IÂ've been reading David KushnerÂ's Masters of Doom, and though IÂ'll save my larger comments on the book until IÂ've finished reading, a particular discussion in the text sent me wondering about a variety of things. The opening salvos in the battle over violence in video games raged to the backdrop of idÂ's masterpiece. For the first time, the identity of the Â"˜GamerÂ' was called into question as a new breed of entertainment was born. Senators called for industry regulation. Magazines touted video games as a societal cancer, and even those within the industry were no longer entirely certain of their audience. But, what caught my attention was a fracas that erupted between Nintendo Executive Vice President Howard Lincoln and Sega executive William White over the decision by Nintendo to remove blood and fatalities from their console port of Mortal Kombat. To WhiteÂ's accusation that Nintendo was martyring itself to family values, Lincoln responded that he "could not allow [the audience] to be told that somehow the video game business has been transformed today from children to adults. It hasnÂ't been."

You might expect from that intro, that this is going to devolve into yet another insipid round of "Nintendo is for kiddies", but I think we can all agree that, baseless or not, itÂ's a pretty pointless argument. Besides, in 1993 the question of who is buying video games was not so pinpointed by marketing trends, focus groups, and careful research as it is now. It was a time when the average age of a gamer was assumed, but not measured; when mainstream gaming was by and large a past time for youth, and the oldest gamers tended to be in their early twenties. The possibility that the Â"˜gaming phaseÂ' might pass was still a viable rationalization for desperate parents. Sure Timmy wore a D&D t-shirt, spent $300 of a broadsword, nearly failed his last semester at Tech U because he couldnÂ't stop playing Doom, but maybe, just maybe, when he graduated this whole gaming phase would pass. DonÂ't be too quick to condemn LincolnÂ's comments for misjudging the changing demographic of his audience. Most gamers didnÂ't have a clue either.

The problem is, and always has been, that the portrait of a gamer is a surprisingly elusive one. As is usually the case for stereotypes, the cliché is often dramatically far off target. Like sociopaths and Celine Dion fans, most gamers blend into the madding crowd, and can not be recognized at a simple glance. ItÂ's for these people, these gamers, that the Sega Genesis first challenged NintendoÂ's dominance by providing entertainment that did not just appeal to the 10 and under crowd, that sported realistic blood, that encouraged combat, that approached mature themes.

I am a gamer, and always have been. A slave to the machine, if you will, since I first played Pong at the back of a sandwich shop in Alabama. I was a gamer in Pennsylvania winters playing Space Invaders at a bar and grill near my fatherÂ's office. I was a gamer when my Atari 800 found itself wedged under a Christmas tree. I was a gamer when I rode my dirt bike under a Baton Rouge sun to plug quarters into the Donkey Kong and Asteroids machines at the 7/11. I was a gamer when I played the BardÂ's Tale and Ultima IV on my Apple IIc in Dallas. I was a gamer for the years when we did not have a computer, when I first played Final Fantasy on my Super Nintendo, when I bought my Voodoo Banshee, when I helped found a computer gaming club, when I wrote my first article for a gaming website, and I am still a gamer now.

But, am I the kind of gamer that Howard Lincoln could have envisioned in 1993? Do I even fit the stereotype now?

I am not a computer science major. I do not work with computers or the internet professionally. I do not listen to heavy metal, or industrial, or even particularly independent music. I own an economy car, but not a single bumper sticker. I donÂ't watch anime, though I can at least appreciate it as an art form. I donÂ't own a gun. I donÂ't have a single Â"˜gamingÂ' shirt, nothing with a controller or my favorite Final Fantasy character. I donÂ't even actually have a favorite Final Fantasy character, and when Aeris died, I didnÂ't even get misty eyed. I own a house. I have spent my own money to see Itzhak Perlman perform, to see Pavarotti sing, to watch Gil Shaham perform VivaldiÂ's Four Seasons. I attend plays, and I am as likely to watch a historical drama as I am a visual effects blockbuster. I donÂ't drink. I donÂ't smoke (anymore). I donÂ't use illegal drugs, though I always have some Claritin handy. I am married, socially well adjusted. I played varsity sports in high school, was even on Homecoming court one year - though that was a series of possibly happy accidents. I am educated, a college graduate. When people like Joe Lieberman picture a Gamer, they probably picture the opposite of me, and yet here I am running my own gaming website. I wonder, am I the exception to the rule, or the rule itself?

In a world where things are first classified and then treated under the classification and not the changing face of the thing itself, what is it to be an adult gamer? I wonder, when Howard Lincoln envisions a gamer now, what springs to mind? Who are gamers to Joseph Lieberman? What is a gamer to you?

- Elysium