• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

What does Videogamey mean to you?

Isn't the point of shorthand to aid in understanding? As in its a shortcut so we don't have to belabor the same material over and over again?

But, if a term is vague and often misunderstood, how is it valuable? Other than telling me you don't like something, it doesn't tell me anything. So, why not just say, I don't like X?

Again, if a term does not aid in understanding, why use it? What benefit is derived from using a term you know will be misunderstood and will only piss off the reader?

And, what does it mean if I agree with you? If you call X videogamey and I agree, does that agreement have any value? After all, you have no way of knowing that I am actually using the same definition as you are. For all you know, I have completely misconstrued your point and am in total disagreement with you, yet, I'm saying I'm agreeing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

And in this case, in the context of this thread, you are objectively wrong. Because if we cut out of this thread all the posts where the people say that the people using the term 'videogamey' are bad wrong people for using the term, and if we cut out all the posts where someone says that the term has no meaning, and if we cut out all the posts where someone says that the offered meaning is wrong just because, and we just look at the few posters who actually answered the original poster's question we find a remarkable amount of agreement.

And it's hard to pare either my own or Oran77's definition down to a nice shortable quote, but I think that if you read both you'll find the idea of reducing player choice and DM dependency are aspects of both of our definitions. So very clearly, amongst the people who wrote all the above, there is some clear idea of what they mean and communication is taking place between us. Furthermore, there are several people that tried to answer the question with examples, whose objections to the examples would I think fit into one or more of the attempts by others in the thread to generalize.
In the opening post of this thread, the thread creator defined videogamey as an RPG with an overabundance of rules to learn.

Besides, you are only getting your "clear idea" by ignoring most of the posts in this thread. My opinion is that "videogamey" doesn't have a clear meaning. You don't get to say that my opinion doesn't count, since I am part of your audience. If half of your audience thinks the term videogamey is an empty statement, then you better think twice about using it as short-hand when you have something to say.

The fact that you don't understand what is meant is not proof that the rest of us don't.
I think the fact that there are quite a few people who don't share your idea of videogamey posting in this thread undercuts the idea that there is a common consensus.

Since when are we not allowed to label and publicly explore our responces to something and the reasons for it, and since when is that 'hiding'?
I have no problem with you stating your opinion, I just want you to use terms that actually convey your feelings. "Videogamey" is simply far too personal to use as a shorthand. It expresses that you are having a feeling, but doesn't convey what that feeling is.

As an analogy, lets consider the question "What did you think of playing under that DM?"

Now, I could answer: "It felt like the first time I visited Los Angeles." Now, I clearly expressed that I had an opinion, but it is a terrible answer to give. I am the only person who knows what my feelings were when I first visited LA. So I can't possibly expect anyone else to know what I mean when I use that language. It would be a lot more clear if I simply stated: "It was fun, but I am not sure if I will do it again."

Whenever someone says that something feels videogamey, they are doing the exact same thing as me drawing an analogy to first visiting LA. The feelings someone has from playing videogames, and their perceptions of what videogames are, are completely personal. You can't possibly expect another human being to know what you mean when you describe something as "feeling like a videogame". It is also the case that it is usually possible to describe your feelings in other, more clear, words.
 
Last edited:

Isn't the point of shorthand to aid in understanding?

No. The point of short hand is to allow two people to discuss something without belaboring the same material over and over again. That is not the same as aiding understanding.

Shorthand is infamous for creating misunderstanding: "Too big to fail.", "You can't legislate morality.", "The exception proves the rule.", etc. Many more will occur to you if you brainstorm. They are all shorthand that have particular meanings and which are possibly true in a particular context, but which are frequently misunderstood by observers who aren't familiar with the larger point that the short axiom stands for and commonly used in ways which are falicious.

But, if a term is vague and often misunderstood, how is it valuable?

Because it allows insiders to communicate information in shorthand without belaboring points and explaining themselves over and over. I want to talk about how PnP RPGs are adopting conventions of cRPGs. Here is a list of some of them that occur to me. Let's call those 'video gamist conventions' or 'videogamey' or whatever so I don't have to keep repeating my list.

Other than telling me you don't like something, it doesn't tell me anything. So, why not just say, I don't like X?

