What does Videogamey mean to you?

[Budalic]

Let's look this from other perspective:

The Neverwinter Nights had the DM module - the DM creates levels and story and can control the gameworld. The only differences between it and a 3e game are more prep time and real-time combat (with pausing). Some modders even created a Player Resource Consortium module with D&D rule updates (Warlock, Warblade, 3.5 e ...). So, what's the difference between that type of game and tt playing? If 3e ruleset can be adapted for a cRPG, is railoading (biggest crpg limitation) only difference between tt and cRPGs?

In other words - is the term videogamey a little absurd when applied to the rules?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

I agree. There isn't any way to be completely unambiguous. English is a bad language for precision, IMHO. But we can minimize it. One of the big rules is to avoid using a broad term when a more specific one will due.

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.

I was unaware of the first definition from 2006. I've only ever heard the term in recent years and always with the second definition. Either way, it's definition appears to have mostly changed over time. Which happens in English. I think the old definition has fallen out of common use. It might still be being used in specialized industries or something, but I doubt if I used the term with my friends that we'd have any difficulty understanding that we all meant the "new" definition.

That's the problem with English...words and phrases shift meaning. But as long as we are all using the "current" definition of the word or phrase, there's no misunderstanding.

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's not all that unusual, but not that helpful either. I can start threads all over the place with "I think 4e is too Giraffey. That's it's problem." but my ability to make up a word with a definition most people will immediately understand (similar to giraffes) certainly doesn't help anyone understand what I'm talking about. How can a RPG be similar to a Giraffe?

In fact, there are only 2 possible outcomes of that post: People will read into it and assume I mean one thing or another(which I may or may not) or everyone will reply with "What do you mean?" requiring a second post using words that mean something.

 

[FireLance]

Perhaps a better analogy, then?

Saying, "It's videogamey," is about as useful as saying, "It's like a book," or, depending on the context, possibly, "It's like a bad book." Without any further elaboration, it is simply a statement of opinion from the speaker (and IMO, a vague one at that).

That's why I believe that it doesn't add much to a discussion. In order to have a meaningful exchange of views and opinions, you need to get to the specifics behind the statement. The question of why or how the subject in question resembles a (possibly bad) book needs to be raised. It's the answers to that question that generate meaningful discussion, so again, in my opinion, it is more productive to delve straight into the underlying issues.

No doubt, it may eventually be possible to arrive at a consensus as to the specific meaning (or meanings) of "videogamey", but until then, I think that posters who are more interested in discussing the issue than expressing an opinion may as well go into greater detail immediately instead of assuming that everyone else will know what they mean.

 

[Budalic]

Another example:

The recent Dragon Age cRPG system is pretty comparable to any tt game. It has stats (Str, dex, Magic, Willpower, Cunning, Con); it has spells such as Sleep, Cone of cold, etc.; and dualwielding, S&B, 2-handed and bow weapon builds. It has out of combat skills - which wary in usefulness (Coercion is golden, Preception very good, crafting very bad)
(The only bad thing, IMO, are talent/spell trees - you have 4 spells/talents you must pick in order. A system with a level based abilites - like spell levels from 3e - woud make much better capstone spells/tallents.)

Its system is even better at handling complex rules - weapons have variable str modifier (ranging from 0.85 for daggers to 1.40 for 2h weapons), movement rules are more complex; there isn't any grid; spell areas are defined by templates, ...

It even lifted some things from D&D 4e - phyisical resistance is determined by str, dex, con in equal measure; mental by mag, will, cunn; there are minions at endgame.

So is this system really inferior to ttRPG? If there is ever a dm/players system released (not likely, since the game hasn't got a multiplayer option), what would be a difference between dragon age dm/players game over the internet and ttRPG game (aside form sitting around the table or in front of computer/ps3/xbox)?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Perhaps a better analogy, then?

Saying, "It's videogamey," is about as useful as saying, "It's like a book," or, depending on the context, possibly, "It's like a bad book." Without any further elaboration, it is simply a statement of opinion from the speaker (and IMO, a vague one at that).

Which is kind of my point- "videogamey" is all about opinion, and opinion that is of a personal level that discussion of whether it is or isn't the case is pretty pointless. Ergo, specificity isn't required.

