NoG BloG: Cognitive Dissonance

Let's start with a common starting place: Han shot first. Stay with me here, I have a point.

In the original cut of Star Wars: A New Hope, Han Solo shot Greedo. It wasn't unprovoked. Greedo had a gun on Han and was threatening to turn him in to Jabba the Hutt, which was essentially a death sentence. It was understood that if Han tried to run, Greedo would shoot him. It was understandable that Han shot the bounty hunter before this could come to pass, and it help establish Han's character.

Until everything changed. In the 1997 re-release, Greedo squeezed off a terrible shot and Han was seen to shoot back in retaliation. It was a poorly judged move of George Lucas' part; he said that he did it to make Han appear more heroic, but it left a seriously bad taste in fandom's collective mouth.

The whole thing went over so poorly because of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs when the mind tries to hold two conflicting ideas at the same time. Fans who had watched Star Wars for twenty years were suddenly forced to reevaluate a deeply cherished moment; first Han shot first, then he didn't. Virtually everyone reacted to the change with extreme dislike for the new cut. Of course, you know all that; but it does illustrate what cognitive dissonance is, and how it can really blow up in a creative team's face if not taken into account.

In gaming, however, different rules seem to apply. Gamers are frequently asked to hold conflicting ideas in our heads, and by and large we accept it as part of the hobby. The easiest example is seen in MMOs. Even though one player may kill a specific monster, that same monster will be killed thousands of times more by other gamers. Frequently a player will repeatedly slaughter the same individual over and over. "I just killed the Lich King, and I can't wait to do it again next week." The player must simultaneously keep two conflicting ideas in mind; the Lich King is dead, but he is still around to be killed again.

There are other examples; The FPS player who dies over and over in the course of a multiplayer match, or even two players of the latest Bioware RPG swapping stories. In the world of gaming, where infinite life and diverging narratives are the norm, gamers are frequently confronted with conflicting facts for a given a single situation.

We deal with it by abstracting the problem; by viewing the facts through the lens of game mechanics, the problem becomes easy to circumvent. The Lich King must continue to be around for other players to challenge. The FPS character must return to life for the game to continue. Still there are times when this coping method is insufficient. In Final Fantasy VII, why couldn't the player resurrect Aeris with a Phoenix Down? It worked up until that point and it worked for everyone else after, why was it not an option that one time?

Even when abstraction works in resolving cognitive dissonance, it is not without consequences. Soap MacTavish's amazing exploits in the Modern Warfare series are dulled somewhat by his disconcerting ability to shrug off any number of bullets so long as he is shot only once every ten seconds. We accept it because it is necessary for the form. The player must feel like the character is in danger, or else there is no sense of tension. But imagine accepting that in a movie, or book; a main character that is shot hundreds of times, but is completely unaffected until it is necessary for him to be wounded for dramatic reasons. We accept the dissonance because it's a game, but the story is less impactful for it.

So what do you think? Is there any particular moment of cognitive dissonance from your experience in gaming that you'd like to share? What can be done to minimize cognitive dissonance in future games?

Spencer Williams

NoG BloG: Spoil Me, Baby

Normally when I write these posts I try to maintain a neutral tone. My intent is that the readers will submit their opinions, and I'd rather not sway them with mine before hand. I can always espouse my opinion, and I always do, on the show. This article is a little different, as I'm all but certain that I'm in the minority with this one. Also, guess what? This is an article about spoilers, so if you're allergic to those kinds of things you may want to look away.

Still with me? Good. I am done with spoilers. I don't mean that I no longer want people to spoil things for me, I mean that I'm done with spoilers as a concept. I'm increasingly convinced that fear of spoilers is a roadblock to meaningful discussion, especially when we're talking about games and gaming. It's also my firm belief that fear of spoilers has increasingly given writers permission to tell the same hackneyed stories again and again.

