Why is gaming not as respected as much as other mediums?

[energiewende]

Why isn't soccer as respected as dance theatre?

[salm]

Depending on whom you ask it is respected a lot more.

[energiewende]

Then perhaps the real question is, why aren't the people who think soccer (gaming) is more respected than dance theatre (novels) more respected than people who think the opposite? Respect after all is a social construct.

[salm]

Are they not?

[energiewende]

No.

[TheFeniX]

So not respecting a pizza/video game means not eating/playing it and considering is a waste of time while not caring about other people eating/playing it.
If that is the definition then all three, games, books and movies are not respected by many people. They are also repected by many other people.

Yes. Video games have moved on from being instantly shit on for what they are from being a much more neutral affair. I still have not noticed a positive first impression outside gaming circles with the comment "I play video games" as opposed to "I read books."

@definition of difficult: There´s obviously a misunderstanding. I´m not talking about the difficulty of games as in how hard is it to play/complete (how would you even know what I find difficult?). I was talking about the technical difficulty to get it to run on the one hand and the difficulty of enjoying it due to old types of cineastic mechanics, or in case of games old types of game mechanics. Or perhaps "out of fashion" would be a better word than "old" because some types of mechanics get popular again here and there.

Games not only have the problem of mechanics, graphics, gameplay being out of fashion, but also the added difficulty of accessibility. This is not a problem in the reading or movie-watching medium.

I never said the pacing of GwtW was poor. It´s different and not what is in fashion at the moment. Therefore many people won´t like it. I highly doubt that Gone with the wind would be a success if it was released now (and looked exactly the same as it does).

Classics don't have to be well recieved at launch to be classic. Princess Bride was a flop at release and is such a popular cult classic, it's hard to even label it "Cult" anymore. My nieces and nephews have all seen it because their parents made them watch it and they loved it. Same with the original Star Wars Trilogy. Same with Big Trouble in Little China.

However, as much as my brother and I both loved numerous games from the 80s and 90s, trying to get a younger generation interested in a game like Fallout 1 and 2 is almost impossible, especially when Fallout 3 exists. I think you give movies too little credit in their longevity if they are well-done.

Concerning annoyances form the MS Dos era, yeah, I still remember autoexec.bat, interrupt jumpers and annoying shit like switching floppy disks due to the lack of hard disks. Of course that was mainly because the PC was a pretty bad device for gaming at that time compared to other systems like C64 or Amiga. But I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion at hand.

Because those games are why the market is at where it is today. Coming out of the video game crash, many simple concepts were brought back to the table and survived in their present form even today mostly through consoles. However, the PC market was literally throwing everything at the wall and seeing what stuck and what fell with the concept of the complete package (story, gameplay, audio, and graphics). Those classics are widely forgotten today because you can't fucking play them and they look and play absolutely archaic to the modern gamer.

Contrast to the developments in Special Effects in movies. The Thing prequel looks absolutely comical in it's depcitions of The Thing. However, the Carpenter version with Kurt Russel and it's puppets are still pretty terrifying, especially to young viewers.

You would think we'd be getting better made versions of those popular games. No, instead we're getting cut down kiddie-sandboxes like Skyrim or Mass Effect 2-3. Or stupidly simplified remakes like Enemy Unknown. These aren't bad games in their own right, but when compared even to games in the same series, they are massive steps backwards.

You say that Quake live is a different game than the old quake? Why, what´s the difference? Also, why did you ignore the other games I mentioned? Tetris and Doom are very old, highly regarded and still playable. Same for the LucasFilm Games adventures on SCUMM.

Quake and Doom have never been highly regarded to the general public. Doom is remembered because of it's "links" to likely the most notorious American school shooting, has been remade and re-released multiple times by id, and made into a major motion picture.

They are popcorn games, easily ported to a new generation of hardware in one form or the other. Shooting at things until they play a death animation and solving puzzles aren't exactly concepts that change over time.

And while I´m sure there are difficulties with playing some old games there are plenty of games that can be played with emulators. I wouldn´t make it such a big issue that it´s not 100% of old games that can still be played. After all other types of entertainment/art lose certain pieces as well.

You still aren't getting it. Just because you know how to emulate (which is technically illegal and legal at the same time, depending on who you ask) is not the same thing as picking up a DVD and book in the bargain bin and having at it.

The big classics (the Gone with the Winds among games if you wish) do actually survive.

No, the simple ones do. Star Control 2 as well as more than a few Wizardy games were big shit in the early 90s, pushing 100's of thousands of unit (which was a big deal back then). They are mostly forgotten now.