# What type of gamer are you?



## Kiniel (Jan 10, 2007)

I find that, along with many other subdivisions, gamers can be split mostly into the "progressives" and the "traditionalists."

Now, obviously, there's no such thing as someone who's perfectly one way or the other, but which one are you more like?Â Â (For the record, I'm more progressive... I like all the shiny graphics.Â Â ^_^)

For your reference, here's a nice little decoder to help you decide:

If you are a progressive, you...
...believe that graphics can vastly improve a game
...tend to prefer later games in series that "expand upon" the older games (not necessarily the radically different ones, though)
...constantly stay on top of new releases
...have all but forgotten the time when "voice cast" wasn't in the credits
...sell off old systems to buy new ones
...games on the internet like crazy
...use XBox live to play Halo 2 and the like
...think of things in polygons
...will totally pwn you at Gears of War
...recently finished Final Fantasy XII
...think you remember hearing about something called a "side-scroller" once

If you are a traditionalist, you...
...believe that graphics are purely aesthetic, and possibly take away from gameplay
...prefer the older games in series, mostly on their merit of being _classic_
...are relatively lax when it comes to keeping up with gamer news
...loathe voice actors on principle
...still have that NES hooked up, and you know that Atari's somewhere...
...doesn't play anything on the internet that was released after '99
...used XBox live to download Street Fighter II
...think of things in pixels
...will totally pwn you at Doom 3
...recently finished that old copy of Dragon Warrior... again
...wonder what that MMO thing is


----------



## Hanazawa (Jan 10, 2007)

Uh, yeah, some of both.

needed a halfway/neither option on the poll ;p


----------



## Kiniel (Jan 10, 2007)

Hanazawa said:
			
		

> Uh, yeah, some of both.
> 
> needed a halfway/neither option on the poll ;p



Yeah, I was gonna put that there, but I figured it's too easy if you can take the middleground.  ^_^

I'm somewhere in the middle, too, but I think graphics and voice acting have become such an essential part of games nowadays that I have to mark myself more with the "progressive" part.

In case anyone's curious, this came from a debate about whether or not Super Smash Bros. Melee was better than the original for the N64.  I took the case that Melee was better because of graphics, more options, etc., and my friend adamantly opposed that statement.  So, like any rational person, I made an online poll.  Consequently, that's why there's no middleground.


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 11, 2007)

Kiniel said:
			
		

> If you are a progressive, you...
> ...believe that graphics can vastly improve a game mmm no
> ...tend to prefer later games in series that "expand upon" the older games (not necessarily the radically different ones, though) what? no
> ...constantly stay on top of new releases never
> ...



I guess that makes me an apathetic fps hl1 gamer.


----------



## EmVee (Jan 11, 2007)

From the examples given, I'm nearly a pure traditionalist.  I truly enjoy the newer games, but find a lot of value in the old ways of gaming.  I too often find myself reminiscing about the "good ol' days" of gaming and I'm only twenty-two XD.


----------



## diarmaidhuthence (Jan 11, 2007)

I love 3D games like the on-going Final Fantasy series, & think a voice cast can improve a game (Dragon Quest VIII, take a bow), but I can live without hugely in-depth stories and prefer simpler gameplay (Ico, 2D fighters). So, a bit from both, then.


----------



## GuitarSolo (Jan 11, 2007)

Yeah a little of both. But the older games really catch my eyes more and more now. I have a SNES with Mario AllStars on it. Now my GameCube has been stuffed in the back of my closet for about three weeks!


----------



## SageHusky (Jan 11, 2007)

well it depends on the type of game.

If it's a FPS I value graphics more then anything. that frag has to look bloody!
RPG I don't care about graphics, gameplay and story is best.
hell I still play Chrono Trigger often. that's SneS graphics haha


----------



## furryonyx (Jan 11, 2007)

I beat Final Fantasy XII a few weeks ago so I just went with progressive. It's definately more of a middle ground area for me also..


----------



## Visimar (Jan 11, 2007)

> If you are a progressive, you...
> ...believe that graphics can vastly improve a game *Eww no, if the game sucks than the graphics were wasted time*
> ...tend to prefer later games in series that "expand upon" the older games *Mostly yes, but I still prefer some old-school games too*
> ...constantly stay on top of new releases *Only for the games I'm interested in, which sadly isn't much*
> ...