On a recent episode of Nation of Gamers, a promising discussion about Heavy Rain started, and then was immediately put down due to the fact that it might cause a spoiler. The idea was then floated that we'd do something similar to what they do on the Gamers With Jobs Conference Call, and have a discussion later that would be released under a spoiler alert headline. This is frustrating for me as a commentator on a number of levels; primarily, I don't see it as my job to prevent spoilers from reaching your ears. Rather, it's my job to do the best I can in providing entertaining discussion about games. If you don't want to have a game spoiled and we start talking about said game, the burden is with you to overcome your morbid curiosity and stop listening, not with me to stop talking about it. Maybe you should come back after you've finished the game? The show will still be there.

Excessive spoiler awareness isn't fair to the people that have finished a game and want to have that discussion, and self censoring to prevent spoilers makes our show less interesting. Will we ever go back and talk about Heavy Rain? Maybe, maybe not. Even if we do, it won't be as fresh in our minds as it would had we talked about it shortly after we completed it. There will be points forgotten, and the entire conversation will take on the tone of, "Oh yeah! I remember that!" I'm all for pleasant reminiscing, but it is no substitute for substantive discussion.

Quick! Which was better, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, or Call of Duty, Modern Warfare 2? The vast majority of you would say the that the first game was superior, and not only because of the public relations missteps of publisher Activision. One of the major problems with the second game was that it relied on the same plot devices as the first. Like, exactly the same devices. The shock of dying as one of the main characters in MW was substantially greater than when the same occurred in MW2, and all the spoiler police in the world wouldn't have made it any better. If instead of cheap shocks Infinity Ward had developed a compelling plot that made any logical sense, our collective reaction would have been much different.

However, it's the current zeitgeist among entertainment makers to rely heavily on the, "You won't believe what happens next!" model of storytelling, and we're letting them get away with it. The nanny culture surrounding media only reinforces the notion that we don't care about engaging stories, interesting characters, or good gameplay. It tells writers and producers everywhere that we'll accept bland storytelling if only they string us along at the right pace.

I'm not against surprising twists, far from it. I am against mysterious circumstances and shocking developments being a sideshow used to distract from lame storytelling. If something is great, truly great, then knowing how it ends won't "spoil" anything. I can still play Final Fantasy IV and thoroughly enjoy it, even knowing as I do that Golbez is Cecil's brother. I know that Joker is going to turn himself into a monster at the end of Batman: Arkham Asylum and the game is still a ton of fun. And for my money, knowing from the beginning of Heavy Rain that Scott is the Origami Killer would have made for a more interesting game. Conversely, knowing that Alistair was going to die wouldn't have made Tomb Raider: Underworld's story any less dumb.

This doesn't mean I'm going to go out of my way to ruin things for people. However, the next time someone freaks out when I start talking about something that they haven't experienced, I'm going to ask them to remove themselves from the conversation rather than censor myself.

So, what do you think? Would you rather we leave your ears pristine, clean of any spoilers? Or would you prefer a more substantive discussion, even knowing that some surprises may be lost?

Spencer Williams

NoG BloG: Bottom 5

Let's get snarky.

Oh, people do go on about their favorite games, but how many talk about their least favorite? How many talk about the games that they couldn't stand, but for some reason kept playing anyhow? That's what we're going to talk about this week.

It's not enough just to give a list of your least favorite games, though. A reason would be nice. What made the experience so revolting? Did the games pixels stab you in the eye? Did you finally reach the end boss, only to have him be completely unkillable? Did you spend $40 dollars in one sitting at the arcade only to discover that at the end, the game started out? Remember, the list isn't worth much unless there's a story to go along with it.

Don't feel contained to five, though. If you only can think of three, hit us with what you've got. Do you hat twelve games? We want to hear about them. Probably twelve is too many and we'll ignore your post on the air due to a lack of energy to thumb through your novel-length complain-a-thon, but go ahead and write it up anyhow!

And yes, that's a picture of Link on top a post called "Bottom 5." I leave deciding why it's there to you.