I'm not responcible for what you don't understand.

Again, if a term does not aid in understanding, why use it?

You've already answered your own question.

What benefit is derived from using a term you know will be misunderstood and will only piss off the reader?

I'm not responsible for what you get pissed off about.

And, what does it mean if I agree with you? If you call X videogamey and I agree, does that agreement have any value?

Assuming that you are being honest, it means that we both see some element of the game which reminds us of conventions most commonly associated with videogames. We can then proceed from that agreement toward trying to identify the common threads that run under those perception.

After all, you have no way of knowing that I am actually using the same definition as you are.

That is true of just about anything. Virtually every noun referring to an abstract concept is capable of being misunderstood and we risk completely miscommunicating. And yet, there are 1000's or 10's of thousands of such nouns and we use them all the time. I can speak of computer code I read as being elegant, readable, clean, functional, readable, extensible, or being spaghetti code. I'm describing something about my impression of the code which may well (if I know alot about code) have a real basis in fact. But defining succintly and unambigiously those attributes of the code is not easy. We can then procede to talk about different approaches to making this code 'more readable' or what not. It's a meaningless abstract term, but two programmers looking at the same problem might agree, "Yeah, that's more readable." What does that mean? I read it better and I have the impression others might read it better. Do you define it exactly the same way? Maybe not? But readability of code is important concept that deserves discussion nonetheless, and even if it doesn't, it can be discussed because I can put a label on the idea.

Where this approaches the absurd though, is you are here complaining about not being able to know if we are using the same definition in a thread were definitions have been provided. At that point the claim that you don't know what is under discussion is surreal.
 

But it doesn't MEAN anything.

Sure it does- I've already posted at least 3 definitions, all generally dealing with aspects of electronic games.

That there are a multiplicity of definitions doesn't mean that the term is invalid. If it did, we'd need to find some new words to replace "run."

Look, we all already know that its used as a pejorative that covers a wide variety of features- does it really matter what the particular definition is?

After all, its not as if you're going to convince me that healing surges don't remind me of Tekken and Mortal Kombat because they will always remind ME of Tekken and Mortal Kombat.

Its a waste of time for both of us for you to even try.
 

I just want you to use terms that actually convey your feelings. "Videogamey" is simply far too personal to use as a shorthand. It expresses that you are having a feeling, but doesn't convey what that feeling is.

Its perfectly clear.

Its a pejorative- its been used as a pejorative in nearly every sentence you can point at when someone uses it. You can tell just by the context of the sentences. I can tell that you can because it prompts fans of the game to respond in defense of the game.

Thus, by using it, I'm conveying my feeling is negative towards the thing described thus. What it doesn't convey is the exact feature that gives me that negative attitude.

But, as I've asserted, that detail is essentially unnecessary. You're not going to convince someone that a game isn't videogamey because that is how they perceive it. Its an observation grounded in emotions and gut feelings, about how people interact with the game.

Their personal interface with the game.

Not facts.
 

In the opening post of this thread, the thread creator defined videogamey as an RPG with an overabundance of rules to learn.

Well, no... not exactly. In fact, no... not at all. You need to read what he said more closely.

More precisely, an RPG is videogamey when I as a player have all the rules I am attempting to discover behind the screen instead out in front and in my face. I don't want to be thinking about rules, I want to be attempting to uncover them and their consequences throughout play. I prefer note taking and mapping to mass rules memorization as a player. Games that put the hidden rules in my face remove the magic from the game for me and all too often turn into games of rules lawyering in my experience.
- emphasis mine

He's not complaining about a game having alot of rules. He's complaining about a game forcing a player (as opposed to the game moderator) to learn alot of rules. If the game was rules heavy, and he as a player did not have to know about it, then based on what he described it would not seem to be 'videogamey' to him. What he's really talking about isn't whether the game is 'rules heavy', but whether it is an 'open system'.

