Videogame Influences!

[AllisterH]

There's another aspect that makes it hard to discuss "videogames" and D&D.

Videogame assumptions CHANGE.

Example: The ubiquitous healing/stim pack. This element of gameplay found in genres from RPGs to FPS used to be a core element of many games. You took damage and the only way to heal was either at a certain location/checkpoint or the in-between stopgap measure of healing potions/stim packs.

Since the original HALO and MMOs, that assumption has pretty much been kicked to the curb for both FPS and RPGs respectively. Constant Regeneration over time is the new "base assumption".

There's also another point. Videogames are such a large and diverse element in the various genres that even in the same genre, games are vastly different in feel.

Does a Bioware RPG play like a Square/Enix RPG, or play like a japanese tactical RPG like Disgaea or play like a bethesdea RPG like Fallout?

The above are classified under Videogame RPGs but I sure as hell think they play VASTLY different (more so than 3e plays differently than 1e IMO)

Similarly, does Age of Conan, Warhammer Online, Guild Wars and World of Warcraft play the same? Some would say "YES" but I have a hunch, the vast majority would say NO.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is interesting because to me this is the least videogamey aspect of the game and more a return to its wargaming roots in Chainmail. Not that i ever played chainmail but I have wargames a lot.

Well, videogames share a lot more in common with wargames than they do with "role playing games," anyway. The mat is the screen.

My experience of video game is that position does not matter much except for close or far.

Every boss with a weak point and every "tactics" game would disagree with you.

If you are not a tank in a video game then you want to be as far from the enemy brutes as you can and direction is not relevant except that if you are too far away from your allies and some wandering monsters join to fray or you trigger the enemy to come after you then you are screwed. Also most video games i have played are simultenous movement.

In MMO's, sure, but MMO's aren't the only videogame, and they are one of the videogames that actively tries for a "table-top-like" experience in a lot of ways.

From reading the videogamey complaints, it seems to me that the real problem is just whatever the person is claiming is similar to video games. That is, would Kamikaze Midget find the focus on minis and positioning a bad thing if it weren't in video games?

This statement makes me go a little .

While I have a huge problem with minis and positioning in my table-top games, I don't have any problem with a number of other videogame influenced things, and FFZ, my little pet project, is blatantly videogame influenced.

Obviously, I like what works well at my table, and I dislike what fails to work well at my table.

What fails to work well at my table is pushing around little pieces of plastic and measuring squares.

As another example, magic points aren't my ideal method of "magic management," either. They do their thing, and it's important for FFZ to have them for the genre, but I prefer a less "fiddly" method.

On the other hand, I like the videogamey idea of "quests" quite a bit (though I don't use XP, the idea has a lot of merit). I'm also okay with "long rest and you are totally healed," which is a common videogame trope. I love the idea of bonus dungeons and bonus bosses and special optional challenges, and despite the fact that this works better in a videogame, I keep trying to make it work as well as possible in my table-top game. I LOVE a "limit" system that makes your character more powerful as it looses HP (as I pointed out in the "combat is a story" thread, this helps make that Act III really shine).

"Video-gamey" by itself isn't a positive or negative thing. It's a description, and when it's apt, it's apt. Sometimes this is a bad thing. Sometimes it's a good thing. Often, bad or good is subjective.

I came to D&D from videogames. Final Fantasy and The Legend of Zelda influence my games more than Conan or the Grey Mouser or even Tolkein. My pet project involves making a table-top game that is VERY videogamey in feel (in, I hope, a very GOOD way, that focuses on narrative and simplicity instead of fiddly bits and boring stuff). "Videogamey" isn't a problem, it's a description.

Now pushing around little pieces of plastic on a map? That's a problem. For me at least.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Some feelings have pretty uniform definitions though. If I were to describe a game as boring, you might not subjectively agree with my assessment, but you'd at least know what I was saying.

When a person starts complaining about 4e feeling video-gamey, I don't know what they mean. Moreover, its clear that having some similarity with some game somewhere isn't a problem for people, as almost every game has hp, levels, etc. From reading the videogamey complaints, it seems to me that the real problem is just whatever the person is claiming is similar to video games. That is, would Kamikaze Midget find the focus on minis and positioning a bad thing if it weren't in video games? Or shark find the classes acceptably similar if WoW were not popular? Both of those complaints I can see and understand, even if I don't agree. But there's really not a common thread between them, so I don't see the utility in using the same word to describe the sensation.

I agree with you 100% here.

Someone who hides behind the "feels like a videogame" argument and thinks it is unassailable is almost always simply trying to make an attack without having to defend or explain it. In many ways, it is an inherently meaningless statement, since no one other than the speaker can possibly know what it means. What is more, it is almost always possible to get something much more specific out of the argument.

