger fart*


----------



## Dradynosagequa (Dec 23, 2013)

ShadowFyre said:


> I throw up a little whenever I see a small child with a tablet rather than a dedicated gaming console.



I don't see why. Dedicated handhelds is being to become pointless with the advent of more and more powerful tablets. It's not like handheld games tend to be hardcore and super-serious games (with some exceptions).

I don't care how well the 3DS is selling right now. Mark my words, this WILL be the least generation of handhelds.

Even right now, you can run 95% of Android games and emulators with a $150 Asus Memopad HD 7. Step up to a $230 nexus 7, and you're looking at being able to run ANY Android game flawlessly as well as PSP emulation.


----------



## Xexyz (Dec 23, 2013)

UltraMew said:


> *fart* *bigger fart*


 
Check your Ramble Pack for more farts.
On Topic: I would consider a gamer who uses a phone/tablet
- Rooted (for Android) or Jailbroken (for iOS)
- Use Emulators and understand ROMs
- knowledgeable about games
- doesn't play Facebook looking games (Candy Crush/Words with Friends)


----------



## Forstride (Dec 23, 2013)

Yes.  Games are a form of entertainment, just like movies, music, etc.  It's like questioning whether or not someone is a music fan based on whatever genre(s) they like.

Playing video games doesn't make you part of some exclusive club.  Maybe back in the 80s when it was a niche thing, but this is 2013.  People can play whatever they want to, and as long as they're having fun, that's all that matters.


----------



## Dradynosagequa (Dec 23, 2013)

Xexyz said:


> Check your Ramble Pack for more farts.
> On Topic: I would consider a gamer who uses a phone/tablet
> - Rooted (for Android) or Jailbroken (for iOS)
> - Use Emulators and understand ROMs
> ...



Yes yes yes and yes. Finally someone who gets it.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 23, 2013)

Xexyz said:


> Check your Ramble Pack for more farts.
> On Topic: I would consider a gamer who uses a phone/tablet
> - Rooted (for Android) or Jailbroken (for iOS)
> - Use Emulators and understand ROMs
> ...


 

Halle-freakin-lujah, finally, I'm glad someone has said those words of truth!


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 23, 2013)

LegendAssassinF said:


> No.... When they made Halo they didn't think what makes money they had the idea first and someone liked that idea so then it was made not until then they saw that it could make a ton of money.


Not at all, the idea would have gone through multiple people, video games are a business. The idea would have been presented and refined before they decide if it would profit or not. It's not like one guy walks in and tells a high market company "yo I've got a swaggy idea lets make it", that would have been a disaster.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 23, 2013)

Xexyz said:


> Check your Ramble Pack for more farts.
> On Topic: I would consider a gamer who uses a phone/tablet
> - Rooted (for Android) or Jailbroken (for iOS)
> - Use Emulators and understand ROMs
> ...


What  about someone who does all this and STILL play Facebook looking games?


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 23, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> What  about someone who does all this and STILL play Facebook looking games?


Then you're what we call a "wanker".


----------



## Blaze163 (Dec 23, 2013)

With regards to Facebook games, to me they come in two flavours. Those that have an established objective, and the pointless time holes. I can appreciate games with at least some sense of direction, like there's a D+D game on FB a former friend of mine was hooked on, it actually has an ending, something to work towards, so fair enough. But games like the Pawn Stars game where the only reward is getting more in game money to buy things that will get you more in game money with no ultimate goal aside from the brutal murder of time that could have been spent better by doing literally anything else, I can't in all good conscience call them games, or their players 'gamers'. Even games like Minecraft have at least SOME form of ultimate goal, be it killing the dragon or just building a nice house to be creative, and that at least encourages thought and artistic flair. The Facebook games where you 'command armies' by clicking text boxes and crap that never go anywhere or do anything besmirch the name of gaming almost as bad as disc-locked content and the CoD Droolies.


----------



## YamiZee (Dec 23, 2013)

I still wish there were more serious games for mobiles. I'm sick of all these dumb non-creative puzzlers, and other repetitive games. Mobiles dont need to be hooked up in order to be used. Hand-held consoles are great, but "one does all" systems would really be great, and that includes a phone, but it still needs to be compact like a phone. Mobiles have great potential, just not enough developers are taking advantage of it, and even for those who are, the common appstores aren't good at promoting "real" games.


----------



## LegendAssassinF (Dec 23, 2013)

king_leo said:


> Not at all, *the idea (Usually one person)* would have gone through *multiple people (idea expended and made)*, video games are a business. The idea would have been presented and refined *before (then profits)* they decide if it would profit or not.


