Why do so many people badmouth video games?

Depends on the games, I guess. Multiplayer games can provide ample opportunity for social interaction, especially in these days of headsets. Is a couple hours of talking to friends over a Monopoly board really more beneficial than a couple hours of talking to friends over Call of Duty or World of Warcraft? I’m not talking about calling people fucktards for “playing wrong” but actual banter and chatter with friends. You could make an argument about “direct” contact but I could make a point about meeting people from all around the country if not the world which isn’t likely to happen at a board game down the street.

Likewise, I’d say that a lot of games help develop critical thinking and/or teamwork skills. It’s hard to pin down because there’s such a wide array of games and someone’s take-away from Mario Kart is different than what they get from Crusader Kings II. But I’ve also been inspired by games to look into historical events ranging from the Reconquista to the Chernobyl disaster. I took a Latin American history course once and was amused that I had most of the Caribbean geography down from a bajillion hours of Sid Meiers’ Pirates! as an early teen. The Metro and Stalker series introduced me to Russian science fiction I’d have likely never read otherwise.

Finally, I’d dispute your implication that sewing or cooking is a more “real” hobby or skillset. The virtual world is real. It’s an enterprise worth billions. Maybe it won’t be worth much if society collapses and we all become road warriors but, until then, there’s bank to be made in growing an interest in gaming, virtual economies, computer networking, etc. Most people will never pursue it that far just as most novice seamstresses won’t be displaying their works in Paris but that’s what makes it a hobby and recreation.

This isn’t a defense of gaming as better than any other hobby. For me, “hobby” means recreation and if you’re enjoying yourself I don’t think it’s any more valid if you’re doing one thing over the other. And I would never argue that every gamer is reaping tangible benefits. I do think you’re selling gaming short against other recreational activities.

In order to make this distinction, however, you are now expanding the word “hobby” to an extent that stretches its normal use beyond any reasonable level. Learning a language is a hell of a lot more than a “hobby.” I suspect the number of people who can point to learning new languages as their “hobby” is a very small number indeed.

Similarly, when you say “woodworking,” what do you mean? Screwing around in a garage, which is a hobby but isn’t anything useful, or actually engaging in, say, home renovations or selling things - which is beyond being a hobby?

Let’s look at some classic hobbies - like stamp collecting. Exactly what tangible skill does stamp collecting teach a person aside from how to collect more stamps and things about the stamps they collect? Nothing, really; it’s purely a hobby, and it’s regarded by people who aren’t into it as being just as boring and pointless as video games are.

Technically anything that is a hobby has utility, by definition, solely in the enjoyment it grants the hobbyist. In some cases that may translate into other benefits, but in a lot, if not most, it won’t.

This precise sequence of words could be said about people who enjoy reading books. And yet we encourage children to be readers. Reading is regarded by almost every half-smart person as a very worthwhile pastime.

I never think that playing video games is a waste of my time. It’s my hobby and I love to do this.

I readily admit I used the word “hobby” primarily because others in the thread used it. Personally, I think it would be more accurate to refer to “the manner in which persons use the time at their disposal.” We each have a limited amount of time that we are not sleeping, working, attending school, eating, or doing personal/home maintenance. I was trying to talk about what a person chooses to do for how much of that time.

Sure, a lot of people waste a great deal of their time reading garbage (or the Bible! ;)) or watching crap TV. You’ll never find me saying those folk are spending their time better than someone playing video games.

Is there a reason why you make a distinction between “good” and “crap” television and literature but don’t seem to make one for different games?

I imagine there is a great distinction between mindless timewasters and communal goal-directed games. I admit that I am quite ignorant about games.

What’s a communal goal-directed game? Is that like an MMO? What’s a mindless timewaster? Is that a mobile game? What basis are you using for this distinction?

Eh, I’m just happy for him to admit to a distinction. You can argue “good” and “bad” television or film or books or music, but at least Dinsdale accepts (it seems) varying measures of quality between games and that some may have more “redeeming” features & benefits than others.

You’re wasting your time; He doesn’t have these answers, and admits it freely. He is essentially ignorant on this topic, and is content judging from that position.

I think I must be misunderstanding this sentence. Couldn’t you just pick up a phone and talk to one of them?

I assume he meant as a group. Granted they could all join some communal Skype or something but maybe it’s more fun to talk while you’re fragging one another.

Plus, doing something with a friend is often better than just talking on the phone.

Exactly. We’ve done the communal Skype thing when we’ve done RPGs and the like, but for whatever reason, Xbox Live works better and is easier to deal with, and we can play the games also.

I’m in my 50s and vanishingly few of my friends play “proper” computer games (ie not Angry Birds/Candy Crush/Farmville etc). Not all of my colleagues do either.* I do work in IT (originally an assembler programmer, now a database administrator and I’ve touched on everything in between).*

There’s no stigma with it, they’re just not interested/don’t have the time.

I think there may be a certain generational gap going on there as well. I think people in their early 40s would probably be the oldest group to routinely play games; we grew up with game consoles, and PC games hit right when we were in high school and college, and the Web became a big thing during college. Much older than us and it’s likely you didn’t grow up with any of that stuff.

I mean, I’m 41, and I’ve literally played video game since I was in 2nd grade or so- we had an Atari, then a Commodore, a Nintendo, a PC, a Sega, a SuperNintendo, a Playstation, etc…

Over the holiday weekend the wife was watching one of those awful Hallmark movies. Something to do with a girl with a terrible loser boyfriend and a love interest at work.

Guess what they had the loser boyfriend doing in the first scene he shows up in. Yep, Playing dat xbox. The other guy apparently played a lot of golf though. That’s NOT for losers.

Yep. I’m 51 and didn’t grow up with video games, apart from arcade games like Space Invaders and Galaxian, and have zero interest in video games.

Sounds about right to me. :wink:

Not surprising. People like to do an activity together when they’re talking even if it’s just dinner or drinks. Talking over a game gives you something to fill the gaps and comment on beyond all just staring at one another (virtually or in real life).

This is like saying “aside from Hockey, I have no interest in sports”. Uhm. Okay? Arcade games are a legitimate genre.

Well, I suppose, but back then you had to actually venture out to an arcade to play them; it wasn’t an everyday habit, or hobby.