Now, I admit that that is a kinda wierd perspective, in as much as that your first instinct is to say that its an attribute of videogames that you don't have to know the rules. Indeed, videogames are almost by definition closed systems in that the player doesn't really know how they work. They are often black boxes, especially when it comes to the details of the combat engine. So this perception of 'videogamey'-ness would seem totally out of left field, where it not that it seems closely related to what some other people have said that they find 'videogamey' and that is the deemphasis of the role of the game moderator the empowerment of the player by moving the control of the rules 'across the screen' to the players side of the table. So I conjecture that there is indeed some shared feeling amongst people using the term in games which are 'open systems' that reminds them of how they play videogames, and that idea intrigues me.

I do not care if it does not intrigue you. I don't care if you don't see a pattern. If you are just offended by the use of the term, I don't see why you are in the thread.

Besides, you are only getting your "clear idea" by ignoring most of the posts in this thread.

No. But sometimes I get the feeling I'm the only one reading the thread. You are flat out wrong about what the original poster said, and you are telling me I'm not paying attention? I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just trying to keep my ideas simple at this time in the vain hope that I won't confuse the issue further.

My opinion is that "videogamey" doesn't have a clear meaning.

Well, thanks for sharing, but there isn't much more profitable you can say if that's the whole of your opinion.

You don't get to say that my opinion doesn't count...

I'm not saying your opinion doesn't count.

, since I am part of your audience.

But I am saying that your opinion excludes you from my audience. If you think what I'm saying is meaningless, then I'm under no obligation to educate you. I have no particular obligation to say things you understand. You are clearly not part of my audience.

If half of your audience thinks the term videogamey is an empty statement, then you better think twice about using it as short-hand when you have something to say.

Why? I don't have an obligation to everyone that might hear me. I'm not contractually obligated to teach you. I'm not assigned a responciblity toward you as a condition of employment. I don't have to be understood by everyone.

I think the fact that there are quite a few people who don't share your idea of videogamey posting in this thread undercuts the idea that there is a common consensus.

There are quite a few people that disagree on every matter worth talking about. The fact that some people disagree doesn't undercut my ability to meaningful discuss these things.

I have no problem with you stating your opinion, I just want you to use terms that actually convey your feelings. "Videogamey" is simply far too personal to use as a shorthand. It expresses that you are having a feeling, but doesn't convey what that feeling is.

Clearly you are not reading the thread. And if you are talking about me conveying 'feelings', then you aren't reading me at all. I'm certainly not trying to convey a feeling. I've put several concrete examples up now, and I'm well into the 'pursuing a hunch/theorem' stage. The game is afoot.

As an analogy lets consider the question...

Oh...lets not.
 

S
Look, we all already know that its used as a pejorative that covers a wide variety of features- does it really matter what the particular definition is?

It does when you are using the term in order to communicate with other people. I try to avoid using terms with multiple definitions when I'm trying to communicate effectively.

Terms like "too big to fail" work because they are short hand for one thing and one thing only(or at least one major thing that everyone assumes when they hear the term). There ARE other definitions of it, but there is one commonly accepted one.

Terms like videogamey don't even have one commonly accepted definition. It could mean anything between "Awesome, and I love everything about it" to "The stupidest thing ever".

To me it's the same thing as saying "I find 4e has stuff in it". True, but meaningless. If you want a broad way to say "There are rules in 4e I don't like", I suggest saying "There are rules in 4e I don't like" instead of making meaningless comparisons.

After all, its not as if you're going to convince me that healing surges don't remind me of Tekken and Mortal Kombat because they will always remind ME of Tekken and Mortal Kombat.

Its a waste of time for both of us for you to even try.

Yeah, you can't argue whether something reminds you of something. We all have associations. Some people can't hear a certain song because it was playing when something bad happened. That doesn't make the association logical. There's one song I don't like because it reminds me of an ex girflfriend. I'm able to admit to myself that I'd probably like the song(and did before the association became negative instead of positive) and that the association to that person isn't there for other people. It's possible to admit an association isn't logical without removing the association itself.

Therefore the discussion can still happen. It's possible for someone to say "Alright, I see that healing surges and Tekken have nothing in common at all, I don't know why I associate them, but I do. That will never change, but I can see they are two different concepts." Of course, it's possible to say "They are exactly the same thing and I'm not changing my mind no matter what you say. Let's not even have the discussion." It's just a little more closed minded. It's alright to be closed minded. I'm not judging. But it's more of a emotional argument than a logical one.
 