 

 That's basically what happened.... Idea -> Expanded -> Profit.... It wasn't Profit -> Idea.

Candy Crush is clearly not thought that was since it is a rip off of Bejeweled. The same thing with DLC that just adds maps/weapons/skins it provides zero effort and just thought of to make money.


----------



## UltraMew (Dec 23, 2013)

Xexyz said:


> Check your Ramble Pack for more farts.
> On Topic: I would consider a gamer who uses a phone/tablet
> - Rooted (for Android) or Jailbroken (for iOS) *Not quite, nut sure about evasi0n7*
> - Use Emulators and understand ROMs *Yep. NO DURR WHY WOULD I BE HERE?*
> ...


Answers up there.  These are some of my fave games. Also, MD is a Genesis emulator, and I don't have the Taxmen/Stealth remake of Sonic 2 yet.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 23, 2013)

king_leo said:


> Then you're what we call a "wanker".


 

I'm sorry but I thought that was effing hilarious


----------



## Hop2089 (Dec 23, 2013)

No, they are mostly sheep because they let companies nickle and dime them with no complaints and accept shit over quality, I can think of only a few mobile titles that aren't shit and/or made to just to grab your cash.


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 23, 2013)

Okay...two things:

1. a gamer is someone who likes to play games. (yes: a definition can be as simple as that)
2. the platform doesn't matter. In fact, it doesn't even have to be in electronic form (board games are games as well).

I would think that the unclear thing is about what contributes to actually being a game (that's not as easy...try Dear Esther...or the Stanley parable...or loneliness for that matter), but that doesn't seem to be the case.

In fact, I really don't understand phrases like "if you play a game like <insert game>, then you're not a gamer" (Xexyz and UltraMew: I'm mostly looking at you here). The fact that it acknowledges the game in question to be a game kinda breaks down the whole point. Are you sure you guys aren't talking about hardcore gamers? (in contrast to the casual gamers who play GAMES like candy crush). If not, I really want to hear your definition on what you think a gamer really means.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Dec 23, 2013)

relevant


----------



## Ryukouki (Dec 23, 2013)

Damn, you guys really should look into Puzzle and Dragons. That game is fucking deep, and it will never feel like you're going to hit a pay wall because they have events running all the time so you have plenty of chances to get the freemium currency in the game.

What genuinely annoys me the most is that I just do not have the time to play games as much as I want to, yet I am constantly being labelled as a filthy casual or just not a gamer period. If I wanted to pick up a small casual mobile game and enjoy it to the fullest extent, that doesn't make me a gamer, simply because I lack a $4K PC or a gaming console?


----------



## UltraMew (Dec 23, 2013)

Best mobile games (for me)

Sonic CD/1/2 Taxman/Stealth remakes

Minecraft PE

Any game with a hidden emulator

EMU4iOS/iEmulators

Emulators on Android(???)


----------



## Hop2089 (Dec 23, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> Damn, you guys really should look into Puzzle and Dragons. That game is fucking deep, and it will never feel like you're going to hit a pay wall because they have events running all the time so you have plenty of chances to get the freemium currency in the game.
> 
> What genuinely annoys me the most is that I just do not have the time to play games as much as I want to, yet I am constantly being labelled as a filthy casual or just not a gamer period. If I wanted to pick up a small casual mobile game and enjoy it to the fullest extent, that doesn't make me a gamer, simply because I lack a $4K PC or a gaming console?


 
I understand the reason behind that strategy is because of the controversies surrounding both kompu-gacha and children spending hundreds and thousands on the games.  It's a rare case for this reason and it also got a sequel for the 3DS.  A game I'm getting off the PSN Christmas Day also falls in a similar category.


----------



## Ryukouki (Dec 23, 2013)

Hop2089 said:


> I understand the reason behind that strategy is because of the controversies surrounding both kompu-gacha and children spending hundreds and thousands on the games. It's a rare case for this reason and it also got a sequel for the 3DS. A game I'm getting off the PSN Christmas Day also falls in a similar category.


 

I see. Games that have gacha elements are always fun to mess with, haha.


----------



## CompassNorth (Dec 23, 2013)

Yes, they're games after all.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 23, 2013)

Gamers are people who regularly play games, the platform is completely irrelevant. Including any form of separation between platforms breeds nothing but faboyism, hatered and artificial superiority of one group over the other - think PC MASTER RACE, Casual Mobile Filth, Nin10yearolds, Sheep-ony and Micro$heep.


