A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[WizarDru]

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."

To my way of thinking, it's not quite the same. "Simulationist" and "Gamist" themselves are normally used in a non-pejorative sense. The discussion of one versus the other versus "narrativist" is a fairly stratight-forward descriptive title. More to the point, they have (afaik) generally accepted definitions as to what they are, ergo "narrativist" is focused on story while a "gamist" is more focused on balanced mechanics. Accusing "Ars Magica" of being 'too narrativist' isn't as vague as saying you think "Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying" is 'too videogamey'.

"Videogamey" is not like those terms, in colloquial usage. Setting aside how it's used (and I rarely see it used beyond neutral and most often in a negative sense) is the issue of it's imprecision. Video Games themselves are fairly broad in their scope and definition and not everyone defines them in the same way. It is precisely this imprecision that makes the term a poor choice for critical comparison. The person using it for comparative purposes may have completely different ideas about what it stands for than the person receiving the comparison, muddying the waters with imprecision and possibly confusion.

Let's take "Settlers of Catan", for example. I can play the traditional board game or I can play it on the PC, the iPhone/iPad or Xbox 360. Does that make it a video-game, simply because of the addition of computer players or the medium in which the game is played? If not, then does that mean that a game like 'Culdcept' is NOT a video game, since it could easily be turned into a board game? And so on.

In the 1980s, it was fairly easy to delineate what was and was not a video game. The age of Pong and Atari has long since passed, however. The depth and complexity of some games has far exceeded what we would have thought possible back then. This makes the argument even more imprecise, as 'video game' is not a genre, though it is often treated like one. I understand more when this argument is used with the term 'Anime', because while anime covers a wide-base (moreso than people who aren't particularly enthused with it might know), I can see where folks would combine the various parts into a cohesive whole and apply the label. The range from "Totoro" to "Macross" to "Berserk" to "Dead Leaves" to "Fushigi Boshi no Futago Hime" (Twin Princesses of the Wonder Planet) is really not THAT wide.

But video games, at this point in time, cover such a wide-base that it's actually, IMHO, a very counter-productive descriptor. Consider the following games:

• Red Dead Redemption
• Mass Effect 2
• Angry Birds
• Pokemon: Heart Gold
• Call of Duty:Black Ops
• Wii Sports Resort
• Dragonquest IX
• Halo: Reach
• Starcraft II
• Super Mario Galaxy 2
• Gran Tourismo 5
• Allan Wake
• Madden NFL 11
• Sid Meier's Civilization V

These are some of the biggest selling games of 2010. That's a pretty diverse list, and that's only covering the blockbusters. We're not hitting many of the more 'indie' efforts, such as "And Yet It Moves...", "Limbo", "Minecraft", "Puzzle Agent" or "Super Scribblenauts".

I find it hard to use 'videogamey' as a source comparison statement, when it can encompass such a diverse set of games. Now, you could argue that some of these are NOT videogames. That's not the problem...the problem is that many people (such as myself) DO. And that makes using it as a reference both imprecise and confusing, at least to me. This term is even more confusing based on your age, I'd guess. For most of my life, 'video game' has meant a console or handheld game: computer games are COMPUTER games. It implied a different approach to games (generally slower, less reaction oriented and with UIs that required more sophisticated input devices). Over the past 20 years, those platforms have converged (Doom from one direction, RPGs from the other for example). And, of course, those games now co-exist across both platforms (see games like Dragon Age or Assassin Creed Brotherhood). Thus, when I hear 'videogamey' I DON'T think in terms of MMOs, but in terms of Marios. That's my personal bias, of course...but that's my point. I have to mentally correct in discussions with that term because it means something different to each speaker.

When 3E came out, it was derided by some as 'too videogamey'. 4E, with it's obvious recognition of MMO ideas, also gets labeled this way. But as often as not, when I hear this term in conversation, what the speaker sometimes means is really a reference to a specific game and it's elements. Since (as my .sig implies) most CRPGS and MMORPGS (and to varying degrees, most video games) can draw a straight line from D&D, I find it interesting to see stuff come full circle. And by 'specific game' I usually find that people really mean 'World of Warcraft'. Which is fine, but as I mention above, when I think 'video game', I don't think WoW. WoW is, to me, a CRPG or MMORPG. And since more specific terms exist, if that's what the speaker really meant, I wish he'd just use that.

This is not to say that I'm dismissing the notion that the speaker finds elements that he finds from video games in general and doesn't like (such as easily resetting health, action points, skill trees or what have you). These are perfectly valid criticisms if the person feels that way and the substantial changes to the game over the past 30 years are certainly not going to be preferable to everyone. I dropped D&D just prior to 2E and wasn't lured back until 3E. Did that make 2E a bad game? By no measure. Nor were my criticisms of the system false for ME.

