Goldenroad
Member
I think you are just talking about the people around you of a certain age at a certain time. It is still fairly widely accepted for kids to play video games and even more widely accepted for adults to as well.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Were gamers more socially accepted in 2000 than in 2014?
- Thread starter Alucard
- Start date
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Gaming is more socially accepted in terms of having become increasingly unremarkable. Because it's everywhere, in some form, largely thanks to mobile devices.
However, the perception that gaming is not as accepted as it is, is still commonly broadcast to the public because the "guardians of the median" tend to be older people or people steeped in an entrenched, dated culture. Talking heads on television, celebrities, sportscast commentators, educators, etc. These people are often so far behind the times, their perception of computer games is literally from 1985 even if they themselves are not that old. These people and their tier of culture is why, as others have said, change takes time.
However, the perception that gaming is not as accepted as it is, is still commonly broadcast to the public because the "guardians of the median" tend to be older people or people steeped in an entrenched, dated culture. Talking heads on television, celebrities, sportscast commentators, educators, etc. These people are often so far behind the times, their perception of computer games is literally from 1985 even if they themselves are not that old. These people and their tier of culture is why, as others have said, change takes time.
Only a small subgroup knows/cares about gamersgate. And because you are now older and active on forums like this, discussions like this catch your attention. But that discussion is by no means a representation of how socially accepted gaming is in general (and it probably differs among countries a lot too).
I always thought True Life: I'm a gamer did an okay job of summing up gaming in the early 2000s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwidnqfpHHY
you've got Fatality making a living off Unreal
Golden Tee guy (that game was at every bar and is still at the ones that don't know what the hell to do with it.)
The den of nerds that have every game and live to game
and a bit of Billy Mitchell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwidnqfpHHY
you've got Fatality making a living off Unreal
Golden Tee guy (that game was at every bar and is still at the ones that don't know what the hell to do with it.)
The den of nerds that have every game and live to game
and a bit of Billy Mitchell
I was/am like the den of nerds guys
except without the other people around
Yes and no. It largely depends on where you are geographically, socially and in terms of work which will influence those around you and their perceptions on gaming and everything. I think the overall societal stigma is still rather large in regards to who plays games and how it's viewed compared to other forms of media and entertainment despite how huge it is economically. I think it's mostly viewed today as more acceptable simply because it's gotten bigger, though not so much broader, and far more profitable, not because it's actually more acceptable, just harder to ignore. There's millions of young men and adult men spending hundreds and thousands of dollars a year on games, that's kind of hard to keep low key and low exposure.
There is still a great divide between gaming enthusiasts and the general public with regards to mobile games and, for lack of a better term, casual gamers. Most people play mobile games but would never consider themselves a gamer, playing something on their phone or tablet is not something they equate to playing a game on a console or PC, regardless of the complexity. Those games are either free or very cheap, they would never spend hundreds of dollars on a gaming system or PC and the price of retail games at $60 a pop. Even some people who do buy consoles for those runaway successes like Rock Band and other party games and systems like the Wii, it's still a novelty to them and they eventually just sit in a cabinet collecting dust.
Most adults, especially among women and older generations, still look at games as a juvenile male activity. It's something for kids and teens to do, like actions cartoons and comics. Young men or adult men that still spend a lot of time and money on it are still commonly seen as immature and childish, like it's an odd penchant they've yet to grow out of, but hopefully will soon. For most people it's probably not that passive aggressive but no one, or very few, refer to playing games as a positive in any way like someone who reads a lot or enjoys movies. It's a guilty pleasure at best to many.
It's gotten better in a lot of ways, there are certainly a lot more women and older adults playing games, of all kinds, and with much more acceptance and enthusiasm, but the numbers, at least in terms of general acceptance of gaming, don't appear to be that large. More people are playing games than they were, I just don't think it's to the degree or in the way yet that will establish gaming as just another form of entertainment. Hopefully it will soon.
