I've recently found that big (mostly open world) games tend to overwhelm or even intimidate me. I'm a big fan of the Rockstar games and absolutely adored Breath of the Wild, but my playthrough of Tears of the Kingdom has been a bit rocky from the get-go....
Absolutely. I hear Witcher 3 is good, and I believe that it is... but after playing it for 5 hours and feeling like I got nowhere, the next day I just genuinely didn't feel like playing it as I'd felt very little character progress, and zero story progression.
Games are continuing to market towards younger people - especially kids - with spare time to burn. They consider their 120+ hour playtime to be a selling point, but at this point that's the reason I avoid them. If I'm going to play for an hour or so at the end of my day, I want that game to feel like it meant something.
I prefer my games to feel dense, deliberately crafted, minimal sawdust padding. I've enjoyed open-world in the past but the every-increasing demand for bigger and bigger maps means that most open-world games are very empty and mostly traversal. Linear worlds aren't bad - they can be crafted much more deliberately and with far more content because you can predict when the player will see them.
Open worlds that craft everything in it deliberately are very rare, and still rely on constraints to limit the player into somewhat-linear paths. Green Hell needs a grappling hook to leave the first basin, Fallout: New Vegas fills the map north of Tutorial Town with extreme enemies to funnel new players south-east.
And what really gets me is that with microtransactions, the number of games that make themselves so big and so slow that they're boring on purpose, so that they can charge you to skip them! Imagine making a game so fucking awful that anybody buying a game will then buy the ability to not play it because 80% of the game is sawdust: timers, resource farming, daily rotations, exp grinding. Fucking nightmare, honestly.
I, like many gamers, grew up playing Pokémon Red and Nintendo 64 and was obsessed with Nintendo products. I graduated to a PS2 and PS3 and became super into Metal Gear Solid and Call of Duty and Fallout. Also spent a ton of time with the Guitar Hero series. I loved the escape gaming brought me and it genuinely helped me relax....
Nothing makes me enjoy games like moderation. But moderation isn't just how often you choose to play - it's also how much you're expected to play.
I'm going to discuss both, because I think people underestimate personal moderation. But I suspect gameplay moderation is your struggle.
Personal moderation:
Games mimic psychological fulfilment (problem-solving, self-actualisation, etc). But it's not in a lasting way, they're just more attainable.
It's like buying a chocolate bar vs cooking yourself a roast meal. It's easier, it's pleasant, and there's nothing wrong with enjoying it - but if it's the only thing I'm doing, and I never put in the work for something more satisfying, I feel unsatisfied - even emotionally 'sick' (bored, restless, ennui). When they are a treat at the end of a day, they feel great. But when they are my day, I struggle to enjoy them.
This is the trap that often catches directionless people (eg: depressed, NEET, lonely). They don't play games for games, they play them to avoid the anxiety or stress of cooking a roast meal. They eat chocolate until they feel sick, and then feel too sick to cook.
Gameplay moderation:
Games are designed for people who have time to burn. Teenagers, kids, some young adults. When you were younger, you could afford to burn that time, and it felt good, because each session meant you felt that hit of dopamine for problem-solving, achievement, and progression.
But now, you can't. You're an adult, you don't have that time. And yet games aren't being designed for you anymore, but the new kids and teens. They brag about dozens or even hundreds of hours of playtime, and bloat their content with grind. (if anything, the latter has gotten even worse.)
You only have an hour to play a game, and after that hour, there's no feeling of progression or advancement - the game expects you to give it more time than that. And without the feeling of progression and advancement, games don't feel as engaging.
That is why they feel like chores, like jobs; it's why you choose things that give immediate feedback like the internet. Games are asking you to put in too much time and then not giving you enough back.
Portal 2 is considered a masterful game at five hours long, because each hour is rewarding. Is Destiny? Is Halo? Froza?
If this is your concern, my suggestion would be to step back from the bigger scale games that want to monopolise time, and embrace smaller games from indie devs.
You'll get far more variety, they tend to be much denser. They're also cheap enough that it's worth it to try a bunch of things you might not have tried if they were AAA.
If somebody says a game is 'only 6 hours of gameplay', see that as a positive, not a negative. It probably means each hour is going to mean something.