Spencer Williams

NOG 12: Dead Workers Premium

We here at NoG are excited to announce our new premiere community service, Dead Workers Premium. This exciting new service will allow you to get involved with NoG like never before! Get access to exclusive show notes and hear podcasts like you've never heard them before!

"Now hold on," I hear you say, "I love Eric, Brent, Spencer, and Wes, but how much is this going to cost me?" I'm glad you asked! Downloading the show will remain free, as always, and you're free to listen to the first ten minutes on our dime. That's right! We're so confident about the quality of our product that we're willing to pay for you to listen! After the first ten minutes it's just ninety-nine cents a minute to continue! Not happy with the show? We're sorry to see you go, but you're free to cancel at any time.*

This week, take advantage of our special introductory offer and get Episode 12 of NoG absolutely free! Wes isn't here, so we decided to cut everyone a break. The other three hosts reminisce about micropayments and DLC. Is it good? Bad? Ugly? I sure hope it's good, because we've got a distribution line to support from here on out.

*You cannot actually cancel at any time. By downloading NoG, you agree to pay for shows for two years. Every time you download another show, your contract is renewed. NoG does not guarantee the availability of episodes in your language of choice. NoG may not be downloaded in Europe, the United States, Australia, or anywhere that racketeering is illegal, but we won't tell on you as long as you keep paying us. Remember, we know where you live.

NoG BloG: Microtransactions and DLC

This week on NoG we'll have a special guest, and to celebrate we want to tackle a special topic. Can anyone think of anything more special than micropayments?

There's not a lot to be said about micropayments that hasn't been said before, both loudly and in an irate tone of voice. For some, micropayments are the herald of a new way to nickel and dime gamers. For others, they give gamers the opportunity to get more game than they otherwise might. Both of these can be true; it's a matter of an individual gamer's perspective as to which he or she focuses.

For the purposes of our argument, let's break games with micropayments into three categories:

• Full priced games that sell small bits of content to expand the existing product


• Low priced games that sell a small initial bit of content and expand upon it with additional content for a price


• Free games that are supported by selling content or in game advantages

Each of these three types make the case for microtransactions in a different way, and each presents different value to different gamers. Some that would spend $10 on a new character for Mass Effect 2 wouldn't even download a free copy of Dungeons and Dragons Online, let alone buy a potion that would increase experience gain.

It's still a very new concept, so the questions of value versus price haven't yet been answered. Companies are struggle to answer why $2.50 is too much for horse armor, but $2.00 is reasonable for a Red-Riding Hood Costume. Meanwhile, gamers are forced to look at each piece of DLC individually and ask themselves, "Is this worth it?"

So what do you think? Do you regularly (or irregularly) make micro-purchases? Do you feel that they're positive or negative? Are there some circumstances in which you'd make a microtransaction, but another when you wouldn't? Why or why not?

Spencer Williams

NoG BloG: Is This Some Kind of Joke?

Today is April 1st, the day we gleefully ignore the common courtesy of not telling outlandish lies to one another. We here at the Dead Workers Party have been known to tell our own fantastic mistruths, such as the well loved ballad of Oober Servers.

It's not just people telling each other lies, however. Corporations get in on the act as well, making the first of April the absolute worst day to try to find gaming news. Add in the impending release of the iPad, and the only stories to be found are either Apple related or dirty, dirty lies. Occasionally the two even overlap. As an example, I present to you the iCade. Kotaku has a pretty good list of today's tomfoolery here.

So what's your opinion of game companies trying to be cute on April 1? Do you appreciate the effort, or are you annoyed beyond all reason? What are some of your favorite or least favorite April Fool's related pranks?

NoG Blog: The Little Games

Big games get all the chicks. Well, maybe not chicks, but they get all the press, all the accolades, and the lion's share of profit. Little games rarely stand a chance. To be clear, for our purposes a big game is one with a major publisher and an enormous budget. The little games are everything else; shoe-string budget indies, free flash games, ad-supported web time sinks, ninety-nine cent iPhone titles.