----------



## Naridar (Dec 23, 2013)

Depends on the game.
Microtransaction-fueled time-management/tamagotchi-type games? Not really.
Games like Sonic 4 ep 1/2, Angry birds, Plants vs. Zombies, Rayman jungle run? More like it.
Final Fantasy, Chaos rings, FreeHeroes 2, Puzzle quest, emulators? Definitely.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 23, 2013)

If you want to consider yourself a gamer, part of one of the worst communities in existence, then go ahead.

I'd argue "gamers" are more cancerous than "casual gamers". Casual gamers just play games to have fun. CoDbros and people who play Candy Crush all day just don't give a shit about games and just do things that are fun to them. "Gamers" are exclusionist pieces of shit who do nothing but wank over video games consistently and throw shit at anyone who isn't part of their "master race". I do that, sure, but I do it for shits and giggles, not to be actually serious. Like I play video games but it's hardly my defining feature.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Dec 23, 2013)

you play games, you are a gamer.
doesnt matter if its on a console, a mobile phone or cards and travelchess.


----------



## iluvfupaburgers (Dec 23, 2013)

I have been reading this whole thread and I am wondering. All of you people that are saying this game is not a game and this one is. What is your definition of gamer and game. Because I keep seeing that the same people that say that are mentioning emulators as a game making everything they say invalid for not even knowing what an emulator is


----------



## Gahars (Dec 23, 2013)

ShadowFyre said:


> I throw up a little whenever I see a small child with a tablet rather than a dedicated gaming console.


 

Oh no, they're having fun. What a travesty?

Honestly, the word "Gamer" is dumb anyway, so who cares? Arguing over who is or isn't a "gamer" is like arguing the exact meaning of dingus. Who cares?


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 23, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> I'm sorry but I thought that was effing hilarious


I thought that was a poor answer and poor joke.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 23, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> I thought that was a poor answer and poor joke.


 

Oh! That reminds me, I have to be somewhere right about now.



Spoiler



You might not want to take anything seriously on the internet


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 24, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Oh no, they're having fun. What a travesty?
> 
> Honestly, the word "Gamer" is dumb anyway, so who cares? Arguing over who is or isn't a "gamer" is like arguing the exact meaning of dingus. Who cares?


 

Because if you see a child on a 3DS in public then the Diamond Dogs will get 'em.


----------



## Prior22 (Dec 24, 2013)

Dradynosagequa said:


> I don't care how well the 3DS is selling right now. Mark my words, this WILL be the least generation of handhelds.


 
Wrong wrong wrong.  As long as Nintendo has Pokemon and Mario platformers to lean on their handhelds will sell fine.  The Vita wouldn't being struggling so much if Sony were to do a better job of releasing exclusive content (as they did for the PSP). 

Plus Nintendo has a lot of other key franchises they rely upon for new content.  Eventually being able to play Gamecube titles on powerful tablets will not make all the key Nintendo yearly handheld releases any less important.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 24, 2013)

Prior22 said:


> Wrong wrong wrong. As long as Nintendo has Pokemon and Mario platformers to lean on their handhelds will sell fine. The Vita wouldn't being struggling so much if Sony were to do a better job of releasing exclusive content (as they did for the PSP).
> 
> Plus Nintendo has a lot of other key franchises they rely upon for new content. Eventually being able to play Gamecube titles on powerful tablets will not make all the key Nintendo yearly handheld releases any less important.


 

To be fair Sony has put some pretty great efforts on the Vita (Gravity Rush, Killzone, LittleBigPlanet, Tearaway, PSABR, Sly Cooper 4, Wipeout, Uncharted) and admittedly some less than great ones (Resistance) but I think the issue is that it just kinda came out at a bad time, had a pretty mediocre start, and is still struggling to pick up traction. The thing can definitely sell, sales of it spike whenever a notable title comes out (in Japan at least), the issue is that it just needs more notable titles at a very consistent rate.

Plus Nintendo has always been a handheld juggernaut and competing with them isn't easy.


----------



## Prior22 (Dec 24, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> To be fair Sony has put some pretty great efforts on the Vita (Gravity Rush, Killzone, LittleBigPlanet, Tearaway, PSABR, Sly Cooper 4, Wipeout, Uncharted) and admittedly some less than great ones (Resistance) but I think the issue is that it just kinda came out at a bad time, had a pretty mediocre start, and is still struggling to pick up traction. The thing can definitely sell, sales of it spike whenever a notable title comes out (in Japan at least), the issue is that it just needs more notable titles at a very consistent rate.
> 
> Plus Nintendo has always been a handheld juggernaut and competing with them isn't easy.