I just wish that folks could be more specific in there terminology, especially when such terminology exists. I understand the desire for shorthand, but there are more precise but equally short terms for what folks generally mean.

 

[jmucchiello]

"Videogamey" is not like those terms, in colloquial usage. Setting aside how it's used (and I rarely see it used beyond neutral and most often in a negative sense) is the issue of it's imprecision. Video Games themselves are fairly broad in their scope and definition and not everyone defines them in the same way. It is precisely this imprecision that makes the term a poor choice for critical comparison. The person using it for comparative purposes may have completely different ideas about what it stands for than the person receiving the comparison, muddying the waters with imprecision and possibly confusion.

Imprecision is how human conversation and debate thrive. If everyone posted on a forum in exact precise wordings creating fully logical and saliant points, (aside it being a headache to read) there would be nothing to debate. Every followup post would be "I see your point and you are entitled to that viewpoint". That's not how people work.

Telling us that "videogamey" is too imprecise to use for critical comparison starts from the assumption that the speaker wishes to spend the time crafting a critique. It ignores that fact that most people who call 4e videogamey arrived at the conclusion within two minutes and STOPPED thinking about it after that. Getting upset about someone else making a knee-jerk reaction to something you like is going make you upset constantly throughout your lifetime.

The people posting in this nigh-30 page thread are not the people making vague comparisons about 4e. It is the people who will never read this thread and will never consider "videogamey" vague who will continue to make that comparison. And there is nothing that debating whether calling something videogamey is or is not vague will do to change that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"Simulationist" and "Gamist" themselves are normally used in a non-pejorative sense

They get used pejoratively all the time, "too _______" is the context in which I first encountered the terms here.

And for the record, while I've been here quite some time, I still don't have a solid grasp of what people mean when they say "gamist" until they spell it out.

I just wish that folks could be more specific in there terminology, especially when such terminology exists.

Sometimes a more precise "catchall" term doesn't exist. While I could probably say that 4Ed combat is "Tekkeny" to me, my game programmer buddy who has a laundry list of things he doesn't like that boil down to the tracking of fleeting modifiers that is common in a variety of CRPGs he enjoys that he thinks simply don't belong in TTRPGs?

"Too modifiery?" No- he's going to compare it to what he sees up close and all day (and from the guts level): videogames.

 

[WizarDru]

Telling us that "videogamey" is too imprecise to use for critical comparison starts from the assumption that the speaker wishes to spend the time crafting a critique. It ignores that fact that most people who call 4e videogamey arrived at the conclusion within two minutes and STOPPED thinking about it after that. Getting upset about someone else making a knee-jerk reaction to something you like is going make you upset constantly throughout your lifetime.

I think you're reading some sort of anger or apoplexy in my post, where I'm just suggesting mild aesthetic preference. I'm certainly not upset. I thought I was pretty specific in my post that I wasn't telling anyone they were right or wrong, but why I found the term imprecise. I think you're arguing past me, here.

 

[MrMyth]

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.

What are you talking about? Of course they do! That's exactly the sort of example you gave moments ago! "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."

You just explicitly said that this is the behavior you often see, and how you have been discussing things yourself: "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.)"

There are plenty of people on these boards who provide context and explanation for their statements.

There are also others, on this board and elsewhere, who toss out dismissive statements without that context, often in the midst of other rants about the game.

It's not an either-or proposition. We aren't limited to only having one or the other.

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.

You really feel that "I don't like this food, it's too Italian" does not, in any way, indicate that the speaker does not care for Italian food?

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."

But, again, those words have a much easier to pin down meaning that "videogamey". For one thing, as noted, they are elements of a game, not an alternate medium for a game itself.

If I say a game isn't simulationist enough for me, I am saying that it does not do an adequate job of simulating reality.

If I say a game isn't videogamey enough... what am I complaining about? A lack of a controller? Not being played on a monitor? Or lacking elements found in a specific game, like question marks over someone's head?

It's the same thing with the food analogy. "This food doesn't have enough garlic in it." It's pretty clear what I am saying with that - that it does not have enough garlic!

But... "This food isn't Italian enough!" Is there truly one single distinguishing feature of Italian food that such a statement instantly points to?

You talk about how these sorts of things are "opening statements". But I maintain that they don't lead to the same thing.

If someone posts a comment that says an RPG has too much simulationism for their taste (or not enough), than I can offer a variety of responses. Some of them involve asking deeper questions about what elements are too simulationist. But others would be about the benefits or downsides of simulationism itself, and a discussion could unfold directly about their preference.

If someone posts a comment that says an RPG is too videogamey, with no other context... then the discussion still can't begin until I respond with, "What in the world do you mean by 'videogamey'?"

