> On the subway, it's not uncommon to see people playing games like candy crush on their commute to and from work.

It may have to do with the difference in "I will play this game instead of staring into the void" vs "I will buy that game and set aside time to play it". Would people on the subway play candy crush if they didn't have to commute? There's a fine line, I believe.

And then there's another fine line with regards to what counts as "video game". Is computer chess a video game because it's played on a computer, or is it simply chess? How many people would say "I'm going to play on the computer" vs "I'm going to play some chess" when they're going to play chess on their computer? "Video games" aren't the same as "mobile games" in my opinion, though there are video games on mobile devices, but e.g. Solitaire isn't a video game.

And last but not least: I'm pretty sure most people who play Minesweeper on their commute but aren't otherwise into computer games would self-identify as "gamers".

> It may have to do with the difference in "I will play this game instead of staring into the void" vs "I will buy that game and set aside time to play it". Would people on the subway play candy crush if they didn't have to commute? There's a fine line, I believe.

That seems like a weird distinction to draw, given the numerous other activities you could be doing with that time (reading a book, for example). Clearly, they downloaded candy crush with the intention of playing it. The time they set aside is their commute.

If I purchase a Switch solely to play e.g. Octopath on the subway, am I no longer a "gamer" simply because I'm just using it as an alternative to staring out into the void?

FWIW: IIRC Candy Crush's most popular "day of the week" is Sunday, meaning people ARE setting aside time to play.

> And then there's another fine line with regards to what counts as "video game". Is computer chess a video game because it's played on a computer, or is it simply chess?

Yes, that's true. I think that leads to interesting questions about what qualifies as a video game. Do all the e.g. sim games (bus sim, flight sim, etc.) count as video games? What about Madden/etc?

However, I don't think any of that's relevant here: There's no real-world counterpart to Candy Crush.

> "Video games" aren't the same as "mobile games" in my opinion, though there are video games on mobile devices, but e.g. Solitaire isn't a video game.

I think that's a pretty reductionist view of mobile games, especially given the roots of video games. Candy Crush isn't any more simplistic than say, Ice Climber or Tetris (or substitute that with most other early NES-era games).

I don't think you want to put arbitrary complexity requirements on games to be considered "true games", otherwise we'll have to re-evaluate a lot of titles: E.g. are Telltale games "video games", or are they just choose-your-own-adventures on a computer? What about Tetris?

And that's to say nothing of the other point you mentioned, which is that increasingly "modern" games are available on mobile devices. One of the top sellers on the iOS app store is Minecraft, which I think everyone would consider qualifies as a video game. Epic is currently going through a massive battle with Apple over them kicking Fortnite off the app store.

> And last but not least: I'm pretty sure most people who play Minesweeper on their commute but aren't otherwise into computer games would self-identify as "gamers".

I will posit that is largely because of the stigma around being a "gamer", partially warranted (gaming communities can be notoriously toxic) and partially not.

This is somewhat self-reinforcing because many adults who should identify as "gamers" don't want to be associated with that term (I count myself in that group, which is partially why I'm so passionate about this topic). Viewpoints like "mobile games don't count as real games" don't help either, by excluding everyone but the most diehard.

Again, I think with any other hobby it would be hard for you not to qualify as at least an enthusiast if you spent an appreciable amount of time engaging in it. If I read novels for 2 hours a day, it would be quite appropriate for someone to label me as a "reader".

> That seems like a weird distinction to draw, given the numerous other activities you could be doing with that time (reading a book, for example).

I believe it's similar to the difference between running because you're late and need to catch the bus and going for a run because you want to run. One is the end ("I want to play a game"), the other is a means ("I want to kill time on the train and a book is too complicated").

Tetris isn't a video game in my opinion, but it's a computer game. A video game involves video of some kind of world to move in, be that a football field you're running on, a race track you drive on, or a wasteland you crawl through. Maybe you could make the immersion a distinction, but I'm not sure about it.

> I will posit that is largely because of the stigma around being a "gamer", partially warranted (gaming communities can be notoriously toxic) and partially not.

I don't know. I've never been part of any gaming communities, but there has been a time when I played a lot of games and if asked, I would've said that I'm a gamer. I haven't for years, so I don't consider myself a gamer now.

> Again, I think with any other hobby it would be hard for you not to qualify as at least an enthusiast if you spent an appreciable amount of time engaging in it.

I'm not sure. I've watched a lot of movies but I'd never consider myself a movie buff, I just liked cheap entertainment. I believe it's different with books because there has to be intention, reading isn't the path of least resistance, it requires more intention than candy crush, movies, meme scrolling or listening to music or a pod cast.

Similarly, driving a car to work (or using public transportation) isn't really saying anything about you. Biking to work all year, no matter the weather, is different.

I don't think it's about "gate keeping" as much as wanting clear communication. It's not useful to call everyone a gamer that has ever in their life played a game on an electronic device. It's not useful to call everyone a climber that has ever in their life climbed something, be that a mountain, tree or bunk bed.

And my general opinion: don't worry about identifying yourself as a gamer because of some stigma. People who are worth talking to will usually ask and find out what you're talking about. It may be a good litmus test to quickly sort out those that live by factory made opinions. Don't bother trying to be liked by them.

We're probably unlikely to come to an agreement here, I think because we have fundamentally different opinions on what constitutes a hobbyist (and, I think, also a video game). I really fail to see the difference between someone playing Mario Odyssey on a Switch on the train every day vs. someone playing Candy Crush every day on the train.

If you chose to bike to work every day, I would call you a biker. If you watched a movie every single day, I would say watching movies is a hobby of yours. If you went to a rock climbing gym every day, I would call you a climber.

Driving, and some other fields like cooking, are quite different. You're not choosing to engage in that behavior - it's a requirement for your life. Same with cooking food. You need to get to work, you need to eat. You don't need to play Candy Crush on the train - and obviously, many people don't.

> And my general opinion: don't worry about identifying yourself as a gamer because of some stigma.

I don't mean to be a negative ned, but I'm not talking about the "neckbeard loser" stigma. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, that's probably for the best.