A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[Dannager]

By the same token, repeating the same 'facts' and dismissing others opinions is an insult. Previously I remarked that you hadn't given any indication of where the bar is on knowing enough to comment on the game system or have a valid criticism; that information was never given.

The proof is in the pudding. If you know enough to form valid criticisms, your criticisms will be valid. If your criticisms are consistently shown to be invalid, your knowledge of the system will be called into question.

For instance, if someone said "You can't cast fireball in 4e!" they would be factually incorrect, their criticism would be invalid, and their knowledge of the game would undoubtedly (and with good reason) be called into question.

Much of the 'facts' given in the thread are opinions on game play. The Wand of Cure Light Wounds or healing between encounters or a number of other elements brought up.

In what way is "You can heal up between combats using wands/potions/staffs/bards/druids/clerics/paladins in 3.5 and previous editions of the game," anything but a fact? This isn't an opinion on gameplay. Someone might have a houseruled version of the game where they remove all of those elements from the mix, but that doesn't change anything.

By the way: hilarious that you've decided to take me to task for arguing facts instead of opinions when the very person I'm arguing with made it perfectly clear that everyone who doesn't share what is very clearly his opinion is dumb. Hilarious.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's always fun to track how reliably a person's opinion in one area will inform their opinion in other, seemingly unrelated areas.

I'm glad you put that "seemingly" in there. I've given a lot of thought to the Delve format, and what the format does both to the construction and play of adventures. I've taken them apart, put them in other formats, and put parts of other modules into Delve format to see how they were effected.

I can see that, for some playstyles, the Delve might be great. But I am firmly of the opinion that the playstyles for which the Delve is great is a much smaller number than that for which the Delve flat-out sucks.

(Mind you, I am not saying that the majority of players do not play in the playstyles for which the Delve is great; I've no idea there.)

So, yes, I do see a relationship between your stated preference for the Delve, and your stated preferences related to playstyle.

I doubt that the "dealbreaker" constraints I discussed above even ping your radar as problems, and I would not at all be surprised if you dropped a game I was running for something more interesting to your personal preferences.

And yet the ones you would be trying to persuade by sharing your supported opinion are those for whom this is not the case.

Hold hard, friend.

IF I am trying to convince you of something, THEN I need to both meet the bar of your skepticism and put it into terms that you understand.

BUT, that "IF" is important. IF you want to convince people not to use the term "videogamey" THEN you need to meet the bar of our skepticism. I am not going to claim that we can't understand what you are saying. Not only textually, but also subtextually.

Because, AFAICT, this thread is not us trying to convince you, it is you trying to convince us. We need meet no bar of skepticism. We need not use terms you understand. We can just carry on doing what we're doing, using whatever terminology we like.

The onus to prove a case is not on us. We need not defend our use of the term. Our ability to use that term is a given.

(And that's a general "we" and a general "us"; I'm not sure I've ever used the term "videogamey" outside the context of this discussion. But, I do know that I understand it when it is used in context.)

You've got half a thread full of them right here.

I think you overcount.

On the contrary, we're actively encouraging you to talk about the idea. Just, y'know, actually talk about the idea, rather than obscuring the entire argument behind a single made-up word.

Trust me, we're ecstatic to have the opportunity to discuss exactly why you think 4e is videogamey with you (again, collective you), because in pretty much every case these reasons get ripped to shreds upon examination.

"Because in pretty much every case these reasons get ripped to shreds upon examination."

Let me understand. You are ecstatic if someone tells you why they believe X, because you believe a priori that you can rip their reasons to shreds in almost every case.

BUT you don't understand what they mean by X.

AND you believe that your "examination" that results in these reasons getting "ripped to shreds" is fair and impartial.

BUT you aren't targetting the idea (i.e., the reasons), only the way that the idea (i.e., the reasons) are expressed.

YET you are ripping the ideas, not the expression thereof, "to shreds".

AND you don't understand why, simply put, you fail to pass the bar of my skepticism.



RC

 

[racoffin]

By the way: hilarious that you've decided to take me to task for arguing facts instead of opinions when the very person I'm arguing with made it perfectly clear that everyone who doesn't share what is very clearly his opinion is dumb. Hilarious.

Well, as long as you are getting a laugh out of the discussion then all is well.

I'm taking you to task for resorting to name calling (no matter if the other guy is or not) instead of stating your point and leaving it at that. You have stated that you wish that people would explain what they mean by videogamey, and many have said that they know what they mean and others do to, so why should they.

What else is there to be said?

 

[The Shaman]

This is an adorable attempt to make me look guilty of the very thing I criticize others of.

Pot . . . kettle . . . and all that.