But it doesn't MEAN anything. I could say that 1e D&D is very automobiley. Because I once saw a car crash and burn and I also saw a game of 1e crash and burn. But the word automobiley doesn't mean anything. It doesn't tell anyone reading my post what I mean.

It tells me your analogies are terrible. In the future, if you want to describe 'videogamey' by analogy, make sure the thing you use as an analogy has a clear one to one and onto relationship between the thing and the thing referred to. The idea of 'automobiley' as a descriptor for RPGs is deficient in several features present in the descriptor 'videogamey', not the least of which is that lots of people find themselves drawn to one comparison but the other.

It helps if you use a better word as short hand.

Does it? Suggest one then.

If you say something has too many rules, people know what you mean.

I would say something like, 'The combat system is rules heavy to the point of reducing playability.' I wouldn't need 'videogamey', although if you hadn't encountered terms of art like 'rules heavy' or 'playability' even 'combat system' then you might need what I said explained to you.

If you say "I don't like the lack of options" people know what you mean.

I would say something like, "The character creation system ultimately constrains the player to a few narrow viable archetypes"

But I've seen 4e referred to as Boardgamey, Videogamey, and Cardgamey(amongst many other names).

And I think that however inelegantly that they are saying things, there might be something to that.

Sometimes it is referred to by 3 different people by all 3 of those names when all 3 mean the same thing: "I don't like that the game consists of prepackaged 'powers' with strict rules on their use as well as the timing and frequency of their use."

Well, you have to admit, that is very much like a non-traditional card game.

When the terms they use aren't helpful for the discussion at all because none of those terms MEAN anything to me.

I think you belie yourself.

Especially considering the problem they are pointing out isn't "videogamey" because it's also boardgamey and cardgamey as well.

Then maybe its an idea that is part of this reoccuring theme of media that doesn't have a separate human moderator as part of play and maybe that might turn out to be central to what 'videogamey' feels like to most people. I don't know yet. I do know that there is enough common experience bouncing around here that it's pretty dumb to dismiss it as an incommunicatable experience, and I do know that in general any idea that gets wide usage turns out to have some underlying meaning even if the people using it don't necessarily fully understand it. You start chasing down the meanings of phrases like 'common sense' and 'open-minded' and it turns out that almost no one is using them in the literal sense and that looking them up in the dictionary is an interesting excercise, but doesn't really get at what people mean when they say them.

Then again, it's just as likely that when the person said "videogamey" they meant that the pictures in the book reminded them of WoW characters and they can't get past that.

No, then they probably would have said that it was too anime. ;)

It's better to say what you mean than say something that reminds different people of different things.

First of all, its far too much to expect that everyone will be as loquacious as I am. ;) Not everyone is immediately able to express exactly what they mean the first time they try. Secondly, any analogy has the property of only being randomly meaningful between two parties who happen to have a shared viewpoint of the two things being compared. Just because you are being left out of the conversation cause you don't get the analogy, doesn't mean that everyone else is.
 

It does when you are using the term in order to communicate with other people. I try to avoid using terms with multiple definitions when I'm trying to communicate effectively.

Good luck with that. Very few people try to use words as precisely as I do, and I think you're going to find that ordinary language is simply to vague to convey unambigious meaning.

Terms like "too big to fail" work because they are short hand for one thing and one thing only

No, it isn't. That's why I brought up the term. 'Too big to fail' has completely altered its meaning sense coming into common parlance.

When it first started showing up in 2006, the meaning of 'Too big to fail' was that the very largest monetary funds had so much capital that even if the economy entered a recession they would be able to absorb any loses without becoming insolvent. They were as a result of there massive holdings 'too big to fail'. By late 2008 though, people began using the term 'too big to fail' in an entirely new way. Once it became clear that in fact Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac were overextended with high risk loans, policy makers began using the term 'too big to fail' to mean 'to big to be allowed to fail', meaning that they were failing and the consequences of there failure was too devestating to be contemplated. These meanings are of course mutually exclusive and contridictory, yet there was a point in early 2008 were the two different meanings were being used interchangably and it was only possible through context to understand how the term was being used and what it meant to the speaker.