I'm so excited to feel perpetually exhausted and like every single gameplay choice I make is wrong, lol. I used to dislike games that had me perpetually feeling on the brink of failure, but Frostpunk made it feel almost... cathartic.
I hope they keep the radial city design. Not just thematic, but intuitive, clean, and more interesting than rectangle grids. Looking forward to the great art and music, too.
I just want to appreciate the autocorrect 'Frost Pink', it sounds so pleasant. I want to turn it into a name for something. My next DnD character, perhaps? Coconut ice? ...should I start a pop metal band? :P
Be 80 and play FIFA, it's fine. There's no age where you are obliged to put down your controller for the last time. But it shouldn't be your first answer while you're dating, and definitely not your only one.
Being a gamer, as an identity, has a lot of baggage.
Having gaming be your only interest or hobby is associated with being an unambitious self-interested person who intends to do as a little as possible, as long as possible. The recognisable games are marketed towards kids/teens with time to burn.
Imagine your date's interest was "moderating Reddit", "watching TikTok", or "reading Instagram". That's what 'gaming' sounds like: your hobby is media consumption.
There's no age where you aren't allowed to consume media; but it's worrying if that consumption is your identity, if consumption makes up your routine.
So it's not actually about age - it's about maturity and goal-setting.
When we're younger, most of us live moment-by-moment. Media consumption offers no future, but it has a pleasurable present.
But as people age, people develop goals and interests that require more investment and focus, and they're looking for people that are doing the same. A cutthroat economy demands people develop goals for financial stability, even if they still otherwise like games.
As we age, we stop looking for somebody to hang out with, but to build a life with.
So once the people you're talking to have interests for the future, "I enjoy my present doing my own thing" doesn't offer them anything. If they don't play games, they don't even know what games are capable of. Maybe one day they'd enjoy playing Ultimate Chicken Horse with you.
But right now, they just see the recognisable titles that want to monopolise children's time, and assume you're doing that. They picture you spending 20+ hours a week playing Fortnite. And there is an age cut-off where it's no longer socially-acceptable to be a child.
It's not that video games are bad, but they're a non-answer. They want to know what you do that's good, and a non-answer implies you don't have a good answer at all, and that makes video games 'bad'.
I think the distinction is that reading books implies you might have interesting discussions about ideas or themes. Video games do not imply that.
The reality is that there is a lot of excellent discussion in video game themes - Spec Ops: The Line, or dystopias like Cyberpunk 2077. Games have been political for as long as they've had any narrative structure at all. But video games have a reputation (and history) of being children's toys, and the only people who understand their narrative power are also gamers.
Compare somebody who claims their hobby is watching arthouse films, versus somebody whose hobby is watching TikTok. They're both watching videos play in front of them, but the assumption is that the former is consuming the content with a critical eye and learning from it; the latter is merely consuming it for shallow entertainment. The reductionist conclusion is that 'Arthouse viewer' can hold a conversation; 'TikTok viewer' cannot.
Maybe - certainly generations always assume anything that younger people do is somehow worse than what they did, and the digital landscape is a part of that. When writing slates became accessible, the old guard complained it was 'lazy' because they didn't have to remember it anymore. Any music popular among teenagers (especially teenage girls) is mocked as foolish, cringe, etc.
But I suspect like most hobbies, it's mostly the following that determine our assumptions:
history of the media and its primary audience (digital mediums are mostly embraced by youth; video games initially marketed to young children)
accessibility; scarcity associated with prestige (eg: vital labour jobs are not considered 'real jobs' if they don't require a degree)
the kind of people we visibly see enjoying it (we mostly see children, teenagers, and directionless adults as gaming hobbyists)
You're right, reading is not somehow more or less moral than video games. Many modern games have powerful narrative structure that is more impactful for being an interactive medium. Spec Ops: The Line embraces the players actions as the fundamentals of its message. Gamers are hugely diverse; more than half the US population actually plays games at this point, and platforms are rapidly approaching an almost even gender split. (Women may choose to play less or different games, and hide their identity online, but they still own ~40% of consoles.)
Games as a medium is also extremely broad. I don't think you could compare games to 'watching anime' for example, so much as 'the concept of watching moving pictures', because they can range from puzzles on your phone, to narrative epics, to grand strategies, to interactive narratives.