Little games are largely ignored by the gaming press. Sure, there are sites that cover them; Rock, Paper, Shotgun has a particularly good record of covering little games, and even Kotaku throws an indie title a bone now and again, but by and large the press is focused on the big games. Partly that's because of access. Big publishers have established relationships with media outlets, making it far easier for them to get exposure. Partly it's resources. Small developers don't have the time and money that the big guys do, let alone dedicated PR teams. Whatever the reason, the end result is that on a site like Kotaku we get an article saying that there's a countdown clock on the Mass Effect 2 website - essentially an announcement that there will be an announcement - but the existence of a truly fun little dungeon crawler, Desktop Dungeon (pictured above) gets no mention at all. I'm not really trying to rag on Kotaku here; they are what they are. Rather, what I'm trying to say is that these games deserve more exposure, and that's something we can do at NoG.

The great thing about little games is that they can try new things. They can evolve unpopular formulas. They can push the envelope in ways that the big games can't. That's not to say that all little games are good, far from it. The ratio of good games to crap is probably about the same for little games as for big games, but since there are so many little games, that still adds up to a lot of good gaming to be explored.

So let's have it; what are your favorite little games? What do you play on the sly while at work or school? What's the one little game that you want to share with the world, that simply not enough people have heard about? This week, the hosts will share our favorite little games, and we hope to have a lot of yours to share as well!

Spencer Williams

NoG Blog: The Respect that Games Deserve

This article was inspired by Video Games and Facing Controversy, a YouTube video made by Daniel Floyd. Daniel Floyd is a twenty-five year old video game animator that “lectures” on topics such as this in a funny and insightful manner while providing some nice animation in the background (similar to Zero Punctuation in style, if not in substance). I strongly recommend you check them out! Here is a link to his YouTube channel where you can browse his videos.

Video games are rarely viewed in the best light by society. They've had more than their share of controversy thrown at them over the years; one example was the recent Mass Effect “SEXBOX" controversy over a brief sex scene in a thirty-plus hour game. People assumed the worst, even going as far as to say it was a "virtual orgasmic rape" simulator. The media often portrays video games as devices designed to corrupt children, and whenever the topics of childhood violence, social ineptitude, or addiction are brought up, fingers point to video games as the cause. As Daniel Floyd says in his video, “When controversy arises, our opposers don’t look at a game studio and see a team of artists, they see a team of toy makers that have gone too far.”

During Daniel’s video he spoke at length about a game that recently came under fire called “Six Days in Fallujah,” a third person shooter from Atomic Games about the second battle of Fallujah. The game was originally to be published by Konami, but when it was revealed, many decried the game as disrespectful to those who died in that battle; the height of bad taste. Konami quickly bailed and Atomic was left without a publisher. However, if Konami thought that this game was in poor taste, why did they give it the green light? They had to know it would stir some controversy, so why did they back off at the first sign of criticism? Daniel's take; “By caving in, you validate all of the accusations. You have legitimized slander founded and ignorance, and you guarantee a larger outcry the next time you consider a project like this."

“These games are not being judged by their content,” Floyd says, “they are judged because they are games.” He points out that other forms of media, such as books and movies, have explored difficult subjects such as war, genocide, sexuality and hatred with great success; these artists dare to show humanity’s dark side. “They venture into uncomfortable territories and find the truth hidden within. This is the stuff art is made of. What is it about games that disqualify them from exploring this harsh territory?” Until games are taken seriously, we will never be able to see their true potential as a respected form of media and art. To achieve this we must stand up for our medium, be open to criticism, and embrace what games have become and what they will be.

So what do you think? Do video games have the potential to be something more than what they are now? Do you think that they should be able to touch on dark subject matter that many other forms of media have touched upon? Do you believe that video games can ever be respected on the same level as movies, plays, or literature?

Charles (CoRn)

NoG Blog: The Perfect DRM?