In the end the gaming culture is still a thing, something I find rather bizarre and absurd, and most importantly it's inextricably attached to internet culture, for all the good and, a bit too often, bad that provides. I can't imagine many people on the outside of gaming aren't looking in and being completely turned off by many facets of what make up gaming culture. Which is a barrier for outsiders to penetrate by virtue of the fact that existing makes it exclusionary, not even taking into account the very negative aspects of it that would further put them off. We still have a ways to go before gaming becomes universally accepted.
There is still a great divide between gaming enthusiasts and the general public with regards to mobile games and, for lack of a better term, casual gamers. Most people play mobile games but would never consider themselves a gamer, playing something on their phone or tablet is not something they equate to playing a game on a console or PC, regardless of the complexity. Those games are either free or very cheap, they would never spend hundreds of dollars on a gaming system or PC and the price of retail games at $60 a pop. Even some people who do buy consoles for those runaway successes like Rock Band and other party games and systems like the Wii, it's still a novelty to them and they eventually just sit in a cabinet collecting dust.
Most adults, especially among women and older generations, still look at games as a juvenile male activity. It's something for kids and teens to do, like actions cartoons and comics. Young men or adult men that still spend a lot of time and money on it are still commonly seen as immature and childish, like it's an odd penchant they've yet to grow out of, but hopefully will soon. For most people it's probably not that passive aggressive but no one, or very few, refer to playing games as a positive in any way like someone who reads a lot or enjoys movies. It's a guilty pleasure at best to many.
It's gotten better in a lot of ways, there are certainly a lot more women and older adults playing games, of all kinds, and with much more acceptance and enthusiasm, but the numbers, at least in terms of general acceptance of gaming, don't appear to be that large. More people are playing games than they were, I just don't think it's to the degree or in the way yet that will establish gaming as just another form of entertainment. Hopefully it will soon.
In the end the gaming culture is still a thing, something I find rather bizarre and absurd, and most importantly it's inextricably attached to internet culture, for all the good and, a bit too often, bad that provides. I can't imagine many people on the outside of gaming aren't looking in and being completely turned off by many facets of what make up gaming culture. Which is a barrier for outsiders to penetrate by virtue of the fact that existing makes it exclusionary, not even taking into account the very negative aspects of it that would further put them off. We still have a ways to go before gaming becomes universally accepted.
Serious question: what does 'gamer' even mean?
Growing up, I feel like 'gamer' was never this all-inclusive identity that people hung their hat on, it was always just part of the background radiation of life. Sure, some folks got more into it than others, but it was something that you did, it wasn't something that you were.
I feel like 'gamer' is a marketing demographic invented by the PR departments in order to drive sales.
Growing up, I feel like 'gamer' was never this all-inclusive identity that people hung their hat on, it was always just part of the background radiation of life. Sure, some folks got more into it than others, but it was something that you did, it wasn't something that you were.
I feel like 'gamer' is a marketing demographic invented by the PR departments in order to drive sales.
Not really. This latest instantiation of the conflict (over the politics of inclusion) began with a few scathing criticisms of self-defined "gamer" culture. In response, the GamerGate folks circled the wagons and tried to rescue the term "gamer" and what they believe it stands for. The argument may not be about the term "gamer," but the debate has absolutely used the term as its focal point.
PseudoViper
Member
A lot of things are more socially accepted now-a-days.
Nobody knew what the fuck a gamer was in 2000. It was only more socially acceptable because it was obscure enough to be ignored.
Now it's basically ubiquitous. Microsoft paid 2.5b for a game. That's over half of what Disney paid for Lucasarts, for example. Not only is gaming socially accepted, it's expected if you own a smartphone.
Thanks 50 Shades of Gray.
Now it's basically ubiquitous. Microsoft paid 2.5b for a game. That's over half of what Disney paid for Lucasarts, for example. Not only is gaming socially accepted, it's expected if you own a smartphone.
Thanks 50 Shades of Gray.
