Gaming As a Fad

I know we all have that one friend who has a mountain of games that made your
library look small and weak, but did you ever think that having too many games was a bad thing? To some these types of people are ignorant to just how great certain games are (getting all the achievements or being able to say that it's the greatest thing in the world other than saying it's just ok.) and that they have the attention span of a five year old and just bounce to one game after another after they beat it or get bored with it.
I guess to some these people are at the bottom of the gaming social latter along with casuals, they might even be grouped in with them. Maybe its out of hate that they have more games than the average person or that they truly are a bunch of posers who aren't true gamers and shouldn't be taken seriously when they give their take on something new. I don't know. So I guess this is the question that I'm asking is do many find it Ok that certain people treat gaming as a type of Fad?

Everything becomes a fad eventually. Even stupid shit like shoes that nurse's wear that is named after an animal with a jaw that crushes at 1 ton. Honestly fads are stupid. Gaming as a fad is stupid.

So what should gaming be like then? I mean when something new gets announced everyone is pretty much gonna be go that for a while until the next thing comes out and be careful if you don't like it there's gonna be a witch hunt later.

Or maybe they just have more time and money to spend on games than you do. Besides, forcing yourself to stay with one game just to get all the achievements or something else like that sounds pretty stupid to me; I play games for fun, not to show other people how much time I have on my hands. I also bounce around a lot when it comes to games, and unless it's really great it's very unlikely that I will finish it more than once. That does not mean that I don't recognize a great game when I see one though.

Besides, fads comes and go with everything, including games, and there's nothing wrong with that. Just because a game was fun when everyone bought it, it doesn't mean that it will stay fun forever.

Nope, I am that guy with the mountain of games. I disagree with your statement saying they're ignorant to some great titles, if anything it shows that they enjoy going back and playing previous titles (else they'd get rid of them and have a small lump of games rather than a mountain) and that they have a broad gaming pallet. I know people who have vast libraries and will cite titles such as Beyond Good and Evil or Shadow of the Colossus as some of their greatest experiences.

But to your question, is it Ok that certain people treat gaming as a type of fad? Sure it is, how they spend their money and enjoy games is entirely up to them. It doesn't effect me and what I'm going to play in the slightest.

Thats a very difficult question to answer. Everyone has their own definition. I hate fads because it makes it sound as though games being used a fashion statement or some shit. Ethil basically said how I felt.

Yea I can see how that is a hard question, looking at it now the term Fad isn't really a good word to use for this. Honestly this goes back to me talking to a former friend about uncharted. I have a lot of games, but mostly things that no one really plays (i.e JRPG's) and titles that I like. I asked why Uncharted was so appealing and this same discussion started.

You mean those Crocs foam shoes? My hallmate works in a hospital on the side while attending classes. He actually owns a pair of those mostly because they're easier on your feet when you're standing all day long.

Hell, my economics teacher spent an entire class going over those shoes as an example of what a good product should be. Think about it, boat shoes made of some foam-like material that are cheap and quick as hell to produce and can be easily be made in an endless variety of shapes, colors, and sizes with little cost to the manufacturer? The product is a fucking jackpot from an economic standpoint. But as it is, it's just one of those items that a lot of people who have no need of them would see them as stupid or pointless. However, it's the products versatility and practicality to it's consumers that keeps it in a prime position on the market. Basically, it'll be around for a lot longer than a typical fad.

Well when you say it that way I guess I can understand alil. And yea I meant crocs. +rep for seeing what I was saying

Yes that's the way it's been for a long time now.Remember back before we even had achievements and trophies?Back when high score was all that mattered?or back when actually going to an Arcade facing someone face to face and beating him at a game was the most satisfying thing in the world?-Yeah games will continue to grow now we can play people from around the world and send hate mail.It's not what gaming should be like it's what gaming already is.
Basically status is divided like this-
1.Pro=gamers who make money or can make a living "playing"(not selling) games.
2.Hardcore=gamers who play games constantly and attempt to improve their level of play(also they're already really good)and beat out others.Gamers who basically have chosen and know what to do with gaming(usually competitive or completion).
3.Casual=People who play for fun and enjoy it.
4.Other-Trophy/Achievement whores(Not to be confused with completion in the hardcore section these people only do it because they like to show off,and don't play for or gain any enjoyment from it other than the feeling of superiority from doing something most people don't care about),The ones you mentioned about the fads(they could be collectors or they could just be trying to impress),these people keep buying and playing games despite not enjoying them(your excused if your pro,cause it makes you money),or improving in them.

That's how I look at it.Now in the end your a gamer if you actually enjoy playing games,but if you get bored of them easily and stopped having fun,then your not even a casual gamer anymore.

Remember back before we even had shitty labeling of gamers? Back when fun was all that mattered? Or back when actually going home with someone of your friends and beating him at a game was the most satisfying thing in the world, but didn't really mean anything?

lol well think about it like this, remember back whenever grade school or probably right now people who play video games are sometimes on the lower end of the social latter. In the social latter of gaming you gotta have someone at the bottom of that so as a result we have this labeling system.

Some food for thought.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2005-Gamer

I liked that, the part about the three minute mark was my favorite part. Another question that probably would tie into this is novelty. Is it a bad thing that some would fall for something new than others? Not that some forms of novelty is a bad thing.

not really. mine was enourmess compared to the others. I had +100 games while the rest had maybe 5 or so because they all played 'cracked' games.

I had a flashed xbox and still have the multitude of games I had made for it. I think that having such a vast array only enlightened me to the actual value. Not shelling out 60 dollars gets rid of a subconscious need to find a bad game good.

As opposed to playing a bad game (a la Sniper: Ghost Warrior), I didn't find myself rationalizing ways to circumvent the terrible drawbacks of the game like my full-price-paying friends. I found myself saying "This is utter shit, I can see why they only tried to make me pay 40 dollars" and tossed it.

This did not blind me from playing and eventually buying good titles like Dragon Age: Origins or Persona 3 FES/4 for the PlayStation 2. The ability to get any game for free just removes the crutch of buyers subconsciously seeing them as any better than they are. When a game is a click or two away its value is put under a microscope.