(pssst... it's not a good idea in any situation to take me seriously. just so you know. no getting mad when the goofball opens her mouth.)
So. This isn't really a Becoming: Gamer installment - consider it my first nitpick in the world of Gamer, rather. I think I deserve one after two weeks. :P
Let's just say I've got the game situation under control. I gave Harry Potter to my brother, who told me to buy it in the first place, and I've confiscated the family copy of Pokemon Ruby. Sure, an 8 year old could play it, but it's a format I'm familiar with, and, more importantly, it involves no jumping. NO jumping. Yay.
I still don't believe that you have to be good at jumping or the like to be a gamer. If that's true, then I ought to quit right now. But I don't think it is. A few of you commented in the affirmative - you, like me, believe that not all games are about pixelated jumping. That's nice to hear. But I discovered this past week that most games that are jump-free or sport-free seem to fall under the category of, well, "Role-Playing". And that, in fact, even Pokemon is considered a role-playing game.
Role-playing. I don't think so.
Look, I may be a geek, but that is NOT my bag, baby. I am very happy in this particular set of bones and skin, and when I do pretend to be someone else, I stick to stages full of lights and people bringing me pretty things in my dressing rooms. And I know that not all geeks role-play.
Here's my argument. Aren't all games role-playing? I mean, you're obviously not in the game yourself - you're controlling something or someone. Will the new Matrix game be considered a role-playing game? I mean, does it make it less of a role-play depending on how many things you shoot or stuff you jump over?
Is the label Role-Playing just slapped onto games that seem to fit in no other category? That is, games that we uneducated few can play without confusion or fear? Yes, mortal fear. Shut up.
I don't know. Help me out, guys. I'm confused.