For example, SHARK has a specific "homogenized classes" argument that is more specific than the "feels like a videogame" argument. For him, he would be 100% better off just complaining about homogenization, and ignoring the videogame complaint entirely. After all, it is fairly clear that 4E is more homogenized than 3E. It is not clear that videogames tend to be more homogenous than tabletop RPGs. In fact, I disagree with the latter comment entirely. Many videogames can be wildly non-homogenous, with classes working on entirely different premises.

For example, Final Fantasy Tactics has a wild mix of classes that rely entirely on basic attacks, classes that balance out strong attacks with a longer "cast" time, classes that balance attacks with MP cost, classes that balance strength with added randomness and unreliability (to an absurd degree), classes with attacks that are free but require tactical positioning, classes that potentially hurt allies in a range of effect at MP cost, classes that hurt every enemy at no risk to your allies at no MP cost (but instead have a unique continuous fire sub-system), classes with abilities that are limited by inventory rather than anything character-based, and some classes that just get all-powerful attacks that hit range, come out instantly, and kill everything for free (I'm looking at you, Orlandu). There is nothing nicely packed together and homogenized about it. In fact, it is deliberately wildly unbalanced, so some characters and classes are clearly superior to others in every way. In another game, Final Fantasy VI, each individual character has a totally unique special ability that has its own game subsystem, and the characters have wildly different abilities and capabilities.

And the "homogenized" argument completely breaks down when you realize that many games don't even have characters or classes, so homogenization of these characters and classes doesn't even make sense. Tetris is a classic example.

What is more, many classic tabletop RPGs are homogenized. Pretty much every point-buy system like HERO has to be homogenized in order to even function. It simply doesn't work as a comparison of "videogame feel" vs. "not videogame feel", because homogenized or not has nothing to do with the inherent differences between videogames and tabletop RPGs.

It is always like this. Someone claims that something has a "videogame feel", but they really mean something much more specific that does not really have a necessary link to videogames at all. If they want to complain about something, they should complain about the specific thing they don't like, not try to lump it up as the "negative influence of videogames" or that "terrible videogame feel". After all, using the "videogame feel" as a scapegoat for not liking something only assures that no one will understand your complaint and that you indirectly (or directly) insult the videogame hobby as being inferior or damaging to tabletop RPGs.

Honestly, if SHARK simply tried to express dissatisfaction that 4E is a bit too homogenized, I may very well agree with him. After all, it is a bit too homogenized for my taste. However, the way he phrases that argument, through the "videogame feel", does nothing but alienate me and lead to more confusion and hostile discussion, in which everyone dodges the main point of discussion (homogenization) and instead argues about videogames and every other complaint about 4E under the sun. That is why complaining about "videogame feel" contributes nothing and just causes flame wars. I'm honestly surprised that complaint hasn't been permanently banned from ENWorld yet.

 

[Shadeydm]

I agree with you 100% here.

Someone who hides behind the "feels like a videogame" argument and thinks it is unassailable is almost always simply trying to make an attack without having to defend or explain it. In many ways, it is an inherently meaningless statement, since no one other than the speaker can possibly know what it means. What is more, it is almost always possible to get something much more specific out of the argument.

For example, SHARK has a specific "homogenized classes" argument that is more specific than the "feels like a videogame" argument. For him, he would be 100% better off just complaining about homogenization, and ignoring the videogame complaint entirely. After all, it is fairly clear that 4E is more homogenized than 3E. It is not clear that videogames tend to be more homogenous than tabletop RPGs. In fact, I disagree with the latter comment entirely. Many videogames can be wildly non-homogenous, with classes working on entirely different premises.

For example, Final Fantasy Tactics has a wild mix of classes that rely entirely on basic attacks, classes that balance out strong attacks with a longer "cast" time, classes that balance attacks with MP cost, classes that balance strength with added randomness and unreliability (to an absurd degree), classes with attacks that are free but require tactical positioning, classes that potentially hurt allies in a range of effect at MP cost, classes that hurt every enemy at no risk to your allies at no MP cost (but instead have a unique continuous fire sub-system), classes with abilities that are limited by inventory rather than anything character-based, and some classes that just get all-powerful attacks that hit range, come out instantly, and kill everything for free (I'm looking at you, Orlandu). There is nothing nicely packed together and homogenized about it. In fact, it is deliberately wildly unbalanced, so some characters and classes are clearly superior to others in every way. In another game, Final Fantasy VI, each individual character has a totally unique special ability that has its own game subsystem, and the characters have wildly different abilities and capabilities.