Ah, Digital Rights Management, you foil of peace-loving gamers everywhere. It's a fact: If not for DRM, gamers would be a harmonious bunch. The petty squabbles dividing platform and franchise devotees would melt away with the delicate trickle of a spring thaw.

Okay, maybe I'm overstating things. Still, you can't deny that DRM, newspeak for copy protection, is a contentious issue. Nearly everyone sits squarely on one side of the issue; either you believe that DRM is the sacred right of every game publisher who are only looking to protect their properties, or you believe that DRM is an ineffective inconvenience that only punishes paying customers and does nothing to quell piracy.

There have been a lot of requests for NoG to cover the DRM debate, but it doesn't feel like there's a lot of new ground to cover. The debate hasn't moved in the last twenty years; the arguments for and against Ubisoft's new restrictive DRM system are essentially the same as the arguments for and against code wheels in the 80s. What new could we bring to the argument?

So instead of the typical point/counterpoint discussions that have typified NoG so far, this week we're trying something different. The four of us are going to lay out our ideal DRM solution, and you're invited to submit yours! It can be serious, it can be wacky, or it can be anything in between. Who knows? Maybe between us, we can come up with the perfect DRM!

Spencer Williams

NoG Blog: Only a Game?

"It's only a game." It's the refrain I've heard over and over in the course of my twenty-five years as a gamer. From my grandparents who couldn't understand why I was so enraptured by the computer screen, to gamers themselves who chant the mantra every time gaming is blamed for some tragic violence; it seems that "only a game" is the answer to many difficult questions.

But is it really only a game? Speaking for myself, gaming has helped me through a lot of difficult times in my life. Without being too specific, around twenty years ago I'd lost my father and thought I was going to lose my mother. One of the ways I coped was by playing Final Fantasy IV. Playing the game helped me forget the bad things happening to me, and I really do think I came out better for it. To this day FFIV is my favorite of the series, not because it has the greatest story or game play, but because of what it represents. It feels like a warm blanket. It helps me to feel comfortable and secure, and never fails to calm me down.

For many people they are just games. But for others, you can't divorce the experience of a game from the greater context of the life in which it is played. Just as in any hobby, the meaning of an experience is limited only by how much one vests into it. Gaming can mean as much or as little to a person as that person desires.

There are many ways in which games can effect our lives, and I'd like to highlight two extremes. On the one hand, there is an article On Hot Blooded Gaming, Kreyg wrote Video Games: My Guardian Angel. I encourage you to read the whole article, but here's an excerpt:

School wasn’t the only place where things were rough for me, life at home wasn’t exactly peaches and cream. You could say that my parents didn’t have the perfect marriage. There are too many times I can recall my parents having intense fights and screaming contests. Unlike the kids from school, I could immediately escape the madness going on. Most of the time I would close the door to my room and turn up the game volume. When I was playing whatever game it was, I felt like I wasn’t a part of the war going on outside. Video games were my safe zone when the fighting broke out. I didn’t exactly know what was going on, but as a kid, I was scared of all the yelling and knew it wasn’t good. I just wanted it to go away, and playing video games helped make that happen for me. My parents eventually got divorced when I got to middle school. It was a rough time, but I knew I could pop on a game and forget about my troubles for the time being – and I did just that.

Kreyg's story is one I think a lot of us can relate to, and hopefully he'll be joining us for an interview on the next Nation of Gamers.

On the other side of the coin is this video by CirrusEpix and posted at ScrewAttack.com.



Obviously I disagree wholeheartedly with the sentiment in this video, but it still illustrates that, for good or ill, games can have a profound impact on our lives.

What do you think? Are games important to you beyond the enjoyment they provide? Have you had a bad experience made better by gaming, or a good experience that turned bad? Do you feel that games help or hinder your development as a person? How has gaming effected your life?

As always, feel free to comment here or take it to the forums for more in depth discussion!

Spencer Williams

NoG Blog: Enough Handholding, Already!