I think you're quite mistaken. Being a 'gamer' back then was highly stigmatized and even with it being a bit more mainstream nowadays, still is.
Go on, I dare any of you, when in a job interview and the employer asks what your personal interests are, to name 'video games' and honestly admit how big of a gamer you are.
That's a poor metric. Playing games isn't stigmatized. Like everything else, it has its own time and place. There are many other things I also shouldn't talk about in a professional interview, but that doesn't mean they're "stigmatized." And off the top of my head I can think of a solid half dozen industries where talking about games in an interview would not just be acceptable, it would be a plus.
PseudoViper
Member
I don't think games are stigmatized in any special way. You pretty much can't admit to being a geek about anything in a job interview. You could probably overstate your love for sports just as easily.
It's about the tactfulness you employ when you state it as a hobby. People get instantly annoyed by overt geekiness at the outset, no matter the hobby.
It's about the tactfulness you employ when you state it as a hobby. People get instantly annoyed by overt geekiness at the outset, no matter the hobby.
This right here. People keep latching on to 'gamer' as if that is the be-all-end-all of someone's identity; it's not about games in particular, but obsessive behavior in general.
RurouniZel
Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
Oh sure, if you're looking to get in the 3D graphics or video game industry, but I would say that movies and fashion are FAR preferable to mention in a job interview. They are not stigmatized whatsoever and are entirely 'normal' interests to have.
There are definitely a lot of negative stereotypes associated with 'gamers' still. Another example, tell a girl you don't know that well on a first date how big a gamer you are. Its honest, but I think, on average, that will be considered a 'negative' against you in their mind. Hopefully you'll get a girl who is open-minded or might even play some games too, but don't think for a second that it might well hurt your chances more than anything. I'm sure somebody will want to respond, "Oh well who cares if they think like that, obviously they aren't a cool/reasonable/whatever person", but the point is that the negative stereotype is REAL. It does exist.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Not how I felt at all. When I was 8th grade I remember hiding the fact that I had a Nintendo 64. Everyone was just smoking weed and talking about getting hammered. Video games only came up when talking about going to an internet cafe together.
On TV I remember being horrified when a news ancor was baffled by a grown ass man in his mid 30s spending 10 hours a week on video games, and I remember thinking "Either I will have to give up this hobby when I grow up, or just be an outcast for the rest of my life". Now adays it couldnt be more different.
Games is like one of the biggest mainstream pass times of adult men, and it can now compare with hollywood, superbowl and other things. Back when I started browsing Neogaf people went ballistic when Xbox was on a episode of friends. These days, nobody would bat an eyelid. Gaming is so integral to western society. So I think its a lot more accepted than it used to be.
I just saw an episode of CSI(might have been a different police procedural) on the TV at work. A shootout happened at an isp, the scene cut to an emormous man about in his 30s in front of a computer screen wtih a headset on, saying something insane (Lord mcguffin will destroy you with the sword of... or something like that.) He's clearly in an unlit basement.
A window blinks on the screen saying connection lost and he loses his mind, incoherent noises and flailing. He begins to pound on his router with a closed fist while cursing.
After beating his equipment doesn't fix the issue he starts hollaring for his mother. "MOM!!! MOMMMM THE INTERNET'S DOOOOOOWN" as he continues to pound on the router.
then it cuts back to the main individuals. Near as I could tell, that whole thing was just a throwaway.
So no.
A window blinks on the screen saying connection lost and he loses his mind, incoherent noises and flailing. He begins to pound on his router with a closed fist while cursing.
After beating his equipment doesn't fix the issue he starts hollaring for his mother. "MOM!!! MOMMMM THE INTERNET'S DOOOOOOWN" as he continues to pound on the router.
then it cuts back to the main individuals. Near as I could tell, that whole thing was just a throwaway.
So no.
Braag
Member
lol... yeah back then people almost saw you as a freak if you played games avidly.
The episode of Law and Order SVU called "avatar" is something special and a pretty interesting take on how TV creators, if not society, still see gamers.