And the "homogenized" argument completely breaks down when you realize that many games don't even have characters or classes, so homogenization of these characters and classes doesn't even make sense. Tetris is a classic example.

What is more, many classic tabletop RPGs are homogenized. Pretty much every point-buy system like HERO has to be homogenized in order to even function. It simply doesn't work as a comparison of "videogame feel" vs. "not videogame feel", because homogenized or not has nothing to do with the inherent differences between videogames and tabletop RPGs.

It is always like this. Someone claims that something has a "videogame feel", but they really mean something much more specific that does not really have a necessary link to videogames at all. If they want to complain about something, they should complain about the specific thing they don't like, not try to lump it up as the "negative influence of videogames" or that "terrible videogame feel". After all, using the "videogame feel" as a scapegoat for not liking something only assures that no one will understand your complaint and that you indirectly (or directly) insult the videogame hobby as being inferior or damaging to tabletop RPGs.

Honestly, if SHARK simply tried to express dissatisfaction that 4E is a bit too homogenized, I may very well agree with him. After all, it is a bit too homogenized for my taste. However, the way he phrases that argument, through the "videogame feel", does nothing but alienate me and lead to more confusion and hostile discussion, in which everyone dodges the main point of discussion (homogenization) and instead argues about videogames and every other complaint about 4E under the sun. That is why complaining about "videogame feel" contributes nothing and just causes flame wars. I'm honestly surprised that complaint hasn't been permanently banned from ENWorld yet.

Quite honestly it feels to me like some are being deliberately obtuse on this subject for reasons known only to them. There are aspects of the game that seem very videogamey to me as well. I don't expect you to feel the same way, since feelings are personal are highly subjective.

To suggest this term represents hiding in the same thread you suggest banning the term is a delicious irony.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Quite honestly it feels to me like some are being deliberately obtuse on this subject for reasons known only to them. There are aspects of the game that seem very videogamey to me as well. I don't expect you to feel the same way, since feelings are personal are highly subjective.

I don't see how you could expect me to feel the same way even if you wanted to, since I don't think anyone here even has a clue what you mean when you say that. That is my point. By saying "4E has a videogamey feel", you are essentially saying nothing that means anything to anyone, other than making the vague implication that "videogamey is bad" (which indirectly insults those who like videogames).

Feelings are subjective, sure, but you are not even making an attempt to explain your feelings. I can't either share your feelings or disagree with them, because you have not conveyed them.

I mean, someone can say "I don't like 4E". However, it is perfectly reasonable to ask that person "why do you think 4E is bad?" as a response. There has to be some kind of reason for that subjective opinion. Usually, answering that question results in some kind of discussion, at least. Certainly, it is impossible to say that two people who say "I don't like 4E" actually agree on why. One person may not like 4E because it wasn't similar to 3E, and another may not like it because it is too similar to 3E. Simply knowing that they don't like 4E doesn't get anyone closer to understanding each other.

Saying "4E is Videogamey" is even less clear than saying "I don't like 4E". After all, it presupposes some idea of what "videogamey", or even "videogame" subjectively means to the speaker, which is impossible for anyone else to decipher without any context. Honestly, if it were not for the fact that most people seem to link "4E is videogamey" with "I don't like 4E", I would think that they were complimenting the game... What is more, just like with the "I don't like 4E", there is usually a specific reason for that feeling, which simply doesn't get explained. I don't even want to get into how using "4E is videogamey" as a response to "why don't you like 4E?" is horribly vague...

As for why I am being "horribly obtuse" about the subject... I am a videogame fan. I have played hundreds upon hundreds of videogames, and I despise how people on this forum tend to be so incredibly dismissive and elitist towards the medium. I see a lot of crude stereotypes and insults thrown around that have no merit, and I get sick and tired of it. I hate how videogames get lumped into the "Software and D&D utilities" forum, as if they are somehow not a method of conveying story and entertainment like the stuff in the Media Lounge forum. I hate seeing moderators make casual comments that tabletop RPGs are inherently better than videogames. I hate the general feel of hostility and unwelcomness this forum has towards me and my hobbies. The WotC boards are light-years ahead of this place in that regard.

Ugh, sorry about that rant...

To suggest this term represents hiding in the same thread you suggest banning the term is a delicious irony.

What irony are you talking about? One is the consequence of the other.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Well, Twinbahamut--I agree with his observation that you are being *obtuse*.

For one thing--I don't especially have any *negative* views on 4E. In my post earlier, I was simply rephrasing what others--who have said 4E is too *video-gamey* for them.