I'll preface this post with a quote from a wise, influential sage: "It's fun to have fun, but you have to know how." My argument is that modern game developers have forgotten this simple proverb. They don’t trust that their audience can discover how to have fun with a game on their own, and as a result mainstream games have lost an entire dimension of challenge.

Half-Life 2 is a good example of this, but let’s first refresh our memories of Half-Life. One of the mini-boss enemies is the Apache helicopter, an armored flying machine that’s mostly impervious to small arms fire. The easiest way to deal with it is to shoot it with rockets until it explodes; in fact, your first encounter with one is immediately after you pick up the RPG in a cliff side crag. But you aren’t handcuffed to your rockets. Its rotor and engines are actually vulnerable to pistol fire, if you are brave enough to stare it down. You could even try to air burst it with a few well-timed hand grenades. Contrast that to its HL2 analogue, the gunship. It’s only vulnerable to rockets, and there’s a convenient infinite rocket crate near every single gunship battle in the game. There is a certain technique to aiming your rockets so they can’t be shot down, but otherwise that’s all there is to fighting a gunship: shoot x3, restock at crate, repeat. Same goes for the Strider: the only interesting part about fighting one is the mad dash to the win button---erm, ammo crate, that is. (Final Citadel Strider battle excluded, that one was different and fun.)

As I said in my opening, modern games have lost a dimension of challenge. The dimension that HL2 lost is the balance of resource management, i.e. spending your rockets/cells/summonable ninja squirrels now or saving them for the next big boss battle. If there will be an infinite ninja squirrel token crate next to the mini-boss who’s only vulnerable to ninja squirrels, why even bother conserving your most potent ammo? Other games may have lost different dimensions of challenge, be it self-preservation, or directional awareness, or what have you.

That’s just one example of how modern games hold the player’s hand way too much. If you listen to the developer commentary in HL2 Episode 1 and the Orange Box, you’ll discover that they tweaked their maps to accommodate players who couldn’t or wouldn’t pay attention to their environment. This boiled down to looking up, or deducing that they were endlessly walking in a circle for 10 minutes. Around the turn of the century, video gaming got some much needed good publicity when studies reported that games helped hone spatial awareness and coordination. Can we seriously expect games to keep honing our real-life skills when developers are doing their best to remove the need to use them? Looking up is not “hard mode” for Pete’s sake! Doom 3 might have been repetitive and even a little predictable in the way its monsters popped out of every other wall, but at least it taught its players the valuable lesson: "Just because you're looking forward doesn't mean the monsters will conveniently appear at eye level."

In a way, I think a lot of mainstream game development is being held hostage by the notion that games have to be art. Roger Ebert got gamers’ panties in a twist when he said that games cannot be art, and the industry started trying their darndest to prove him wrong, often at the cost of game play. I think a lot of games were designed to be “experienced” rather than “beaten,” which is to say their primary focus is just to entertain the player for 6-8 hours, rather than present challenges that the player derives pleasure from overcoming. That brings us back to my favorite quote in the world: “It’s fun to have fun, but you have to know how.” Modern games, I contend, are not designed for gamers who can walk up to a challenge and have fun conquering it; they are designed for a mainstream audience, not gamers per se, who (the developers believe) can’t have fun on their own. Well, maybe they'll never even learn how, if developers keep it up.

The perfect hardcore game, in my opinion, is a sandbox with a goal in the middle. It’s also hard; not Nintendo-hard, but it’s a challenge that may require multiple attempts or a lot of problem solving. The worst possible game is a straight, narrow, corridor of game play, with the goal at the end, and which is consumed and subsequently discarded in 2-3 hours. STALKER and System Shock 2 stand defiantly close to the "sandbox" ideal, brutally slaying newbies yet gradually rewarding them as they master various skills; and I have a hunch that HL2:E3 and HL3 are wavering somewhere in the middle, not yet sure in which direction to fall. Modern mainstream games are not necessarily bad, but they are inching further and further toward the "narrow corridor," as developers try to handhold players for the best “experience” rather than the best game.