As long as you keep enough wands on hand . . .

And as long as your character is of high enough level, he can solo Orcus.

I can make up any number of ingenuous arguments based on contrived premises, too.


Oh, and my character trying to stay alive with a single hit point? Total kick in the ass to play. I hope to run him again this summer at our local D'foot con.

 

[Bluenose]

It's entirely possible that this is the vast majority.


If I am offended that you think "videogamey" is a made-up nonsense word, there is no way that you can express that thought without my being offended. It is my belief that, in this case, and in many other similar cases of similar EN World threads, it is the thought expressed that is actually deemed offensive. This was, IMHO, true for Pokemount. It was true for my objection to the term "fluff". It is true for videogamey.

I am also not convinced at all that "I don't understand" is the case, or is the case anymoreso than any other term used in gaming parlance. I am convinced that some people, who are offended by the idea the term encapsulates, would like us to believe that "I don't understand" is the case so that we will stop talking about that idea.

RC

The empirical test for whether people really understand 'videogamey' as a term in the same way would be for people to independently write their definitions of what it means. Those definitions could then be PMed to someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight, and then put up for comparison. Of course, getting it done independently when people are free to PM or email each other is the difficult part.

Here's mine, anyway. "Videogamey", an attempt to describe a concept that is a matter of stylistic preference as if it's entirely a matter of the medium that the concept is presented in.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Because in pretty much every case these reasons get ripped to shreds upon examination.

In other words, you have the complete and utter authority to determine what is credible and valid over everybody else.

 

[JamesonCourage]

"Video-gamey" is a very subjective term, and I think this seems to be the objection from those against it being used. However, it's meaning should be clear, based on context. If something "feels too video-gamey" then is stands to reason that something "feels too much like a video game." That's all the statement means.

Yes, you can now ask "in what way does it feel too much like a video game?" That's a good follow-up question. However, most of the time, when someone states a feeling, it is not to convince others that their feeling is correct, but it is to convince others that they feel a certain way.

If we all intellectually accepted that something "feels too video-gamey" was the same as "feels too much like a video game" then we'd be golden (even if the term is highly subjective). If, from there, we all intellectually accepted that the phrase was used to communicate feeling, rather than logical specifics, and that the feeling communicated was not meant to convince anyone to change their own mind, then we'd be platinum.

"Feels too much like a video game" is a theme statement. It basically means that when I play this game (whether it be 3.X, 4e, whatever), I feel like I do when I play a video game. Even if I name all the things that remind me of a video game, and they all get "shot down" by players who don't feel that way, my original statement of it "feeling too much like a video game" stands because, despite your logical arguments, when I play next week, it will still feel like I do when I play a video game.

It's not a slight on video games. It's not a slight against the game system anymore than me saying I hate mushrooms is a slight against all mushrooms. Just because I dislike it personally does not mean I think we should exterminate mushrooms. However, when I order a pizza, don't be offended when I don't put mushrooms on it, and when you ask me if I like fish, don't be offended when I say "no, the texture is too mushroomy."

At the end of the day, everyone has their own opinions, and that's honestly great. Find your group, appreciate them, have fun, and above all, play what you like

 

[Dannager]

Here's mine, anyway. "Videogamey", an attempt to describe a concept that is a matter of stylistic preference as if it's entirely a matter of the medium that the concept is presented in.

I think that making an attempt to nail down a definition would be a worthwhile experiment.

 

[Dannager]

In other words, you have the complete and utter authority to determine what is credible and valid over everybody else.

Goodness, is that what I said?

 

[Oryan77]

I'd like to see some real evidence of this "fakery" other than claims. For example, I'd like to see the actual scripting of the show.

It's far too easy to make claims of something being fake so I take a very objective approach to those claims.

Dude, are you serious? Without me even needing to give you proof, just watching the show doesn't prove to you that it's a fake show? The show is ridiculously over the top. The acting is terrible. The first time I watched the show, the acting is what stood out to me. Even for a "reality" show, I thought there is no way people would talk/act like that. Maybe this is news to you, but most of the "reality" shows on tv are fake. Needing proof that Operation Repo is fake is like needing proof that Star Wars is fake:

Operation Repo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re-enactment and authenticity
Operation Repo consists of actual stories from repossession incidents[citation needed]; however, the show depicts scripted and dramatized re-enactments in which the cast recreates incidents using actors and staged action footage. There is a disclaimer at the beginning of the show which says: "The stories that are portrayed in this program are based on real events. The names of the characters were changed in order to protect their identities . . . and some honor." This has prompted many people to question the show's authenticity, because it is portrayed as being reality television.