What does Videogamey mean to you?

[Majoru Oakheart]

True, but how does having a specific definition of "videogamey" help? I don't see how it can.

Because it helps to know what someone is talking about to be able to discuss it with them.

"I don't like something because it is bad" does not allow any discussion. Of course people don't like bad things. How do you discuss it except to agree? Bad things are bad.

"I don't like this game because its rules are hard to understand" makes sense. Maybe someone can help you overcome your understanding of the rules and you may eventually grow to like the game.

If the definition of videogamey is that it is a game with too simplistic rules, then when someone shows up and says "I don't like 4e, it's too videogamey" then someone can reply with "I used to dislike it for that reason as well, but I found that the more you play the game, the more depth you discover in the rules. It seems simplistic at first, but if you play it for a while, you'll see it isn't. Give it a chance, I did...and now I have a lot of fun playing it."

You're the one wanting the increased information, and "videogamey" gives you more info.

It does so because it lets you know that the person dislikes the game because of elements within it that remind him of videogames. It lets you know the source of the dislike.

It gives me a general category of dislikes. It lets me know that their problem may consist of:
Dislike of cartoonish depictions of characters
Dislike of simplified game mechanics
Dislike of complicated game mechanics
Dislike of "artificial" or "unrealistic" game mechanics
Dislike of limited choices
Dislike of mechanics which remove DM fiat
Dislike of laptops and computers used at the game table
Dislike of the disconnect between fluff and crunch
Dislike of standardization and similar structure between classes
Dislike of the removal of powerful non-combat solutions to problems
Dislike of the format of powers(i.e. being listed in mechanical ways)
Dislike of the lack of fluff in the game
Dislike of the skill challenge system(reducing roleplaying to a die roll like a video game)
Dislike of the videogame like ability to PCs to heal from any amount of damage
Dislike of the books encouraging buying and selling magic items
Dislike of "wishlists" for magic items
Dislike of the ability to turn magic items into residuum and back into magic items
Dislike of player entitlement(magic items being in the PHB)
Dislike of transparent rules
Dislike of non-standardization(monsters having different rules than PCs)
Dislike of math
Dislike of balance
Dislike of marking mechanics

And the source of their dislike could be any of those things. I could be multiple of those things. It could be all of those things(although, unlikely as some of them are contradictory).

All it tells me for sure is that there's something about 4e they don't like. And that they've played video games before. And that they've found something in common between the two that they didn't like about video games or felt should never have been brought over from the video games.

It narrows it down, but not by much. If at all. Since nearly every rule in 4e could be related to some video game at some time.

Not only that, but each person who uses the term videogamey uses it to mean various subsets of that list. It's about as useful as answering "One that hurts when you get hit with it" to the question "What weapon is he using?" Technically it rules out the padded foam weapons.

Then why do you (or those who ask for it) ask for greater detail? The only purpose of that greater detail is to attack the assertion that something is or isn't videogamey.

No, it's to find out the real reason they don't like 4e. To have a discussion with them about it.

See above. I don't like 4Ed for a variety of reasons, one of which is that it has videogamey elements.

But that statement is true of every game in existence: all video games, all board games, all role playing games, all sports, all drinking games...and so on. They all have things in common with video games and are therefore "videogamey". But I'm guessing you like some of them and dislike others. So it's not the "videogamey"ness that you have a problem with, it's something more specific.

That being the case, let's discuss the more specific thing rather than the completely unrelated fact that 4e has similarities to video games.

How does the greater specificity help you?

Then why does the greater specificity help?

Because a conversation that consists of "Blue is my least favorite color because it colorful." isn't a conversation.

It only makes those of us who use it angry when asked for greater specificity, then having to defend that definition from people saying "Well, that's not anything like WoW (or Tekken, or whatever), so you are in error!"

No, it also makes me angry for showing up and calling my game names and by proxy me for playing them. As soon as I see the word "videogamey" it starts to raise my blood pressure because of the number of times I've seen the word mean "game for stupid people" or "dumbed down game" or "game meant for powergamers and not roleplayers". All of which are insulting to me personally.

And I know you are going to say "I can't help if a word bothers you". No offense, but that argument is kind of silly. I mean, I could say "You are a complete moron" and then when you get angry simply say "I can't help it if what I said bothered you." You know that word bothers people, you've been told that. Continuing to use it and hiding behind "I can't help how you react" is kind of disingenuous.