Canis lupus
Member
No. Gaming was just becoming socially acceptable around 2000 with the PS1 and PS2 making gaming cool, it was just shedding off the geek/children toys image from the previous gens. Gaming has never been more socially accepted as it is now.
The mainstream doesn't give a shit about the Gamergate stuff, hell I'm on gaf and that stuff just flew me by. Also I've never considered myself a gamer or know anyone irl who does.
I'd say it is more socially accepted today, but it doesn't have to great an image attatched to it. Back in the early 2000s is around when I think people began to accept that video games aren't just a form of entertainment for young kids, but most people still didn't have a good idea of what video games or who played it. If you played video games you were just that anonymous (weird) guy who played video games.
Now more people acknowledge it as a legitimate form of entertainment (and more), but there's a specific set of ideas of what video games and "gaming culture" is like, that isn't all that flattering.
Now more people acknowledge it as a legitimate form of entertainment (and more), but there's a specific set of ideas of what video games and "gaming culture" is like, that isn't all that flattering.
Depends what the job is for... I've told my future employers that I've developed video games (with XNA and other game making tools) during interviews, but then again my job is in development so geeky hobbies are pretty much expected in that line of work.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Playing games is more accepted today, just because more people play games. However, being a hardcore geeky gamer probably hasn't really gotten that much more acceptance because it's more of what level of interest and intensity that might be considered healthy and 'normal' and what is not.
Solid SOAP
Member
I think it's kinda silly to place any kind of title on yourself like that, really. What, so if you enjoy watching movies, are you like... a Movie Man? If you love to read, are you a Bookie? I think video games are a valid art form and I love to play them, but I'm not a "gamer." I don't know why people like placing titles like that unto themselves, it removes your sense of individuality, which ironically places a lot of attention to yourself by saying "Well, I'm THIS, so get used to it!"
I make a similar argument to "Bronies." Like My Little Pony? Awesome, why do you have to make that a focal character trait to yourself?
To answer the question: Yes, it's more socially acceptable to play video games, but I don't think that anyone who makes a point to let others know that the most important part about them is that they play video games is going to get them very far socially.
I make a similar argument to "Bronies." Like My Little Pony? Awesome, why do you have to make that a focal character trait to yourself?
To answer the question: Yes, it's more socially acceptable to play video games, but I don't think that anyone who makes a point to let others know that the most important part about them is that they play video games is going to get them very far socially.
Freeman
Banned
Now we have twitter a shit like that, it creates the impression that people care more than they actually do.
In my personal experience, not much has changed, some people like games more than the others, some people see it as a waste of time an we see some other things as a waste of time as well.
I guess that smartphones and the Wii got more people into gaming and maybe we have more woman playing traditional games than before, but the overall landscape is the same.
In my personal experience, not much has changed, some people like games more than the others, some people see it as a waste of time an we see some other things as a waste of time as well.
I guess that smartphones and the Wii got more people into gaming and maybe we have more woman playing traditional games than before, but the overall landscape is the same.
What's #GamerGate? Easy! This will just take a minute to sum up. Here's your pocket-sized guide:
=======================
1) stuff that is of middling importance, valid debates to had, questions of the "are journalists too friendly with the devs and publishers" and "females are discussed as a minority party, but what about the other minorities?" variety. Good social and ethical questions that we can work through (and have been, and will continue to, as the industry goes through its current flux state) over the coming years. This isn't critical stuff, that must be answered for and looked into now, or hell shall burst forth and gobble us whole. Valid issues, just not super flashy warning signs valid.
2) stuff that is fucking despicable and makes me ashamed to be a part of this community. That certain individuals will, in the eyes of thousands, tens of thousands, likely be treated with anything from wariness up to outright contempt all because of a pack of lies stated with the explicit intention of slurring their name. That countless women have expressed fear, hesitancy and doubts about their gaming hobby/career/prospective career in light of all this bullshit. That we have actually lost writers from the industry as a direct result of this targeted gender persecution. In my opinion, these things are the valid super flashy warning signs.
