A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[amerigoV]

So what are these common factors of videogames that can be identified as appearing in some tabletop RPGs and not others? Played on a computer, lacking a GM, restricted range of possible actions - these are things videogames have in common and tabletop RPGs don't, but I don't think you can point to one particular tabletop game and say it has them.

I do not think it will get you anywhere. Even the ones you list have exceptions. As a DM, I will not run higher level games without a computer (3.5D&D - although now I am a Savage, so no computer needed). Even if the game "is not played" on a computer, I still need one. One of my games is all remote, so you need a computer to play. I've been in plenty of f2f games that had a restricted range of possible actions (and one or two that could be described as lacking a GM). NWN has a GM mode, etc.

If someone would just say "I dislike D&D 4e because it reminds me of Zork. If my torch goes out, I get eaten by a Grue and that kind of micromangement is no fun," people would have something meaningful to discuss. You can meanfully debate the level of micromangement in that example (is that in the game, or your GM, why Zork>4e, etc).

 

[MrMyth]

I'm not saying "videogamey" isn't being used as a critique- it is- but it isn't being used as a critique of videogames.

In some posts, yes - I'm not trying to say this is universally true. But I have certainly seen those who have used it in a way that does carry criticism of video games in the process - being used as shorthand to say that an RPG is akin to a more mindless form of entertainment, often implying that RPGs should be above that, and are intended to be a more superior form of gaming.

Again - this isn't built in to simply calling something "videogamey" alone. But it is a direction I've seen taken, and often found in those rants where "videogamey" is tossed out as a casual dismissal without any actual explanation or context.

However, when I see people make the videogame comparison, they are usually saying some aspect of the game is that way, not the game as a whole, which we've been doing in this thread on occasion for brevity's sake.

(At least, that's what I've been doing.)

Oh yeah - from the start, I've tried to make clear that I am not referring to all references to video games. That was part of the reason for my overall breakdown of different uses I've seen. That's why I've been stressing the importance of exactly what you are saying - including explanation of the relevant aspect, since that should be the focus more than 'video games' in general.

But if someone IS actually critiquing the game as a whole in that fashion, all we need do is change the framework of my analogy slightly.

"Your use of garlic, wine and fennel in this meal has rendered it too Italian in style- we were looking for something more Southwestern in flavor."

The judgement is not of Italian cuisine, but that the meal in question is not within the parameters of expectations. The speaker may love Italian cuisine, but not for the purpose he had in mind. At this time, he rejects the meal because it does not meet his overall expectations.

But again - that includes context and explanation. What about when someone simply says, "Ugh, this meal is terrible - it's too Italian!"

Isn't that both of little use (since they haven't really explained what about it they find 'too Italian' and why that bothers them), and also, without context, generally implying a default criticism of Italian food?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But again - that includes context and explanation. What about when someone simply says, "Ugh, this meal is terrible - it's too Italian!"

Isn't that both of little use (since they haven't really explained what about it they find 'too Italian' and why that bothers them), and also, without context, generally implying a default criticism of Italian food?

First of all, "Ugh, this meal is terrible - it's too Italian!" is clearly an opening statement. If you're looking for an explanation at this point, you're asking too much of the speaker and the language. The first words out of the speaker's mouth will never be ""Ugh, this meal is terrible - it's too Italian- and by that I mean blah, blah, blah, blah and blah, which is terrible because of yada yada yada."

NOBODY talks like this.

As for the last phrase, no, you're still not implying a default criticism of Italian any more than the phrase "too garlicky." At best, you can say the speaker thinks its too much of something- here, "Italian-ness"- but you have no idea whether its because he doesn't like Italian food at all or if he was simply looking for something less Italian.

 

[Diamond Cross]

NOBODY talks like this.

So what about when Americans renamed French Fries to Freedom Fries because it was too French? However you'll note they never renamed it to Freedom Kissing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

However, when I see people make the videogame comparison, they are usually saying someaspect of the game is that way, not the game as a whole, which we've been doing in this thread on occasion for brevity's sake.

(At least, that's what I've been doing.)

But if someone IS actually critiquing the game as a whole in that fashion, all we need do is change the framework of my analogy slightly.

"Your use of garlic, wine and fennel in this meal has rendered it too Italian in style- we were looking for something more Southwestern in flavor."