That's why I believe that it doesn't add much to a discussion. In order to have a meaningful exchange of views and opinions, you need to get to the specifics behind the statement. The question of why or how the subject in question resembles a (possibly bad) book needs to be raised. It's the answers to that question that generate meaningful discussion, so again, in my opinion, it is more productive to delve straight into the underlying issues.

Again, why does it matter what specific meaning of "videogamey" a particular poster is using when- going by past experience- you're not going to convince that poster that he's incorrect?

All you're doing by forcing the "videogamey, exactly how?" debate is annoying the posters who use the term. You're convincing them of absolutely nothing.

No doubt, it may eventually be possible to arrive at a consensus as to the specific meaning (or meanings) of "videogamey"

We've had SEVERAL, none of which have substantially been redefined.

I posted 3, and I know that there are at least 2 others posted already in this thread.

And despite attempted refutations, have any of those who hold one of those positions been convinced otherwise?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's the problem with English...words and phrases shift meaning. But as long as we are all using the "current" definition of the word or phrase, there's no misunderstanding.

Its worse than that- English rarely culls past definitions. Unless something falls out of use, there are often several concurrent definitions of a word, like "run."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, they certainly aren't either narrativist or simulationist. I'm not sure why it matters though that I agree that hit points (in any form) are pure gamist constructs. They are a very good example of a pure gamist construct that is not 'video gamey' because despite their ubiquitousness in video games (in fact, they are even more common in video games than in RPG systems generally and found in things that aren't even RPGs at all), you can't call them 'video gamey' because there origin is in D&D rather than the reverse. Hitpoints aren't ideas that have gone out into the computer gaming world and come back in different or more mature forms to influence RPGs. They are ideas that went from RPGs to computers (and stuck hard).

And I would argue that they stuck hard precisely because as pure gamist constructs they are more suited to the strengths of a computer, which are gamist rather than simulationist or narrativist. Simulationist and narrativist games tend to be inherently open ended in ways that computers currently can't cope with - although there have been valiant attempts over the years from Elite in the early days to Grand Theft Auto. The limited space of a rules based 'game' though is perfectly suited for implementing in a computer program.

Actually I would disagree. Computers are quite capable of simulations. That's what they are used for a lot in sciences, for examples. They are certainly better at it than a pen & paper RPG, because adjudicating simulation rules "by hand" is a lot of work.

But simulations don't necessarily make a good game. The things that are highlighted when people talk about "videogamey" - like in this thread - are definitely aimed at the "gamey" parts. Concepts in the rules that make it a game, that allow strategies and tactics to be formed using mechanical concepts of the game, opposed to strategies and tactics formed by the "story" of the scenario.
For example, it might be a good strategy to try to befriend the Dwarven Kingdom and ask it for aid in the upcoming war against the Dracolich. That's a story aspect.
But a good game strategy might be to use the Dwarven Army to defend the Elven Forest since they have a +5 bonus to all defensive missions and it is also most likely they will have to fight Corrupted Treants and Dwarven stability can negate some of their nastier special abilities. Even though story-wise, the Dwarves might love to fight the Orcs a lot more, but that would be an offensive mission and the +2 bonus against Orcs is not as good as the bonuses for the defense mission against treants.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Which is kind of my point- "videogamey" is all about opinion, and opinion that is of a personal level that discussion of whether it is or isn't the case is pretty pointless. Ergo, specificity isn't required.

Whether something is or is not "videogamey" is probably an opinion that can't really be changed. Mainly because it's possible to find similarities and differences in any two items. It is as much "videogamey" as it is not "videogamey". That's an argument that is best not to have.

But whether a particular person likes or dislikes something is an opinion that might be changed. Certainly people have gone from disliking something to liking something in the past.

Now, if someone shows up on a message board saying "I don't like this game because of the videogamey healing surges", how does the word videogamey in that sentence help it at all? If they had shown up and said "I don't like this game because of healing surges" it would be the same thing without the confusing reference to video games that doesn't seem to be relevant.