...because I'm critiquing the game.

Its the same as saying 4Ed is "too grindy" or its alignment system is "too simplified."

It's not quite the same. I have "solutions" to the game being too grindy. There are things you can modify about the system to speed up combat. Also, there are questions I'd like to ask. Are they following the rules correctly, maybe they are missing something. If they are doing everything correctly and they are still getting grinding, maybe there's a problem with the rules that I haven't found and I should identify it now before I do encounter it so that I can be ready with a solution. Maybe their playstyle is incompatible with the 4e combat rules and I can at least understand why they don't like the game.

If someone thinks the game is too simplified I can stress the complications in parts of the rules that are not readily apparent. I can let them know that I thought it was too simplified as well but the feeling went away as I played more. At the very least it lets me understand why they don't like the game.

Videogamey just let's me know they've identified a relationship between 4e and video games...and that it's likely a bad relationship.

The starting point of any debate is a disagreement.

Just the fact that I'm critiquing a game that people love is going to hack someone off.

That's right. Is there any need to critique it, though? It's been out for ages. There's been about a million critiques. I can tell you the number of threads I've started entitled "Why 3e sucks"...0. Because I don't feel the need to critique it. There are things I like about it and things I don't. If there is a thread discussing the merits and disadvantages of a particular part of the rules, I'll show up and say how that particular rule worked in my game in the past and try to help people work around the problem.

But I haven't yet entered a thread about how magic items work in 3.5e and posted "I don't like 3.5e" or "Best solution: switch to 4e" or "3.5e is too videogamey for me".

I also think Rifts has some of the worst mechanics in a RPG. But I also have not started any threads about how bad it is. Nor do I seek out threads about Rifts and critique it.

There's simply no need. My opinion just isn't that important and I don't feel the need to piss people off.

"I dislike elements of 4Ed like Healing Surges because they're videogamey." is not trolling. I'm expressing a perception of how I interface with the game.

"I dislike elements of 4Ed like Healing Surges because they're videogamey and would only appeal to prepubescent half-wits" would be trolling. By saying that, I'm actually insulting people for making a choice.

I admit the second one is worse. But the first one is still pretty bad. If it was the first post in a thread, it doesn't provide any useful information and is fairly apparently a dare to get people to disagree with you: "I don't like your game for a variety of reasons I don't want to go into detail about. What do you have to say about THAT?"

If it's a post part way though a discussion it still is kind of a dare to people to disagree with you, but it also provides no useful information to the discussion. How are Healing Surges like a video game in a bad way that means we can take something useful from your comment and apply it to our games and game systems in the future. How can we make them non-videogamey healing surges?

There isn't one.

Sure there is. I much prefer "unrealistic" where appropriate. Which covers about 90% of the times when "videogamey" would be used. "Unintuitive" works well. And both of those provide more useful information than "videogamey".

That's assuming there's even a reason to show up on message boards and tell people who like a game about how much you DON'T like it in the first place.

 

[Hairfoot]

It gives me a general category of dislikes. It lets me know that their problem may consist of:
Dislike of cartoonish depictions of characters
Dislike of simplified game mechanics
Dislike of complicated game mechanics
Dislike of "artificial" or "unrealistic" game mechanics
Dislike of limited choices
Dislike of mechanics which remove DM fiat
Dislike of laptops and computers used at the game table
Dislike of the disconnect between fluff and crunch
Dislike of standardization and similar structure between classes
Dislike of the removal of powerful non-combat solutions to problems
Dislike of the format of powers(i.e. being listed in mechanical ways)
Dislike of the lack of fluff in the game
Dislike of the skill challenge system(reducing roleplaying to a die roll like a video game)
Dislike of the videogame like ability to PCs to heal from any amount of damage
Dislike of the books encouraging buying and selling magic items
Dislike of "wishlists" for magic items
Dislike of the ability to turn magic items into residuum and back into magic items
Dislike of player entitlement(magic items being in the PHB)
Dislike of transparent rules
Dislike of non-standardization(monsters having different rules than PCs)
Dislike of math
Dislike of balance
Dislike of marking mechanics

That's an exhaustive list, but IME posters who object to those qualities explain and describe why. It seems that you'd like to write off many avenues of legitimate complaint by artificially filing them under the easily-dismissed heading of "videogamey".