Now, I personally don't care about some 1,000 other video games. That's where you are being obtuse. It seems fairly OBVIOUS when someone says, "Heh. 4E's a bit too video-gamey to me." Most reasonable people understand quite well what they mean. The person is referring to the similar mechanics and *feel* of WOW and other similar MMO/video games that employ an obvious mechanic format and structure that is easily recognizable in 4E.

It's not even necessarily an INSULT to fans of video games. So, you can set the cross down. I PLAY WOW. I have over TWENTY characters on three or four different servers. I can see some of the similar mechanics and style that 4E has adopted--and of which WOW and many other video games have as standard features.

Just about everyone I know easily understands what people mean when they say "It's too video-gamey for me*.

But really--like Umbran said. It's not a big deal man. You don't need to write a huge thesis about it. It's like having a preference--or not--for the flavour of Oranges. Most people seem to understand what people are referring to about 4E being too video-gamey. You, apparently, can't.

Fine. It's a mystery to you then. I've explained it several times now--and other people I know--both critics and FANS of 4E alike--don't have such a problem understanding what is meant by the description.

I've explained to you the similarities *I* see between 4E and video games, and I explained what I think others have tried to explain about it as well.

*shrugs*

I don't know what else to or how else to explain something that seems to me quite simple to understand.

Sorry, Twinbahamut. Maybe someone else will be better able to explain it to you then.

Take care.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[I'm A Banana]

By saying "4E has a videogamey feel", you are essentially saying nothing that means anything to anyone, other than making the vague implication that "videogamey is bad" (which indirectly insults those who like videogames).

There is a better, and more accurate, way to use it, too.

It gets used that way.

Not every "4e is videogamey!" is a negative judgment.

Also, as usual, SHARK is chock full o' Wisdom.

 

[Griego]

Greetings!

Well, Mal, no. The example I gave has *NOTHING* to do with WOW's or any other video game's *POPULARITY*. Ok, I'll try this again.

All video games tend to homogenize character classes. All video games tend to highly simplify combat mechanics, movement, what have you. All video games tend to have pretty similar powers and attacks for their character classes. (snip)

ORLY? Not for RPGs. For highly simplified combat mechanics, let me direct you to this page and this page and this one. Those equations for calculating damage don't look so simple to me!

As for character classes, many modern MMOs offer a wide variety of customization options. I've personally played Final Fantasy XI and World of Warcraft, and both allow for pretty wide customization. FFXI implements dual-classing, where you can pick a "subjob" to complement your main class. Which subjob you pick can radically change the capabilities and focus of your character. In addition, with Merit Points you can add new abilities, spells, or special attacks in any combination and/or further improve the efficacy of those abilities, further differentiating your character.

In World of Warcraft, you only get one class, but you get to spend points as you level on individual abilities in three distinct areas which are focused on offense/defense/utility powers. See the Druid talent calculator here for an example. The trees are different for each class.

Furthermore, the single-player games Morrowind and Oblivion have skill-based systems that almost guarantee that no two characters you play will be exactly alike. Their "classes" are really just packages of skills, and you can customize one of these or create your own class if you like with just the skills you want.

Video game RPGs have come a long way, and the idea that they have simplified mechanics with homogenized classes is just wrong, in most cases.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

I play WOW. I'm quite familiar with WOW's system. I also play Rolemaster, and D&D 3.5; Computer games--almost by definition, are simpler. The entire interface requires considerably less knowledge and active input from the player, compared to a Tabletop RPG.

It's simple. Many people obviously do see a homegenization and a siplification of the rules and systems in 4E. Many of these people *ALSO* happen to play WOW and other MMO's and computer games--

and they ALSO have agreed and identified clear similarities.

Some people are just fine with those similarities.

Other people do not want that same level of such similarities in the D&D game.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[SKyOdin]

Now, I personally don't care about some 1,000 other video games. That's where you are being obtuse. It seems fairly OBVIOUS when someone says, "Heh. 4E's a bit too video-gamey to me." Most reasonable people understand quite well what they mean. The person is referring to the similar mechanics and *feel* of WOW and other similar MMO/video games that employ an obvious mechanic format and structure that is easily recognizable in 4E.

How do you know this? In a previous thread, I have seen someone say that when they said "4E is too videogamey", they meant old coin-operated arcade games like Pac-Man.

How can you expect everyone on an entire messageboard to make the same logical jump from "videogame" in general to WoW in specific. I for one am not a WoW player (or any MMO for that matter), so WoW is the last thing I think of when someone makes a "videogamey" comment.

Since I have never played WoW, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by the "mechanics and *feel* of WoW". In this case, you would be a lot clearer if you talked about specifics rather than in general terms.