=======================
Damn, sorry. Not quite so simple and quick. I guess I hope you have large pockets.
With all the above in mind, if you have any further questions on the hashtag, it might be best to use the dedicated thread. I dunno. I'd rather not turn this into another #GG topic. That talk is all over there --->
=======================
- There's a group of dicks on the internet who spend their time together in IRC chatrooms talking foul shit about Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn. This goes way back. They have problems with outspoken feminist types muscling in on their Boys Club or something.
- Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend posts a novella-length blog (TheZoePost) in which he tears into every single aspect of Quinn's character, branding her deceitful, manipulative, etc. and goes on to describe several people who she cheated on him with, some of whom are in the games industry. The whole blog post is super awkward and screams "I'm not handling this break-up well at all."
- The IRC-turds get hold of the blog and, with renewed vigor, set about plotting how to ruin Quinn's career / cause her as much misery as possible. They make all manner of allegations about how she slept around a bunch for better reviews to her game, uses people only to get what she wants, etc. etc. They try to manipulate Twitter as much as they can to get some publicity but it's a bit damp.
- At this point, several websites (forums / news) make it clear that they aren't going to tolerate threads on the allegations made against Quinn, baseless as they appeared (and proved to be) and due to that whole "uuh.. not really any of our business! private sex life! seriously!" thing. This causes several conspiracy theories to suddenly pop, cystlike, claiming that Quinn is being protected by her media buddies. IRC records suggest these accusations come from the same anti-Quinn/Sarkeesian group. The Twitter fire is stoked anew, but not yet aflame proper. Whilst all this is going on, the anti-Quinn/Sarkeesian crew are mobilising whoever they can (anon-boards) to harass the shit out of Quinn and friends/supporters.
- A few days after all this kicks off, Anita Sarkeesian releases her latest Tropes Vs Women In Videogames piece. There's always a shitstorm around these releases from the usual suspects, but this time it's a little bit more fiery and adds weight to the Quinn-targeted attacks on Twitter, etc. One feeds the other, some cross-pollenation of two ugly parties where they didn't already overlap.
- Someone makes a Youtube video, or series of videos, I don't know, these being the 'FiveGuys' stuff. Someone sends it to Adam Baldwin, well-known Firefly/Chuck actor and right-wing extremist jackass. Baldwin tweets the FiveGuys videos on his account (lots of followers) with the hashtag #GamerGate before them. Now the Twitter fire is getting hot.
- But wait, there's one more ingredient to add: the media has had a week or so to stew with all the Quinn character assassination stuff, rampant with sexism, anti-feminist language, harassment, plus the renewed voices railing against Sarkeesian's observations. It's noisier than it's been in the past, female persecution is a hot topic. As shouldn't be too surprising, several (think six or so) sites all publish opinion pieces covering the same vague topic at the same time, spread over a few days. These are the 'Death of the "Gamer"' articles. The "gamer" in question in all these articles refers to a the social term, and how useful it now is this day and age, in some cases going so far as to suggest that simply by identifying as a "gamer" (think, "I'm a hardcore gamer, you're a casual gamer" type mindset), you might be showing that you belong in the developing minority, losing your previous relevance across the consumer-base. One piece in particular, Leigh Alexander's, is particularly fiery in its language (as Alexander is wont to be in her writing).
- People who identify as a gamer think they're being attacked. Personally. It's widely misunderstood that anybody who plays games is having their worth put into question.
- The Baldwin tweet, the Sarkeesian video and the 'death of the 'Gamer"' thing all happen around the same time.
- #GamerGate explodes. Pretty much overnight.
