The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

[darjr]

Read what I wrote again. Take all the time you need.

I don’t understand. She changed the rules not just Calvin. Or is that what you meant?

 

[Gradine]

 

[CleverNickName]

This is the joke that almost got me thrown off the barge this afternoon.

Spoiler

Q: Which mythical creature casts no shadow?
A: All of them. They're mythical.

 

[prabe]

This is the joke that almost got me thrown off the barge this afternoon.

Spoiler

Q: Which mythical creature casts no shadow?
A: All of them. They're mythical.

I gotta admit, I'm kinda surprised it was "almost."

 

[trappedslider]

This is the joke that almost got me thrown off the barge this afternoon.

Spoiler

Q: Which mythical creature casts no shadow?
A: All of them. They're mythical.

throws off the barge

 

[Ondath]

I'm a few days late, but are people in the forums familiar enough to make extremely personal and judgemental comments about what someone should or shouldn't do? Or are some people such massive wangrods that they'd put their nose into how other people they don't know should spend their hobby time?

 

[Hussar]

Eh, it can be legitimately the reason why you don't like it. But at the end of the day, that's still a you problem, and still subjective.

I agree actually. It could be.

Typically though, it’s not. People will blithely gloss over the hundreds of immersion breaking things that they don’t mind to focus on something they happen not to like and then pretend it’s about immersion instead of simply admitting that it just happens to be something they don’t like.

It’s the whole, I can believe six impossible things before breakfast but that seventh one? Whoo boy. And when it’s pointed out that the six other things are not immersion breaking somehow, you get accused of one true wayism or some other bit of nonsense.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I agree actually. It could be.

Typically though, it’s not. People will blithely gloss over the hundreds of immersion breaking things that they don’t mind to focus on something they happen not to like and then pretend it’s about immersion instead of simply admitting that it just happens to be something they don’t like.

It’s the whole, I can believe six impossible things before breakfast but that seventh one? Whoo boy. And when it’s pointed out that the six other things are not immersion breaking somehow, you get accused of one true wayism or some other bit of nonsense.

I don't think that's quite fair. Especially in terms of "typically."

The reason that people can (and will) blithely ignore some things, but other things will bug them is because, as @Thomas Shey noted, these are subjective preferences. This happens all the time, in all sorts of contexts.

To use the analogy I always go to- the suspension of disbelief operates differently for different people. There are a number of reasons for this- some people look to internal consistency (for example, some people were really bothered by how distances seemed to stop mattering in the last two seasons of Game of Thrones, others were not bothered by it). Some people bring their own experiences into it (a police officer watching a police procedural might have different issues than a regular person). Some people enjoy genre tropes, while other people find them annoying or unrealistic (one person's anime trope is another person's weird and unrealistic stylization). Some people enjoy more realism, some aren't bothered by a lack thereof (pew pew pew in space). And so on.

It's the same with games. Discussing "immersion" can be inherently fraught for two reasons-

1. It is always subjective. I might like a little science fiction in my fantasy (cue up Barrier Peaks), while another person might think that those streams should never be crossed because it pulls them out of the "fantasy feel." There's not a right or wrong, just a subjective feeling for what "works" for that person.

2. Because all the games are abstractions (and preferences are subjective), conversations are always going to be annoying. As you note, if you can believe six impossible things, why not a seventh? Well, because that's not how people work. It's like telling someone that loves Star Wars, "Look, you already accepted the pew pew pew in space, so you can't argue against anything that ever happens. There is absolutely nothing that can wreck your suspension of disbelief now! Muahahahahaha!" We often see versions of this play out in this sphere as well- "Look, once you've accepted there's magic, you can't disagree with anything. Also, since you haven't exactly modeled the economy, how can you say that you are playing a game with any semblance of reality? Check, and mate." That doesn't really add anything to the conversation.

Trying to tell someone that they are wrong (or arguing in bad faith) when they tell you that something doesn't work for them- that it wrecks their suspension of disbelief or immersion, is both (1) painfully easy because it's a fiction- and you will find many other examples that they will gloss over, but also (2) inherently improper, because you're telling them that their preferences, and what works for them, is wrong.

 

[Hussar]

Trying to tell someone that they are wrong (or arguing in bad faith) when they tell you that something doesn't work for them- that it wrecks their suspension of disbelief or immersion, is both (1) painfully easy because it's a fiction- and you will find many other examples that they will gloss over, but also (2) inherently improper, because you're telling them that their preferences, and what works for them, is wrong.

But, you're presuming good faith when it gets trotted out. Most of the time, if it is actually a good faith argument, "suspension of disbelief" or "verisimiltude" or various other terms won't get brought up at all. When it's a good faith argument, people can point to exactly what is bothering them. And, after maybe a bit of prodding, can generally articulate it fairly well.

Because suspension of disbelief arguments are almost always based on the notion that there is something wrong with the material. It's not that the person just doesn't like whatever X is. No. The problem is with the presentation of the material. It shouldn't be presented like that because it's wrong. You must not change the way inherent bonuses (to use a recent example) are presented because it makes the game wrong. Doesn't matter that players can still have exactly what they had before - simply choose your inherent bonuses going to the same place as before - no. What matters is other people can choose something different, and that's wrong.

As soon as someone invokes things like verisimilitude or whatnot, the argument is almost never in good faith. It's nearly always about ramming preferences down the throats of everyone else.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

As soon as someone invokes things like verisimilitude or whatnot, the argument is almost never in good faith. It's nearly always about ramming preferences down the throats of everyone else.

I don't agree at all.

One might say the exact same thing from the other side- that by automatically labeling people who disagree with you as arguing in bad faith, you are just trying to ram your preferences down their throats by discounting what they are telling you, and labeling them as bad actors.

Preferences are not just tricky things, they are inherently subjective. It's entirely possible for two people to just disagree on something. And that's okay! We are not the Borg Collective, and we all have different preferences.

If someone tells you that they don't like chocolate, you might think that they're missing out on a lot, you might even think that they might be a little crazy ... but that doesn't mean that they're arguing in bad faith, or that they're trying to ram skittles down your throat.