Total: 3/11



> If you are a traditionalist, you...
> ...believe that graphics are purely aesthetic, and possibly take away from gameplay *Not purely, I like the shiny ones once in a while, but if the game's good than I really don't care*
> ...prefer the older games in series, mostly on their merit of being _classic_ *Mostly newer releases, but I still like the old ones once in a while*
> ...are relatively lax when it comes to keeping up with gamer news *Yep*
> ...



Total: 3/11

...yeah, I have weird tastes =/


----------



## goat (Jan 11, 2007)

Kiniel said:
			
		

> If you are a progressive, you...
> ...believe that graphics can vastly improve a game *i think they can definitely make up for some faults in a game and they can improve it yes*
> ...tend to prefer later games in series that "expand upon" the older games (not necessarily the radically different ones, though)*eh.. i dont really know. i loved half life 2  a LOT but i have fonder memories of HL1 and i think it was better, including expansions...*
> ...constantly stay on top of new releases*yes
> ...


----------



## sasaki (Jan 11, 2007)

Both examples are too extreme and to specific. Final Fantasy and Xbox don't account for that much of the gaming market. Unlike US politics, Gamers can't be split into two groups and one third unrealistic group. Unless it was about platform (PC, Console, and Tabletop/card-games).


----------



## Frost Wolf (Jan 11, 2007)

Traditionalist with some Progressive tendancies.


----------



## shy (Jan 11, 2007)

I dunno. I still play C&C: Generals but I will def. buy the new C&C 3 when it comes out... and drool all over the case possibly rendering the game itself unuseable.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Jan 11, 2007)

It's hard to pick. I've been playing so long that I really like some older games. But I like them for the fact that in their day they were the games to be playing. I think I'm progressive. I'm cant wait for the day when virtual reality games that you can smell and feel become a feasible reality.


----------



## Cozmo (Jan 17, 2007)

Im Progressive. Retro is just another word for old. Ill take UNO and Smal arms over Tetris or SMB anyday.


----------



## Captain Oz (Jan 17, 2007)

Traditionalist, almost completely.  My main want for a Wii was the ability to download all my old favorites and play them again.  I don't care at all about the graphical nature of a game, Chibi Robo, Okami, Wii Sports, et cetera all have very low poly counts but are some of the best games ever in my opinion.  Note also there that those are three relatively new games, I'm not one to shun something just because its new, infact its new ways of playing, new ideas that attract me to something.  So that makes me something of a progressive gamer as well.  Overall though I'd say 80 - 20 traditionalist - progressive.


----------



## Charha (Jan 17, 2007)

I'm a bit of both. I get really excited about new games based on classic ideas... And then I complain about how they RUINED THE ENTIRE SERIES BY INTRODUCING NINJAS TO SOSARIA! Also, I'm often attracted to eye candy, but if the plot and gameplay bores be I'll return to slaughter another @ in Nethack or ADOM.


----------



## DruoxTheFurrinator (Jan 17, 2007)

I'm a Purist...

which'd make me 95% Traditional Gamer

Yeah, I always play the original games twice and the sequels once.

I'm the same with music...basically I ain't downloading any MP3 under 10 years old


----------



## tobias104 (Jan 17, 2007)

I like great graphics, and I like online games, and I think in polygons.

I don't keep up with new releases.

I guess that makes me progressive.


----------



## Horrorshow (Jan 17, 2007)

Neither?

I really don't care about the specifics, nor do I care to give a long winded description of what I look for in games.

If the graphics are good, then awesome. If not, who cares?
What matters the most to me is if the game is fun or not.
The fun factor is my main thang.


----------



## SFox (Jan 17, 2007)

Ok, two options are too general. I play games just to have fun, I don't care if they're old or new, good or bad graphics. I'm always finding old games that I never played before and enjoy them, but I'm also always getting new games and enjoying those too. However, I feel that games are generally getting better and better with each new generation so I chose the progressive option.


----------



## psion (Jan 18, 2007)

You need more examples, neither of these two camps truely captures most of us here.  Myself, I might be one of the few 20 year old gamers who was there since the days of DOS.  I have almost all the C&C games, I actually own all three Warcrafts (WoW is not a game, it is a drug that needs to be burned), and my first furry game starred a little green rabbit with a big blue gun by the name of Jazz Jackrabbit.


----------



## crabby_the_frog (Jan 21, 2007)

Now that's a tough one...