 
I'm glad you mentioned Sly Cooper 4.  A quality game from a well known franchise.  Problem is it was also released for the PS3.  Why purchase the Vita version when it can be played in HD on a 40+ inch tv.  When you look back at the PSP era Sony did a quality job of releasing games from their key franchises for the PSP (that weren't also available for the PS3). 

The Vita will likely be Sony's last handheld.  But if Sony had taken a page from the 3DS and seen exclusive content from dominant franchises as a must, I don't see why the Vita couldn't be a solid success.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 24, 2013)

Prior22 said:


> I'm glad you mentioned Sly Cooper 4. A quality game from a well known franchise. Problem is it was also released for the PS3. Why purchase the Vita version when it can be played in HD on a 40+ inch tv. When you look back at the PSP era Sony did a quality job of releasing games from their key franchises for the PSP (that weren't also available for the PS3).
> 
> The Vita will likely be Sony's last handheld. But if Sony had taken a page from the 3DS and seen exclusive content from dominant franchises as a must, I don't see why the Vita couldn't be a solid success.


 

Well the game is crossbuy and some people just want it portable or don't own a PS3. I mean it's pretty neat to be able to play the same games of the same quality on a handheld as on a console.

They do have exclusive content though, they just need to make sure that they have consistent content for the system. Like in the golden days of the PSP and DS you'd have at least a few somewhat large games every month. Nowadays it's like maybe 1 or 2 for both systems, with the 3DS on good months getting a couple more than that.

I'd say the Vita's main issue is that it's a bit too powerful, and developing for it can be a bit intimidating. Really they just need to advertise more and score more games for it.

I don't know if it'll be their last handheld, I think a bit more time will tell, because it's not like the thing is doomed. When big games come out for it, sales spike pretty high, higher than the 3DS even. So the potential is there, it just doesn't always hit it.

I think everyone just paints their handheld "spin offs" not as like "the full experience" such as Uncharted or Killzone but if you play them you'd notice they really are, especially with the power now available. Literally if they rebranded the games as "Uncharted 4: Golden Abyss" and "Killzone 4: Mercenary" there'd be a lot more talk.


----------



## Dork (Dec 24, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Because if you see a child on a 3DS in public then the Diamond Dogs will get 'em.


Quentin plz go


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Because if you see a child on a 3DS in public then the Diamond Dogs will get 'em.


Playing on the 3DS in public is forbidden due to the distinct danger of a child younger than 6 y.o. catching a glimpse of the 3D screen, causing irreversible damage to its eyesight, ranging between pupil immolation to a complete eyeball meltdown.


Prior22 said:


> I'm glad you mentioned Sly Cooper 4. A quality game from a well known franchise. Problem is it was also released for the PS3. Why purchase the Vita version when it can be played in HD on a 40+ inch tv. When you look back at the PSP era Sony did a quality job of releasing games from their key franchises for the PSP (that weren't also available for the PS3).


Because carrying a 40+ inch TV around is quite a bother. In fact, Cross Buy is perfect for young audiences. If there's anything kids hate, it's having to stop playing because they need to _"go somewhere"_ be it school, a family meeting or a dentist appointment. Having Cross Buy allows them to take their progress with them wherever they go.


----------



## I_AM_BIB (Dec 25, 2013)

Well it might well depend on what they play on their mobiles.

Games such as Doodle Jump or Angry Birds are played by everyone, just a a time waster or a bit of fun, but not as a hobby. Even my old lady science teach plays it. 

But remember that there are apps for emulation of platforms such as the SNES, N64, PSP etc. on smartphones. People could be playing games on them that are not considered as 'casual'. Even some games on the phone such as Dokuro or Delver, games that require skill or time could get mobile gamers into the category of 'gamers'.


----------



## eosia (Dec 25, 2013)

Lol I was impressed when I was called a freak while playing a simple puzzle game on my iphone LOL


----------



## eosia (Dec 25, 2013)

Lol I was impressed when I was called a freak while playing a simple puzzle game on my iphone LOL


----------



## Zerousen (Dec 25, 2013)

I let my cousin play the classic Sonic games on my tablet since I don't have an old ass TV anymore to connect my Genesis to. I think the term of "gamer" varies between person to person, and personally, I don't think people who only play games like Angry Birds or Candy Crush are considered gamers, whether they are considered casual or not.


----------