 

[Raven Crowking]

... so, considering how the thread exploded overnight (and I don't have the time to read the whole thing):

I guess, the 'consensus' is, that 'videogamey' means something different to everyone?

No.

Again, if you remove the posts of people who claim that it means nothing, there are a few, strongly related, definitions. Apparently, everyone has a close idea as to what the term means, except those people who are opposed to applying that meaning to things it is normally applied to.

In other words, once more, "X has no meaning" once again means "Don't apply X to my game."

It is amazing how many folks will say both "X means nothing" and "X is insulting", as though it is possible to for a term to be both insulting and meaningless.

Just different tactics to control conversation, AFAICT.



RC

 

[AllisterH]

No.

Again, if you remove the posts of people who claim that it means nothing, there are a few, strongly related, definitions. Apparently, everyone has a close idea as to what the term means, except those people who are opposed to applying that meaning to things it is normally applied to.

In other words, once more, "X has no meaning" once again means "Don't apply X to my game."

It is amazing how many folks will say both "X means nothing" and "X is insulting", as though it is possible to for a term to be both insulting and meaningless.

Just different tactics to control conversation, AFAICT.



RC

Ok see this?

This is an example of purposely trying to insult people Raven

Do you honestly hink that those of uswho think the term videogamey is meaningless have NOT presented legitimate facts?

re: Autoscaling of world

Here's a question related to the above. How common in videogames does something have to be so that it would be termed videogamey if it appeared in D&D?

Reason why I ask is that autoscaling is actually a RARITY in videogames. Japanese RPGs by and large don't use it, most Western RPGs don't use it.

So if 90%+ of videogames don't use autoscaling, why would autoscaling be considered videogamey?

 

[Njall]

This makes me think that it's a very bad term, because of what it implies about video games. Anyone who thinks that video games are automatically "non-realistic" doesn't play many. The whole 'sim' genre is designed around realism. Consider a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which incidentally also takes the idea of linearity as a characteristic of computer games and *does something nasty* to it. And I don't imagine many people would claim that acting in turn on your initiative (as is common in tabletop RPGs) is more realistic than real-time simultaneous action (as is common in computer games).

Of course, the same argument appears in computer game forums, where the favoured pejorative for something which doesn't attempt to be as realistic as certain hardcore fans like is "arcadey".

Oh, I tend to agree.
However, I can see how someone that's used to the freedom of a PnP RPG might find the artificial limitations of a CRPG limiting: in a CRPG, you can't, say, jump on a table unless the game is coded in a way that lets you jump on the table.
In the context of a PnP game, that would make little sense.
However, some people see the rules of the game as a limitation, rather than a guideline: if the rulebook doesn't tell you how to jump on the table, then you can't jump on the table. Thus, a ruleset that doesn't detail the simple act of "jumping on the table" is "video-gamey" to them.
To expand the concept, "total freedom in the context of a game"="realism", "artificial limitation to my PC's freedom"="video-gamey".
Just to make things clear: I don't use the term "video-gamey" in any shape or form. It doesn't mean anything to me personally; what I wrote is just how I see it used.

 

[FireLance]

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?

The intent might not always be to prove that a poster is incorrect. The intent might sometimes be to delve into the issues to see whether and how they can be resolved.

To pluck an example out of the air, let us say that a poster generally likes 4E as a system, but thinks that healing surges are unrealistic. An enterprising third party publisher might then be able to come up with a product that could make healing surges more plausible for that poster*. For example, by creating an in-game reason why certain characters might be more resilient than what is considered normal for our world, or why a Martial character might still be able to channel healing energy, or why all the creatures in a particular world might have been given a gift that allows them to recover quickly from non-fatal injuries.

You wouldn't be able to get that if the comments stopped at the level of, "I think it's videogamey!"

* Not to be construed as a guarantee of plausibility. Your mileage may vary.

 

[BryonD]

You wouldn't be able to get that if the comments stopped at the level of, "I think it's videogamey!"

That is correct. "IF".

If one particular guy just says that, and this publisher really wants to sell to that particular guy, then that publisher is out of luck.

But if that publisher see a potential market in the collective of people who think 4E is too videogamey, then he can read through threads and get some key ideas of what that group think-really amounts to. The information is there.

