I've never thought of myself as being inherently geeky, dweebish, etc. Often my perspective of myself is somewhat the opposite. I'm not fat, or particularly skinny. I hike during the weekends and go to the gym. I don't program code, or design websites. I'm not part of a Halo clan or something. I think people who belong to things they like to call 'clans' are either complete dweebs or white supremacists.
But, right before this, I commented on someone elses blog. I stated vehemently that I would rather - MUCH rather - crash down and play a new RPG all night than go out on the town. Plus, the other night, a mate texted me to go out and see a movie whilst I was playing Forza 3... I finished the race I was doing at the time, which put me up another level (which = new prize car). When I saw what the prize car was, I replied "Nup. Bizy".
That's normal. Right? Uh, right? (cue ambient crickets)
Perhaps that sounds like solid "game-dork" behavioural patterns to you. These recent occurences got me thinking about exactly that. How do you set the boundaries in deciding whether somone is just a regular guy/gal who plays games (sweet as) or a complete cyberdork (not good)?
Because I think that the latter is not a nice thing to be labelled with, even if it does actually represent reality. The classic image of the "gamer" to many people, even in tech-savvy 2009, is that of a sweaty, corpulent bloke, with a curiously misplaced arrogance, reeking of BO and surrounded by discarded corn snack and soft drink containers. He wears a brace for his permanently OOS'd wrist. Perhaps his mum holds a pot behind his ass when he wants to toilet (see South Park "World of Warcraft" episode). Not the best image, for sure.
But here's me, a normal-looking, relatively fit and healthy bloke, a relatively non-programmy bloke, and I'm fairly certain I've got gaming habits (or have displayed habits in the past) that probably give our pathetic stereotype above a run for his money.
Consider that:
- I had, at one particular point in time, 3 different characters on Oblivion, each more than 150 hours, 2 of them over 200 hours.
- I have racked up 170 hours on DS Bleach: Dark Souls
- I have more than 200 hours clocked on Fallout 3
- I could finish Street Fighter 2, Super Street Fighter 2, Marvel Super Heroes, X-Men vs Street Fighter, Marvel vs Capcom 2, and Sega Rally in the arcades, when I was 15.
- When the 360 launched in March 3 years ago, I pulled 2 sickies on 2 consecutive days just to play a certain launch-day title. I had 30 hours on the clock after those 2 days. And it was f**kin awesome. I regret nothing!!
...to name a few.
That dork-boundary, it's not a discrete thing. It is actually very analog. Is it determined by appearance, game time counters, spending, spending relative to earnings, number of clans belonged to, how heated up you get when you see someone slagging off your favourite title/console on a forum, er how many days off work you took for a new console launch, your high score? What about how good you are? What about Tana Umaga? Didn't he buy a whole freakin' Gamesman store?!? I'd rate that as hardcore super-game-dork behaviour, but I'll let you tell him coz I'm busy that day ahem cough...
So there you go. How would you decide?
LS
Username: leopardsqueezy
Home Page: No Information
Birthday: No Information
Location: No Information
Interests: No Information
Forum Post Count: 3
Points: 5,259 (Ranked 155th)
PSN Username: No Information

Log in to comment or Register now!