A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[BryonD]

Reductio ad absurdum is something else to avoid if you prefer conversation to argument.

That would be a good point if I was reducing anything. But your insistence that an honest statement is defacto insulting is already into absurdity.

And if we were actually having a conversation, you wouldn't be trying avoid the conversation by telling others what they may and may not say.

Other than those two errors, your sentence is ok.

 

[BryonD]

I'm saying, as I always have, that being insulted by any of this stuff is silly to begin with. While I find it frustrating and think it confuses the discussion when people call something videogamey, that doesn't come near making it insulting.

Cool, props for that. I agree. I think being insulted by either is quite silly.

But it exposes an interesting bit of hypocrisy in those who would pretend that WotC is evilbaddumb for engaging in a marketing campaign that some might consider insulting, while also pretending that it's okay to use language that some might consider insulting.

So many things to disagree with....

First, you have simply ignored the point I already made. No one is saying videogames are bad as video games. The comments WotC made about 3E was saying that a role playing game is bad as a role playing game. "Hypocrisy" requires that these things be the same, and they are not remotely. Again, I do agree that getting offended by what WotC said is silly. But taking a point of information in where they are coming from is perfectly valid.

And there is no pretending. It is absolutely ok to use language that describes your point of view. If someone wants to bend over backwards to get themselves offended where no reasonable offense exists, then that issue lies solely with the person inventing the offense.

I don't accept that any reasonable person can truly stop and consider the point being made and come away with insult as the content. I think it is clearly just a combination of thoughtless knee jerk response and intentional effort to discredit a legitimate complaint that can not be answered in more sound terms.

 

[Dannager]

I don't accept that any reasonable person can truly stop and consider the point being made and come away with insult as the content. I think it is clearly just a combination of thoughtless knee jerk response and intentional effort to discredit a legitimate complaint that can not be answered in more sound terms.

Here, we largely agree. Perceiving insult where none is intended is pointless and distracting. I would argue, however, that calling something "videogamey" is, itself, pointless and distracting to begin with. And, as this thread has shown, there are plenty of ways to respond to the "videogamey" criticism that are composed in sound terms. I believe that there are legitimate complaints to be found behind, but not within, the idea that something is too "videogamey".

 

[Glade Riven]

In the last six pages, has the thread at all progressed from this:

Not really, and I suspect I'm being flamebaited. But I'll give people the benefit of the doubt and say that I am not.

Like I've said before, I'm just seeing how long this thread goes.

[MENTION=18701]Oryan77[/MENTION]: Pretty much. Without identifying what the problem is, the problem could not then be fixed in later iterations. As a critique/constructive critisism, it's worthless. That being said, someone not liking something (whether 3.5, Pathfinder, 4e, whatever) doesn't bother me. I am not arguing for a rational for likes/dislikes, because there often isn't one.

Saying something is like a videogame is still largly meaningless to me, personally. If it has meaning to you (which it does have a meaning for some people), congradulations. But this thread has shown that the meaning is quite varied. Another reason why it has little meaning to me is because I honestly believe that items from videogames can positivly influence tabletop gaming. I also think that this belief of mine has been overlooked in favor of other arguments.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I honestly believe that items from videogames can positivly influence tabletop gaming

Actually, I've seen people make this assertion elsewhere...and I agree.

Inconsistent? No.

Remember the "too garlicky" example- I LOVE garlic, I buy it in 2lb containers of peeled cloves- and when I call certain dishes "garlicky", it is nothing but the highest of praise.

But in case of the aforementioned garlic chocolate chip cookies, I can't help but think that I'd share the assessment of someone who actually tasted them: "too garlicky" would be the first thing I'd probably say.

 

[Oryan77]

Another reason why it has little meaning to me is because I honestly believe that items from videogames can positivly influence tabletop gaming. I also think that this belief of mine has been overlooked in favor of other arguments.

Oh man, big ol' circle again.

Nobody has overlooked that statement. It has been addressed plenty of times. Maybe it has just been overlooked in the countless repetitive posts in this very long thread.

I'll respond to that line of thought again:

Calling something videogamey does not necessarily have anything to do with content being a specific feature from any actual video game.

There could be things we have borrowed from video games and been perfectly fine with using. Why? Because it seems more logical to have in my D&D game because it is more believable or has a good explanation for why it exists. Yes, it is content from a video game, no, it is not videogamey. It may even be something that has never existed in a video game. But if it appears videogamey to me, then I'll call it videogamey. That's how the term works.

You can't take the term too literally. For me, I'll call something videogamey when it seems like it is being implemented in my D&D game for no other reason than the fact that "it's cool & would be awesome to do that in D&D." Because face it, that's how a lot of content is thrown into video games. We don't really need a real world explanation for why it's possible to do things in video games. Mario could fly with a racoon tail. Why? Hell if I know. But I always kept trying to get a racoon tail. If it appears to me that I'm given a rule where the developers thought it would be cool to have, and then came up with some lame explanation on how/why the rule exists in the campaign world, then it seems like all they did was see something they liked from a video game and wanted to implement that into the D&D game. If it is a rule I like because it can be explained away in real world terms in a way I'm comfortable with, then I won't refer to that rule from that video game as being videogamey.

I would say that, "I hope that makes sense and clears things up.", but if by page 37, you never got that point, I doubt I've done any clearing up.

 

[Paradox]

It's not the videogames, it's the racist 12 year old kids who just discovered the F word and don't know what it actually means swearing at me, a player who's played videogames at least one and a half decades before thier parents even met that I can't stand.

 

[jmucchiello]

I would argue, however, that calling something "videogamey" is, itself, pointless and distracting to begin with.

And again, if you assume the person doing so, does so out of ignorance, it isn't pointless or distraction, it is ignorance.

If you ask, what do you mean by that and get a lucid response, you can have a conversation. If you ask what do you mean by that and get vitriol, walk away. The asking of what do you mean never hurts you.

 

[Dannager]

And again, if you assume the person doing so, does so out of ignorance, it isn't pointless or distraction, it is ignorance.

This thread is an attempt to stave off that ignorance. It's unfortunate that the message has become bogged down by people who have decided that - rather than being a product of ignorance - the term has a productive meaning.

If you ask, what do you mean by that and get a lucid response, you can have a conversation. If you ask what do you mean by that and get vitriol, walk away. The asking of what do you mean never hurts you.

Aside from the potential confusion/distraction and the requisite small amount of time necessary to ask for clarification, no, it doesn't hurt anyone. But it's unnecessary.

And, mind you, occasionally vitriol merits a response, especially if - to the unaware - that vitriol appears to make a point.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This thread is an attempt to stave off that ignorance. It's unfortunate that the message has become bogged down by people who have decided that - rather than being a product of ignorance - the term has a productive meaning.

I think it's a shame that people can't recognize the term actually does have meaning- broad though it is- and seem to rely on some tortured parsing to support their position that it is 1) meaningless, 2) an insult against videogames, or 3) an attempt to troll or deliberately confuse others.