			
				Kiniel said:
			
		

> ...recently finished Final Fantasy XII
> ...believe that graphics are purely aesthetic, and possibly take away from gameplay
> ...are relatively lax when it comes to keeping up with gamer news
> ...still have that NES hooked up, and you know that Atari's somewhere...
> ...



I'm thinking traditionalist, with the major shocker being "doesn't play anything on the internet that was released after '99", I'm still playing Starcraft.


----------



## Rouge2 (Jan 21, 2007)

A good one.


----------



## Option7 (Jan 21, 2007)

I'm totally a progressive gamer. Graphics aren't everything, but if a game has good graphics, it feels more real, and overall provides a more indepth experience.
Modern storylines tend to be a lot more original than older ones, too.(obviously there are exceptions).
Plus, with new technology you can do loads more awesome things, and frankly, the ragdoll engine is genius.


----------



## PhoenixDragon (Jan 21, 2007)

Normally I'd say I'm between the two, but this list seems to put me more as a progressive (Mainly because I don't agree with how some of the things in the traditionalist list... And Doom 3 in traditionalist? What? :>Â Â )

Personally, while I like the pretty graphics, they're secondary to gameplay. If the gameplay is good, the graphics aren't important. If the gameplay sucks, all the pretty graphics in the world won't make me play it. But I do get a kick out of playing in worlds that are increasingly more and more like the real world in detail.

But while I think the advancement in graphics isn't that important, I think the advancement in _interface_ is probably the main thing seperating the newer games from the older ones. As much as I like some of the older games, the better interface for modern ones make the games even better. Now if only someone will remake Darklands with a better interface, I'll be happy... :>

So I play Medieval 2, WoW, F4:AF, and Hitman: Blood Money, and am looking forward to upcoming high-end games like Hellgate: London (Okay, mainly because I have a "thing" for demons), Spore, and Fallout 3 (Eeee!)... But I also load up the DOS emulator to run System Shock (The first and best, naturally) and Darklands, keep browsing by Underdogs to see if there's some neat old game I missed that I can try out, and still fire up Nethack occassionally (Was the very first game I EVER saw played on the PC). I judge sequels based off their quality, and have no problem either sticking with an earlier game instead of the shiny new release, or going with the significantly enhanced sequel instead of the less-refined original. Not sure where that puts me...


----------



## wut (Jan 21, 2007)

I'm the type that plays games and doesn't attempt to categorize oneself into some stupid niche.


----------



## redguardian (Jan 21, 2007)

i am not a specific type of gamer, i play all kinds of games.

meh no specifics


----------



## psion (Jan 22, 2007)

A good one dammit!


----------



## BijouxDeFoxxe (Jan 23, 2007)

I'm they "hey... that game looks cool.  Let my play that!" type of gamer.  I have never played, and prolly never will play any FPS games.  I like games where I can hack away as an elf girl with a giant ass sword.

I just dont play games.  I MAKE 'em, baby!


----------



## K-Red (Jan 27, 2007)

Hmm... I can't really classify myself as anything but a traditionalist, mostly because I think most (92%) of games today suck. One of my all-time favorite games is NetHack, and it actually DOES have graphics worse than the ORIGINAL Doom. (I still play the original Doom too.)
To really break it down, I do almost all of my gaming on the PC, my favorite PlayStation title is Armored Core, I intentionally drop graphics settings once I install a new game (in UT2K4 I turn off the grass and advanced water effects so I have an edge), I never buy a console or game until the price drops, and by then it's considered "Old".
Most of my games are older than 5 years, yeah, that and everything else probably make me a traditionalist.


----------



## Stevethefox (Jan 27, 2007)

Progressive, in that I'm obsessed with the latest/future technology and its implementation in games in new and innovative ways. My goal game would be a perfect physical simulation of the real world...but with swords, guns, and talking animals.


----------



## Mega Wolf (Jan 27, 2007)

I'd have to say I'm a traditionalist

I love the classics, they have a lot of time and effort put into them (as long as you exclude the OLD classics, like Pac-man for the atari and ET, which lacked ANY effort). Games like X-com are insanely addictive. Games with good stories like Final Fantasy 6 are a rarity and have story values eons ahead of even current day big budget movies, but thats not saying much considering movies coming out now at days. 