 

[WizarDru]

They get used pejoratively all the time, "too _______" is the context in which I first encountered the terms here.

And for the record, while I've been here quite some time, I still don't have a solid grasp of what people mean when they say "gamist" until they spell it out.

'Too Gamist' isn't implying that being 'gamist' is bad on it's face, to my reading, but that I don't like that this is more 'gamist' than I prefer. Calling "Amber Diceless" 'too narrativist' doesn't suggest to me an inherent inferiority in narrativism, but a mix or emphaisis I don't prefer.I guess we'll just have to disagree on whether or not the GSN structure has defined meaning, but I've never heard people that confused about it or seen multiple repeating threads arguing about the definition of the terms, though I admit I could easily just skimmed right past them.

Sometimes a more precise "catchall" term doesn't exist. While I could probably say that 4Ed combat is "Tekkeny" to me, my game programmer buddy who has a laundry list of things he doesn't like that boil down to the tracking of fleeting modifiers that is common in a variety of CRPGs he enjoys that he thinks simply don't belong in TTRPGs?

"Too modifiery?" No- he's going to compare it to what he sees up close and all day (and from the guts level): videogames.

So your saying that no proper descriptor exists, so he just grabs a label knowing it's not actually accurate? It actually sounds like he's got his modifier right there: it's too MMORPG-ish, too CRPG-ish, too much like WoW or Diablo-esque. It certainly sounds like there are plenty of terms he could use that are more apt from what you're describing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You really feel that "I don't like this food, it's too Italian" does not, in any way, indicate that the speaker does not care for Italian food?

Not when I'm in an Indian restaurant. Not if I ordered something from the traditional kosher or halal menu.

The critique of Italian food is not inherent in the statement.

So your saying that no proper descriptor exists, so he just grabs a label knowing it's not actually accurate?

It's a catchall! Of course it's not going to be accurate.

When people refer to my primary or secondary ethnicity in political pieces, they use one term to refer to all of us. We're not monolithic, though. It's not accurate by any means.

Do I get pissed about it? Am I confused? Nope.

'Too Gamist' isn't implying that being 'gamist' is bad on it's face, to my reading, but that I don't like that this is more 'gamist' than I prefer

Exactly, and you should read "too videogamey" the same way, because often, that is how it is being used.

To date, everyone in this thread who uses that phrase has said this, in contrast to ONE nameless, incited assertion that someone in another thread was using it to indict both 4Ed and videogames. I'm fully prepared to accept that the person who brought that up didn't manufacture it, and he DID see someone do just that.

But the evidence in this thread is clear: lots of people do not use the term "videogamey" to indict videogames.

To assume otherwise is not logical.

 

[jmucchiello]

I think you're reading some sort of anger or apoplexy in my post, where I'm just suggesting mild aesthetic preference. I'm certainly not upset. I thought I was pretty specific in my post that I wasn't telling anyone they were right or wrong, but why I found the term imprecise. I think you're arguing past me, here.

No, that was my read on the OP. I'm not suggesting you are having conniption fits when people say videogamey. You finding the term videogamey imprecise won't stop people from using it.

I admit, I am meta-arguing. I don't care if videogamey is or is not vague. In fact, I'm sure when someone honestly utters the sentence "4e is too videogamey" it makes complete, utter and logical sense to the speaker.

Your argument is essentially moot as it applies to the people who make this assertion. They are not reading threads like this that warn them not to be vague before they use the term. Even if you took out ads in gaming magazines, they would not notice.

If you were complaining solely about bloggers, I'd be on your side. It is reasonable to assume a blogger thinks before he types, perhaps even do some research. But this complaint is also targeting folks posting in forums. And assuming forum posters think before they type is naive, at best.

 

[jmucchiello]

If someone posts a comment that says an RPG is too videogamey, with no other context... then the discussion still can't begin until I respond with, "What in the world do you mean by 'videogamey'?"

And what's wrong with that?

That's the point I'm trying to make. "tired of people knocking videogames" as the OP titled this thread is an inappropriate and emotional response. Instead, just ask for clarification and attempt to establish common ground. Move on, move forward. There is no reason to be for or against "videogamey". If you don't understand, ask for clarification. If you understand, agree or disagree and continue talking. Is that so hard? Be the water, bend, don't break.

 

[WizarDru]

If you were complaining solely about bloggers, I'd be on your side. It is reasonable to assume a blogger thinks before he types, perhaps even do some research. But this complaint is also targeting folks posting in forums. And assuming forum posters think before they type is naive, at best.

LOL. Dude. I wish for World Peace, non-fattening Caramel Creams and a Superman video game that isn't horrible, too. I'm not expecting folks to DO it, just lamenting that they don't.