Again, why does it matter what specific meaning of "videogamey" a particular poster is using when- going by past experience- you're not going to convince that poster that he's incorrect?

All you're doing by forcing the "videogamey, exactly how?" debate is annoying the posters who use the term. You're convincing them of absolutely nothing.

Because we're here to have discussions. Discussions require understanding. Videogamey doesn't foster understanding. I'm not here to argue whether something is or is not videogamey. To me, that doesn't matter. There are good and bad things about video games. I'm trying to get at the root of WHY they don't like 4e so that I can understand. I like to be able to see things from other points of views. I like to be able to say "Alright, when viewed through that lens, I can understand why you don't like it." I can disagree but still understand.

But "It is videogamey" doesn't help me understand.

And despite attempted refutations, have any of those who hold one of those positions been convinced otherwise?

I think that's the problem. I don't think any of us here are trying to convince people that videogamey means something other than what they are saying it means. We are here to suggest that the term stop being used entirely because all it does is make people angry. You've already said that you purposefully use it for its negative connotations in the other thread. Showing up in a thread and saying things purposefully that you know are going to make people angry is pretty much the definition of trolling. Why not stick to more neutral terms?

 

[Njall]

Njall: You are confusing the term 'realistic' with 'genre versimlitude' in ways that seriously undermine your point. 'What is realistic for the fantasy genera' is not the same in this case as 'what is realistic'.

Sorry, but I don't think so. What I'm saying is that they fit the genre and they're more realistic than the traditional HP as well.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Also I'm not at all sure that 'realism' per se was made a significant component of anyone's definition of 'video gamey', at least not 'realism' as it is normally meant when applied to RPGs. So I'm not sure what arguing for or against the 'realism' of something is supposed to get you.

Uh? I don't know, I don't think I ever saw the term "video-gamey" used to describe something that felt realistic, either.
Usually, in the context of RPGs people refer to videogames as something that's blatantly artificial, conflicting with what they deem "realism" or even "simulationism" and breaking their suspension of disbelief.
YMMV, that's the first implication I see when the term "video-gamey" is used, usually.

Well, I have no idea how to respond to that claim, except that I'm glad you've found a narrative structure for hit points that you are comfortable with. If this is going to turn into a discussion of the realism of hit points, maybe its best to fork to a new thread.



That might make some sense if being heavily encumbered or otherwise doing anything fatiguing caused you to take lethal damage each round.

Nope, it wouldn't make sense if fatigue dealt lethal damage. When you take lethal damage, you can't recover with a short rest. The point is that taking "HP damage" isn't a measure of the lethal damage you've taken either.

Seriously, the basic problem you have here is that things like 'hit points' and 'healing surges' have many attributes and interactions with the game. Not all of those aspects and interactions might be 'videogamey', and certainly in the case of something like 'hit points' there precense in video games doesn't make them 'videogamey' because there provenance is in traditional PnP games. If you focus on the aspects of the example that aren't 'videogamey', then you are rather much missing the point.

Now, as I've said, I think its fairer to call healing surges 'Gamist' than it is to call them 'videogamey'. They have clear gamist motivations and they don't have clear connections to videogames. However, if we look at the larger outcome of the 4e healing system rather than the particular details of the implementation, then that we might argue is rather 'videogamey', especially when we also notice the elimenation of all long term conditions in the design of the game.

We still have long term conditions; the disease system is something that makes for functional and useful long term conditions, actually.
It's also something that can easily adapted to simulate long term injuries, in case you're trying to run a grittier kind of game.

 

[Starfox]

Returning to the original question, my take on videogamey is that is is the same as gamey or gamist - that is non-simulationist.

Videogamey or gamey or gamist are not derogatives to me. I avoid using the terms because I know others dislike them, but to me they are neutral, descriptive words.

Of course, being myself a fan of cinematic games and having as my goal to "simulate" cinematic events - with the corresponding break with real-life simulation - I wouldn't have problem with someone designing a game to simulate a computer game. It does seem redundant - why not simply play the original computer game instead of simulating it with pen and paper? But I know there's a boardgame that simulates a first-person shooter very well, to the point where players of 1-st person shooter games like it. I guess if you like something, you like variations on it as well.