Editor's note: I'm glad to feature our first community column here on the blog. If you want your article to appear on the blog, feel free to either submit it to nog((at))deadworkers.com or post it at the forums! As always, feel free to comment here, or take it to the forums for more in depth conversation!

Jess, AKA EsBe

What is a gamer, anyway?

Ask ten different people what they think a gamer is, and you'll likely get ten different answers. For many, the term is a point of pride. For others, it's a term of derision. Is it possible to coin an objective definition for the word, "gamer?"

Let's get the pat definition out of the way.

gam·er
n.
One who plays a game.

While technically true, that definition ignores the subtleties in the word. It's still a useful starting point; I think we can all agree that a gamer necessarily plays a game. Beyond that is where things start getting fuzzy.

Amongst the gaming community, gamer is used as an exclusionary term denoting pride and a sense of belonging. When one gamer represents him or herself to another as being a gamer, the term connotes a set of specific criteria. Usually, the game type in question is assumed. Someone self-identifying as a gamer at a LAN party would be assumed to be a video gamer, while the same self-identification in a board game shop would be interpreted differently. Beyond that basic information, the term gamer gives some insight into a person's identity. By describing oneself as a gamer, one tells others that gaming is a significant part of his or her life.

That's how we come to the exclusionary bit. My sister is not a gamer. That doesn't mean that she never plays games; she's actually quite  taken with Diner Dash, and I've roped her into a game of Settlers of Catan now and then. It means that gaming is not a significant part of her character. Not only would she not describe herself as a gamer, but even someone who saw her play games would be hard pressed to do so. Especially when contrasted with me, a self described gamer, it becomes abundantly clear she is not a part of the gamer clique.

Here is where the trouble starts. Whenever a group forms, members start to codify what being part of that group entails. Whether the group forms around a religion, an ideal or an activity, eventually someone will try to say that another person can't be a part of the group because they've transgressed some unwritten rule.

I know I'm being overly vague. Let's get specific; Right this very second, someone on the Intertubes is accusing another person of not being a real gamer. Gasp! The horror! Maybe the offending person admitted to pirating games. Maybe they said that they don't like Valve, no matter what all the fanboys say. Maybe they even said something unforgiveable, like... "Bobby Kotick isn't such a bad guy after all!" Another gasp!


Every gamer has a different set of criteria used to define what the term means. Many go far beyond the basic definition, incorporating a set of values, deference or antagonism to certain brands, genre tastes, and on and on. Often, arguments arise when people use the same word but assume different definitions for said word, and the purely subjective nature of gamer is a prime example of that. Most people assume they know what a gamer is, while the person they're talking with may think it's something vastly different.


So, let's get to questioning those assumptions! What's your definition for the word gamer? Do you have any criteria that you consider when deciding whether another person is a gamer? Do you think an objective definition would be possible? What would that definition be?

Feel free to comment here, or take it to the forums for more in depth conversation!

Spencer Williams

Welcome to NoG Blog!

Maybe you've heard that the Dead Workers Party is starting a new podcast called Nation of Gamers. It's all about games and gaming, but unlike most gaming related shows the focus won't be on the hosts; it'll be on you, the listeners. Every week we'll have a different topic or series of topics, and we'll solicit input from you both before and during recording.

Part of that will be this blog. Once or twice a week, there will be a post here designed to get the discussion started. We'll talk about individual games, but we'll also discuss wider issues in our hobby. From the business of making games to how games affect your life, we'll discuss it all.

Keeping with the community spirit, eventually we'll want blog posts from you. Have a topic that you'd like to discuss in detail? This is the place to get things started. Start thinking about it now, because we'll have some submission guidelines in place soon.

As always, let us know what you think! Have an idea for the blog or the show? Feel free to share! NoG is your show just as much as its ours, so make yourself at home!