- You have people who just want to end the careers of Quinn/Sarkeesian (these people are doing cartwheels right now). You have people who are convinced that the Press
eveloper relationship is rotten to the core, crying out for more transparency in reviews, journos stating all sources no exceptions, journos refusing work if any friends are involved, etc. You have people demanding that Sarkeesian-like art critique (SJW bitching) is stripped from all reviews, lest the integrity of the medium be fundamentally changed to something 'forced'. Straight-faced accusations of "too much subjectivity in reviews" is thrown around. All in all a few moderate, valid concerns amidst a whole shitshow of nastiness and harassment. - Twitter goes full battlemode with grim behaviour rearing its head on both sides as angry rears up to challenge ugly.
- During this more opinion pieces are written, published. Two extremely well-regarded female writers are harassed (threats to home and family, among other such jolly things) to the point that they don't feel like it's worth staying in the videogames writing business. They leave the industry, exceptionally upset.
- I think it's around this point that GamerGate begins to lose its initial fire and reveal a rather ugly misogynistic, harassment-driven undertone. It gets called out in various outlets, forums, sites. At this point a new hashtag joins the party, #NotYourShield, with minorities (anyone non-white, male, straight, etc.) purporting to decry any and all individuals who would want to denounce #GamerGate on their (the minority's) part. Tweets such as "I'm a latino lesbian who is proud to be a gamer, #NotYourShield" etc. abound.
- Zoe Quinn reveals she's been lurking the IRC channels and has kept logs of all the stuff that's been going on behind the scenes of those driving (or attempting to at least) the Twitter fire. Logs show all the initial plans to end Quinn and Sarkeesian's career, the Baldwin excitement, the planned mobilisation of \v\, guided usage of #NotYourShield as a very timely distraction to deflect accusations of misogyny, Quinn's ex-boyfriend showing up in the chat and advising how on the best social-engineering angles to take Quinn down, astroturfing and sockpuppeteering, extended discussion on what Quinn's vagina smells like, etc. etc. The logs are extensive and I'm not sure they're fully scoured even now.
- At this point, the hashtag is pretty much its own entity now however. There are several parties who are along for the ride, some passionate and with valid objections, some extremely passionate (aggressively so) and with extremely objectionable objections, some just to help guide the bus into Quinn's home, some just for the lulz.
- The last week or so has been full of charming GamerGate activities ranging from several (false) accusations levied on Quinn and Sarkeesian (Quinn accused of lying about donations to charity, Sarkeesian accused of lying about calling authorities, blah blah), through to downright odd (cool?) actions like 'spitedonating' to Quinn's chosen charity in an attempt to beat her score "we raised more than you, you suck, nerr nerr" Oh, and said charity was put under extreme stress at some point as the usual crowd went about pointing their campaign of harassment on this tiny organisation.
- As it stands, the origins of the movement are now murky, uncared for by users (and the hashtag is filled with conspiracy types anyway). There's a lot of angry people, all angry at different things. There's a few genuine discussions to pick out of the noise, if you can stand said noise.
1) stuff that is of middling importance, valid debates to had, questions of the "are journalists too friendly with the devs and publishers" and "females are discussed as a minority party, but what about the other minorities?" variety. Good social and ethical questions that we can work through (and have been, and will continue to, as the industry goes through its current flux state) over the coming years. This isn't critical stuff, that must be answered for and looked into now, or hell shall burst forth and gobble us whole. Valid issues, just not super flashy warning signs valid.
2) stuff that is fucking despicable and makes me ashamed to be a part of this community. That certain individuals will, in the eyes of thousands, tens of thousands, likely be treated with anything from wariness up to outright contempt all because of a pack of lies stated with the explicit intention of slurring their name. That countless women have expressed fear, hesitancy and doubts about their gaming hobby/career/prospective career in light of all this bullshit. That we have actually lost writers from the industry as a direct result of this targeted gender persecution. In my opinion, these things are the valid super flashy warning signs.
=======================
Damn, sorry. Not quite so simple and quick. I guess I hope you have large pockets.
With all the above in mind, if you have any further questions on the hashtag, it might be best to use the dedicated thread. I dunno. I'd rather not turn this into another #GG topic. That talk is all over there --->