New games are not bad, per say, but they seem to replace quality and quantity with 'pretty'. More and more games are coming out that lack all sense of substance and simply look bright and shiney with new graphics. Most recently the X-box 360 has been having some reports of games that, coming from other systems or past installments, are looking better then ever but feel more recycled and actualy lack features that where seen in other installments, like they did not even bother with them since all they had to do is make the game look nice. 

I still like some of the new games coming out, just a select few of them. For instance, Disgaea and Makai Kingdom showed that you dont need super advanced graphics to make a amazing game. These games had graphics comparable to the PSX on the PS2 but had so much replay value it is unreal. Games like Katamari Damacy are amazingly fun and addictive but the graphics where low-scale to say the least. Romance of the Three kingdoms 10 is very in depth and has many layers to it, but most of the game takes place with menus with well done artwork in the background. All of these games show that you dont need amazing graphics or super advanced technology to make a good game, you just need imagination and talent. 

Its a shame that games like these are becoming less and less popular, giving way to mass media games such as Halo, and Madden, which change very little from game to game and which spawn many similar games, which causes the game market to be flooded by even more effortless attempts to squeaze money out of the gaming market. Still, I have faith that there are many good games out there that have yet to be made that will share the vast amounts of effort and promise that we have seen and expect from classic traditional games...

...Wow, that kinda got a little ranty there... sorry.


----------



## Vgm22 (Jan 27, 2007)

I'm both, but more towards progressionist. I try and stay on top of all the latest games, but that can be hard. Anyway, I still have all my old consoles and games. Looking at how you define both of the definitions, I haven't done a lot of the things in both catagories. Ehh...doesn't really matter, I'm a progressionist anyway.


----------



## Ty_Kitty (Jan 28, 2007)

I'm more or less progressionist, but I disagree with the first item: graphics are nice, but actual gameplay is where it's at.

Oh, plus the classics rule.


----------



## TikiTorch (Jan 31, 2007)

Surprise, surprise, I'm a Halo 2 Junkie.


----------



## Armaetus (Feb 1, 2007)

50-50 gamer


----------



## Draco1991 (Feb 1, 2007)

progressive:
Believe that graphics can vastly improve a game. (A little,I like shiny things.)
Tend to prefer later games in series that "expand upon" the older games.(Yes.)
Constantly stay on top of new releases.(Yepo ^^)
Have all but forgotten the time when "voice cast" wasn't in the credits.(No. I remember playing Sonic 1)
Sell off old systems to buy new ones.( Hellz no. >.< )
Games on the internet like crazy. (Nah...)
Use XBox live to play Halo 2 and the like.(Don't have an XBOX or 360)
Think of things in polygons.(Half and half.)
Will totally pwn you at Gears of War.(I wish!! XD)
Recently finished Final Fantasy XII. ( No. <_< )
Think you remember hearing about something called a "side-scroller" once.(I do remember side-scrollers. 8D)

traditionalist:
Believe that graphics are purely aesthetic, and possibly take away from gameplay.(Not really)
Prefer the older games in series,mostly on their merit of being classic.(Yus! )
Are relatively lax when it comes to keeping up with gamer news.(No. I watchez G4tv.)
Loathe voice actors on principle.(Only if they're god awful. "SonicAdventure" <_< >_> )
Still have that (S)NES hooked up, and you know that Atari's somewhere.(I never had an Atari.)
Doesn't play anything on the internet that was released after '99.(Does Pokemon Net. count? XD)
Used XBox live to download Street FighterII.(Again,I don't have any XBOX.)
Think of things in pixels.(*Nods* ^_^)
Will totally pwn you at Doom3.(Can and will. ) 
Recently finished that old copy of Dragon Warrior...again.(No.)
Wonder what that MMO thing is.(Massively Multi-Player Online Role Playing Game,phew. )


----------



## Red13Nanaki (Feb 3, 2007)

You know I'm a little bit of both.  But I tend to like the older games more.  Especially the ones on Nintendo and such because it wasn't so much about beating most of the games but to see just how far you were able to get.

Graphics add a lot to the gameplay for me but only so much.  Even if the graphics are great doesn't mean that the game won't suck.  Plus games anymore just take too long to beat.  I mean it took me about 100 hours to completely beat Star Ocean:  Till the End of Time.  When you could beat most games on the Sega Genisis and Super Nintendo in just a few hours.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Feb 4, 2007)

I was at Disney Quest yesterday and spent like 2 hours playing the old Atari Arcade games


----------