The judgement is not of Italian cuisine, but that the meal in question is not within the parameters of expectations. The speaker may love Italian cuisine, but not for the purpose he had in mind. At this time, he rejects the meal because it does not meet his overall expectations.

Well, yes. But the analogy is nothing without the context. To use your "too Italian" analogy, the conversation has IME mostly gone something like this.

"It's too Italian."
"But you said you wanted Pizza. Isn't that Italian?"
"Yes, but I like Pepperoni on mine."
"You'd prefer if it had Italian saussage?"
"And olives."
"Salami and olives. In what sense is that not Italian?"
"Possibly they are. But this pizza is too Italian."
"..."

Twenty minutes later, it turns out that the problem is that the pizza is thin-crust. Which is indeed Italian and some people don't like (personally I prefer thin-crust pizzas).

 

[Mark CMG]

So what about when Americans renamed French Fries to Freedom Fries because it was too French? However you'll note they never renamed it to Freedom Kissing.

Because French Kissing is actually phlegmish?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So what about when Americans renamed French Fries to Freedom Fries because it was too French? However you'll note they never renamed it to Freedom Kissing.

Some knee-jerk idiocy on our part aside, that's not exactly the same thing, you know. We're not talking about renaming 4Ed "Tekken Tabletop" are we?

Well, yes. But the analogy is nothing without the context. To use your "too Italian" analogy, the conversation has IME mostly gone something like this.

"It's too Italian."
"But you said you wanted Pizza. Isn't that Italian?"
"Yes, but I like Pepperoni on mine."
"You'd prefer if it had Italian saussage?"
"And olives."
"Salami and olives. In what sense is that not Italian?"
"Possibly they are. But this pizza is too Italian."
"..."

Twenty minutes later, it turns out that the problem is that the pizza is thin-crust. Which is indeed Italian and some people don't like (personally I prefer thin-crust pizzas).

Well, to go back a bit, that's not what we were talking about with the Italian analogy. That analogy deals with comparing one thing of a certain kind with another thing of a certain kind: the 2 cuisines standing in for CPRGs and TTRPGs. The reason for that analogy was the discussion of someone critiquing a TTRPG as being too much like a CRPG as a whole, not looking at elements within it.

Your scenario is talking about variations within a single cuisine. In other words, elements within the game. That's more like the garlic analogy upthread. The point of which was this: criticizing the element in one context is not criticism of the element itself.

And again, NOBODY is going to lay out their entire complaint in the first sentence out of their mouth. That isn't how people converse. You have an opening statement. If nobody bites, maybe you follow up. If nobody bites then, you probably give it up. If you don't, you're probably boring.

Look at the posts of people criticizing games or elements for being "too simulationist", "too gamist" or not being either one of those enough. Do they express their entire argument from word one, or do you have to get into a discussion with them to find out exactly what they mean by "too simulationist" or "gamist?"

Same thing with "videogamey."

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

And again, NOBODY is going to lay out their entire complaint in the first sentence out of their mouth.

But, given that this is a message board, and there's very littel time pressure, why don't they just write that second sentence to begin with?

 

[Glade Riven]

A lousy descriptor is lousy. "X is too videogamey" is a lousy descriptor. It tells me nothing. I don't know about some people here, but I am not a magical fairy princess capable of ascertaining that "x is too videogamey" means "x is too videogamey because of y and z." It is a failure on the part of the broadcaster (as in, person writing the message) to assume that [videogamey = y and z] for everyone (which it doesn't, even amongst people who find x videogamey), especially with the variety of videogames out there. If you choose not to include basic information in a discussion about game theory, it is a little absurd to think that everyone is going to know what you are talking about. This is especially true when "x is too videogamey" is banded about as part of edition warring.

But go ahead. Blame the reciever (reader/listener/etc) for the broadcaster's failure to communicate and being forced to assume what the meaning is when broad, vague description is banded about willy nilly.

 

[jmucchiello]

But go ahead. Blame the reciever (reader/listener/etc) for the broadcaster's failure to communicate and being forced to assume what the meaning is when broad, vague description is banded about willy nilly.

The broadcaster is not being vague on purpose. The broadcaster is being vague because they are not trained in rhetoric and they are not expecting debate level speaking to be required in a gaming forum. What you are being blamed for is seeing malice when seeing ignorance suffices.