The thing is, that is a very different purpose than what is going on in these threads.

The publisher wants to understand a point of view.

These threads get bogged down in contests of people trying to say that one opinion is right and another opinion is invalid.

 

[Budalic]

re: Autoscaling of world

Here's a question related to the above. How common in videogames does something have to be so that it would be termed videogamey if it appeared in D&D?

Reason why I ask is that autoscaling is actually a RARITY in videogames. Japanese RPGs by and large don't use it, most Western RPGs don't use it.

So if 90%+ of videogames don't use autoscaling, why would autoscaling be considered videogamey?

Autoscaling is there since Oblivion. Oblivion, Knights of Old Republic, Mass Effect, Fallout 3, Dragon Age, Mass effect 2 all feature autoscaling. I tought that that's where 4e got the idea of easy level scaling (though 4E's scaling is rather limited -> +/- 5 levels)

There were jokes about bandits with best (Daedric) equipment in Oblivion. Daedric items are described as extremly rare, yet every bandit has one late in the game.

 

[AllisterH]

Autoscaling is there since Oblivion. Oblivion, Knights of Old Republic, Mass Effect, Fallout 3, Dragon Age, Mass effect 2 all feature autoscaling. I tought that that's where 4e got the idea of easy level scaling (though 4E's scaling is rather limited -> +/- 5 levels)

There were jokes about bandits with best (Daedric) equipment in Oblivion. Daedric items are described as extremly rare, yet every bandit has one late in the game.

But it's still not what I would call the "default" method in rpgs (console or PC). Bioware loves it apparently...interesting that Bioware is generally considered the *BEST* RPG company around.

(All of those games listed above were not just good RPGs, but were all seriously considered for Game of the Year...)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ok see this?

This is an example of purposely trying to insult people Raven

Absolutely not.

It is an attempt to make sure that what's at stake in the conversation isn't lost.

Show me all the people clamouring that the word has no meaning, who also are not opposed to the meaning, and you will have made your point.

Instead, we have only people who, apparently, think the word has no meaning, and who are also opposed to the meaning. That's a major contradiction, and one that has come up before. "Pokemount" comes readily to mind as a term that brought up the exact same arguments.

"Fluff" is another one. I was on the "That term has no real meaning" side of the "fluff vs. crunch" debate, and I can tell you with 20/20 hindsight that I was foolish (at best) to claim "fluff" had no meaning while being opposed to what people meant by "fluff".

If "X means nothing" then X cannot be insulting. If "X is insulting", then X cannot be meaningless. Therefore, what is actually communicated by the argument "X means nothing and is insulting, so it should not be used" can be neither "X means nothing" or "X is insulting", which are mutually exclusive.

So what is left?

"X should not be used".

"X is insulting and meaningless" just exists to justify the conclusion ("X should not be used"), which is itself unsupported by any rational imperative. The end goal is to limit what can be discussed, as well as how it can be discussed (whether or not the speaker is fully aware of this goal, or has rationalized it in some way). In fact, this is exactly what is described as "Newspeak" in George Orwell's 1984, using almost exactly the same tactics and reasoning.

I can quote, if you require it.

Do you honestly hink that those of uswho think the term videogamey is meaningless have NOT presented legitimate facts?

Not a one.

re: Autoscaling of world

Here's a question related to the above. How common in videogames does something have to be so that it would be termed videogamey if it appeared in D&D?

Re: Vancian magic.

It is a property of OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e. One might say it is a defining property of what many people mean when they say D&D. How is it possible that something could be D&D without Vancian magic?

You seek absolute meaning for terms where absolute meaning not only doesn't exist, but where absolute meaning cannot exist. And, as there is no absolute meaning, you declare the term meaningless.

In this sense, all language is meaningless. There is no absolute meaning for any term. All meanings are subjective; language is not built of concrete. It changes, grows, and evolves as people strive to convey ideas. Words are used to mean things they did not previously mean, and when the common usage differs from the dictionary usage (which is the closest thing to a "concrete" meaning we have), it is the dictionary that changes.

In Shakespearean English, "prevent" meant "to go before". That is not a very common usage now. There are, literally, thousands of like examples, because language grows and evolves. Part of that evolution is groping toward meaning. Indeed, all language is (to one degree or another) groping toward meaning.

Failure to accept that is a failure to understand what language is.



RC