So a better comparison for video games isn't 'reading books' so much as reading in general, and are you reading Reddit, the news, fiction, or classic lit? What does your choice of reading mean?
So for your suggested hobby of 'reading books', one might assume any (or all) of the following:
they are intelligent and introspective (or pretentious),
they are educated (or think they're better than you),
they are patient and deliberate (or boring),
they'd be interesting to discuss ideas with (or irrelevant blatherers).
Assuming everybody who reads is 'smart' is as much an assumption as assuming everybody who games is 'lazy', and the assumptions you make about the hobby are really assumptions you make about the typical person who chooses it. It may not be a guarantee, but its a common enough pattern.
TLDR: Ultimately? I think books have inflated status because it's seen as a hobby for thinkers; people picture you reading Agatha Christie (but you could be reading Chuck Tingle, or comic books). Games have deflated status because it's seen as a hobby for people who consume mindlessly - the people who know what games are capable of are the ones playing them, too.
I agree, but you're asking people to stop being people - and also removing the context of 'dating' from the equation.
Dating is work. First dates in particular are very much about first impressions - they're not getting to know you on a deep level yet, they're trying to build a quick profile to decide if doing so is even worth it. Such a process is all about assumptions, and anybody that claims it isn't is not being honest with themselves.
I agree that as a couple get to know each other more, both of them should share their genuine interests with each other. It's not about games being wrong or having to pretend you don't like them (authenticity is important for building anything long-term).
But it's recognising that they don't look good in an interpersonal resumé, which is what the dating process is.
Add in OP's demographic (47y man, seeking women), and gender roles in dating (men are initiators and women are selectors), which are still very entrenched in older generations. Men are expected to approach, escalate, and demonstrate what they offer her; women are expected to select from the many who approach them and assess if their intentions are positive or negative, if he'd make her life easier or harder.
Both genders have harmful expectations in dating: he is thirsty in the desert, she is drowning in the lake; they struggle to relate to each other's roles or even covet them.
I bring this up because men in particular have additional pressure to have a really good resumé because it will be the make-or-break that decides if somebody with options will return interest. Video games have a stigma that make them a bad choice to put in a highlighted position on your proverbial resumé. You want your most impressive, relevant, or interesting answers at the forefront, and it looks bad if you don't have any.
(It's also entirely possible that 'liking video games' is not the real reason he is struggling with dating, but because the initial reaction he receives is often dismissive, he believes that it is.)
I believe things will change as gaming becomes the norm. It already has changed in younger generations; its just that OP is old enough that most people his age don't play. All hobbies and lifestyles come with superficial assumptions when viewed by the people who don't have personal experience with them.
Say, a person who drinks wines is considered distinguished, but a person who drinks beers is not. Yet a wine-drinker might just like getting efficiently drunk, and the beer-drinker likes crafting IPAs in their garage.
We are rapidly moving to gaming being the norm. I still believe that if somebody asks 'what do you do' your answer should be something that prompts a conversation, but that's because that's how dating works, not because gaming is wrong. Gaming at all no longer has stigma among the majority of younger people. It's the ones who grew up in a time that they were toys who still see them that way.
Does anyone else sometimes feel overwhelmed by (big) games?
I've recently found that big (mostly open world) games tend to overwhelm or even intimidate me. I'm a big fan of the Rockstar games and absolutely adored Breath of the Wild, but my playthrough of Tears of the Kingdom has been a bit rocky from the get-go....
I’ve fallen into a deep gaming rut lately. What game(s) helped “get you back into” gaming and rediscover the magic of video games?
I, like many gamers, grew up playing Pokémon Red and Nintendo 64 and was obsessed with Nintendo products. I graduated to a PS2 and PS3 and became super into Metal Gear Solid and Call of Duty and Fallout. Also spent a ton of time with the Guitar Hero series. I loved the escape gaming brought me and it genuinely helped me relax....
new Frostpunk 2 trailer is out and I'm pretty excited (youtu.be)
frostpunk was by far my favorite game of all time and this is one of the few game announcements I'm legitimately excited about...
What's the age cut off for socially acceptable gaming
So, hear me out....