Why do video games still have a negative reputation? - Games

I am 20 and for as long as I can remember I have always wanted to be a game designer. One of my peeves is that we live in the year 2014 and I still see people who frown upon or look down on video games. I am really peeved by this because most of these people don't look down on television or movies. Heck movies and TV are more respected than gaming and I find it irritating. I know the common view of video games is that they are pointless at best, violent, addictive, and harmful for its users. I have been trying to search for benefits and pros about video games but so far there arn't that many. I always thought that this whole thing will blow over like how people have always feared new media: like comic books, radio, movies, and television have all once been blamed for societies ills. Do you think video games will ever become respected? Will games negative reputation last forever?

They're considered childish by large portions of society, plus their addictive factor doesn't help the reputation Much like any of the hobbies, or bits of media you mentioned, there will always be someone opposing them.

Media attention doesn't help with all their violent portrayals.

Do games still have a negative reputation? Compared to like a decade ago there's been a lot of progress pushing them into the mainstream. No one in our generation and very few in the one above us look down on video games.

Everyone plays games these days it's acceptable

[QUOTE=Doozle;45970066]Everyone plays games these days it's acceptable[/QUOTE] Not in Poland; it would be very problematic for me to find people with the age above 40 who actually play video games. And, obviously, that group of people still sees video games negatively, mostly because some notable TV stations still criticize them and the people who play them.

Video games are culturally speaking still pretty new, but their interactivity makes them something really unique. In no other form of media you can influence the actions or certain thought patterns of a consumer better than in a really immersive game in which the player is constantly influencing his surroundings. Watching a movie will give most of its viewers the same experience because it is a static product, while a single video game can have the potential to create many unique experiences (depending on the game's freedom). Another important difference is the amount of time you spend on a video game to fully enjoy it. Watching a movie takes up to two hours, while a game can take much longer to be completed (don't forget open-ended games like Skyrim). I believe many "gaming outsiders" simply can't imagine consuming something in that extense without tagging it as addiction. But as few posted before, gaming became more accepted as part of culture, which has its blessings and curses.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;45970065]Do games still have a negative reputation? Compared to like a decade ago there's been a lot of progress pushing them into the mainstream. No one in our generation and very few in the one above us look down on video games.[/QUOTE] I think that they do in some places. I'm shocked that this is 2014 and there are people who still look at video games negatively. I do believe that gaming is more mainstream now a days but still I think it is ridiculous that people still look down or frown upon it.

Many times its not the game itself that is getting rated "dumb" but the company itself. Take The Sims 4 as an example; The graphics are great and the game works great, but the company behind it was voted a couple times "The worst company in NA"... Take HL2 as an example too .. The Game looks great and it works very well, but the company behind it didnt stop there: They added a SDK, developed a whole new gaming platform and continues to support its users since day 1. People actually care about the company and the results are images like this: [t]http://i.imgur.com/Sp5WYrO.jpg[/t] [img]http://i.imgur.com/6nH3sPC.jpg[/img]

Valve are okay, but don't pretend their shit doesn't stink. Such as: - trading cards - online-at-login DRM - [URL="http://www.wired.com/2013/07/wireduk-valve-jeri-ellsworth/"]internal politics where the popular kids get to call the shots[/URL] - [URL="http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-08-18-customers-are-worthless-puppy-games"]shitting all over the value of games with reckless sales[/URL] - implementing user reviews (which are admittedly pretty good) instead of doing any actual quality control - letting games [URL="http://store.steampowered.com/app/226700/"]change[/URL] their [URL="http://store.steampowered.com/app/104900/"]names[/URL] eg. to fool people into thinking it's a new product - letting back catalogue games [URL="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/217877/New_Steam_games_vie_for_visibility_against_older_back_catalog_games.php"]shove actually new games off the front page[/URL], denying them much-needed visibility Honestly, Valve barely care for the consumer any more than the usual big game developer, they just know consumers like to buy lots of games they'll never play.

It's a generational thing, I don't think it's accurate to say they're not acceptable but a lot of people don't "get" them. Lack of understanding does not always equal disapproval. You can also thank the popular media. [editline]13th September 2014[/editline] You're also forgetting that there's a lot of titles that ARE accessible but aren't often counted. Even your grandma can play Wii Sports or Brain training on a DS and that in its own way makes them a gamer without any of the negative connotations. [editline]13th September 2014[/editline] Considering virtually every 'respectable' publication from Forbes to The Times of London have game critics it's not hard to see the industry has come a very long way.

[QUOTE=MegaJohnny;45971666] - trading cards[/QUOTE] what's wrong with trading cards exactly? I've made like $15 just off selling that shit

Is this your yearly gaming questionnaire? [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1287564[/url]

Short answer: Old people living longer than ever.

Because how the industry loves to roll in its own feces and then standing outside your window asking you to let them in.

I think it's mostly old media not wanting to die and trying to delay being replaced by new media. On top of that, sharing information on the internet is really easy to do and usually cheap, which doesn't conform with traditional models of monetization. If you're a big shot, status quo is what you want. Who knows if you'll still be a big shot if status quo changes. Change is risky, it's expensive, so you're trying to stall it as much as possible before biting the bullet or jumping ship entirely. I think it's just a matter of time before nobody will think twice about something like the reputation of videogames and people will wonder how people were ever capable of watching a movie on TV, cut up in 15-20 minute chunks with 5 minute ads inbetween and only available when the broadcaster felt like it.