There ARE other definitions of it, but there is one commonly accepted one.

And again, no there isn't.

Terms like videogamey don't even have one commonly accepted definition.

And actually, that's not true. A commonly accepted definition which is completely uncontrivertable has been provided in this thread. What you mean is that that the term 'videogamey' doesn't have a commonly accepted meaning, which is quite another matter. And that's not at all unusual either (and for that matter, neither is the reverse).
 

It does when you are using the term in order to communicate with other people. I try to avoid using terms with multiple definitions when I'm trying to communicate effectively.

I bet if you really looked at your vocabulary, you'd find you're using a LOT of words that have more definitions than you think.

Allow me to channel my inner "dwarf."

I've always been a bit of a rock-hound, and now, I design jewelry as a hobby, so I know a bit about rocks.

A lot of people know what agate, garnet, jade and opal are, and can use them properly in a sentence. And a lot of those people are wrong.

Agate, garnet, jade and opal are all terms for families of semi-precious and precious stones, some of which vary WIDELY in appearance. But most people aren't rock hounds or jewelers or gemologists, so the additional precision simply isn't needed.

Why then, is additional precision needed for "videogamey?" We all know that its a pejorative. We all know it refers to electronic games. Additional precision would only serve to give an exact spot for someone to rhetorically attack the assertion.

And that, as I've said, is a waste of time because you're not going to convince someone who thinks a game is videogamey that it isn't.

Terms like "too big to fail" work because they are short hand for one thing and one thing only(or at least one major thing that everyone assumes when they hear the term). There ARE other definitions of it, but there is one commonly accepted one.

Every time the term "videogamey" is used, its referring to one thing- a perception that the user has that his personal interface with the P&P RPG reminds him of electronic gaming. The details beyond that are immaterial.

Terms like videogamey don't even have one commonly accepted definition. It could mean anything between "Awesome, and I love everything about it" to "The stupidest thing ever".

Show me one incidence of a person who has used "videogamey" to describe 4Ed in a non-pejorative term and you may have the beginnings of a real point.

You probably can't. Every time someone throws out the term, 4Ed lovers rise to defend against the indictment, asking how so (prepared to refute), not whether that was an insult or not. The insult to the game is understood.

It's possible to admit an association isn't logical without removing the association itself.

Therefore the discussion can still happen. It's possible for someone to say "Alright, I see that healing surges and Tekken have nothing in common at all, I don't know why I associate them, but I do. That will never change, but I can see they are two different concepts." Of course, it's possible to say "They are exactly the same thing and I'm not changing my mind no matter what you say. Let's not even have the discussion."

True.

The problem is that while a certain connection may only be slightly logical, it may nonetheless still be strong.

Lets give it a shot.

For me, the healing surges of 4Ed remind me of the way characters in certain arcade fighting games- Tekken and MK being the most famous- can heal within a combat by performing certain maneuvers.

(Now, I can assure you that no matter how tenuous that is to you, that association is VERY strong for me.)

You can then assert how rare that ability is in characters in arcade fighting games, and that even in the strongest examples, its not nearly as strong an ability as it is in 4Ed.

I'd respond, "So what? It happens in the games I play and with ALL of the characters I play, so even though its rare (and thus, a weak association) its common (and thus, a strong association) for ME."

And we'll go back and forth on that, and others will jump in and...

NOBODY'S position will change.



I'm not saying that using the specific objections rather than the catch-all term "videogamey" doesn't make the debate more possible.

I'm saying that the debate itself is pointless.

Just put "videogamey" in a little glossary of terms in your head- "A pejorative term that some use to associate with arcade fighting games, 2) that some use to associate with..." WHATEVER, and move on.

Debating the finer points of why someone feels that way gets us nothing but ticked off people.
Especially considering the problem they are pointing out isn't "videogamey" because it's also boardgamey and cardgamey as well.

I personally haven't seen anyone put forth that particular assertion.

Just because something is videogamey doesn't mean it can't be boardgamey and cardgamey- they're not mutually exclusive. A particular game element may be one, two, all or none of those things.

If I could draw Venn diagrams here, I'd show you the how & why.
 
Last edited:

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top