Stephen King once said something like : "In order to write books,you need to read books". Do you think the same ideea is good for gaming too? In my opinion,yes. By playing a game you get to know simple things which you will have to work on later.For example,spotlights,camera types etc. Sure you can get an ideea on how they work by reading about them,but it's not the same as experiencing them.

What do you think?

Having a good idea of what works ( and doesn't work ) for other games is a good thing, however I would caution against studying a game so closely, that you end up making a clone.

One should play games because they are fun

I think it is a good idea to play games if you make games.

Unless you work at EA.

gamers probably make the best developers (IE designers). so if you're designing, as opposed to implemeting, games as your preferred form of entertainment helps.

I would like to see a game made by non-gamer. It would probably be very different from other games.

I don't know a more general term, paying attention and thinking about what someone says in order to respond is active listening. Before you can listen actively and quickly respond you spend time as a baby being passive and trying to understand a language.

You'll be able to deepen your understanding of games by playing them, but if you haven't ever actively played even once then you have not ever designed a game, and your first response will probably be predictable "I have an idea, the idea of that last game I played only 'different' would make such a great game".

I've read some Stephen King too.

Games, like an creative endeavour, can be experienced in many ways.

You can enjoy them at a superficial level, admiring the graphics, sound, mechanics, etc.

You can look for a deeper meaning. Maybe the creator was trying to say something (use of metaphor, etc.)

But you can also appreciate what's going on at a "technical" level. And by that, I don't necessarily mean engines and optimisations.
I mean looking at how it was designed, the artistic choices. I know amateur writers and film-makers and musicians who will often experience their medium with a critical eye, looking for certain plot devices, camera shots or musical phrasings.

If you intend to work in any creative medium, you should study the "great works" of that medium. Why should gaming be any different?

'Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.' - Pablo Picasso

IMO playing bad games are much better for the sake of learning. Just like seeing bad movies for the sake of writing.

Good stuff will be good in many aspects, things get obfuscated, hard to dissect, and you will get immersed and totally lose focus for the meta stuff.

gamers probably make the best developers (IE designers)

This comment made me laugh. I've taken part (as a developer) in lots of focus groups for all sorts of games I've worked on over the years. Gamers in general spend very little time thinking about how to improve games, or even what type of games they want to play. I've heard the absolute stupidest answers to questions on ways to improve the game (for the record, not a good question to ask), and the stupid far outweighs the one or two decent and thoughtful replies that get drowned out.

A very minuscule subset of gamers would be suitable as game designers in my opinion. With that said, I would imagine that most designers ARE gamers simply because usually the best people are ones that are drawn to and consumed by their passion.

To answer the original question, I think that it's important to play games if you are wanting to build a cutting edge experience inspired by what's out there. On the other hand I think a non-gamer COULD theoretically come up with something very unique and interesting simply by not being influenced by what is already out there.