A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[Dannyalcatraz]

All this mumbo jumbo about "Yer not explaining yourself properly!" is just a cover up for the fact that they feel insulted as if we're saying "Video games suck!" And to be insulted by that is a little nutty.

And as many of us have pointed out, we actually LIKE videogames.

 

[Dannager]

For some reason, being able to use hot button language is more important that actually communicating.

At least they're up front about not caring about communication. The internet is for making sure everyone knows your opinions, not for worthwhile discussion, don'tchaknow.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

At least they're up front about not caring about communication.

We care about communication.

You seem to think were being intentionally obfuscatory; we are not. You seem to think were being intentionally inflammatory; we are not.

We are expressing an unequivocal statement that elements of 4Ed remind us of videogames.

This is not intrinsically an insult unless you want it to be.

 

[wedgeski]

We are expressing an unequivocal statement that elements of 4Ed remind us of videogames.

I don't think Dannager and others would have half as much trouble with this adjective if, upon examination, those who used it were as honest as this.

"4E is too videogamey!"
"What do you mean by that?"
"I don't know, it's just a feeling, I can't put it any better than that."

That's a perfectly reasonable answer to the question and end of conversation right there.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Do you also explode all over people who tell you to "Have a nice day"? Nice? What a useless word! It means different things to everybody. How in heck can you wish me a "nice" day when we haven't spent 25 pages on a forum arguing over the parameters of what "nice" is -- let alone "a nice day" is? Nice should just be banished from the dictionary.

There is a huge difference. Nice is not a put down (unless you are The Witch). Video-gamey is. Especially given 4e's history of being declared to be just like World of Warcraft. (Or early 3e's of being just like Diablo). It is therefore deliberately offensive or ignorantly offensive.

Once again, my advice to you is to get over it. People will use the term videogamey (and nice) no matter how much you protest.

And the more people protest about people using thoughtless putdowns, the fewer will. Yes, this is a silly place to make a stand.

That I am not sure I can agree with. My knowledge of video games is admittedly limited, but I am not familiar with any video game that is as gritty as a tabletop game can be. Even the horror ones, like Silent Hill and Resident Evil, don't seem very gritty (even if they are enjoyable).

As gritty as a tabletop game can be or as gritty as Dungeons and Dragons (a game with an explicit raise dead spell) is?

Also horror and grit really aren't the same thing (and IIRC Resident Evil is about blowing the heads off zombies - yes it's horror, but like most D&D it's horror of the sort where you get to kill the horrifying creatures). For grit, try nethack. Or some of the more simulationist strategy games (Dwarf Fortress springs to mind).

To me, "videogamey" implies a great number of things, only one of which is a dealbreaker -- an artificial constraint on the possible action. For me, this problem arises from the following:

1. Any combat system that requires so long to resolve a combat that the action becomes artificially constrained to "only important combats". This includes the systems of both 3e and 4e. As a funny aside, although artificial constraint in action is something I associate with video games, this particular form of artificial constraint is something no video game I have ever played has included. Video games have no problems whatsoever dealing with minor combats.​

​

Indeed. This is not video-gamey. Almost the reverse.

2. Skill Challenges as presented in the (early?) rules

The presentation was bad. Granted.

6. Any "game balance" that has a very narrow range of threat levels that can be both interesting and that can impact the outcome of the adventure as a whole.

This is an oversimplification but a good point.

And, the #1 thing that tabletop games do better than video games is remove that sense of artificial constraint.

It took a hell of a lot of pages. But we've finally got a decent explanation - constrained. That one works. I happen to disagree and could go into why, but thank you for being the first person I have ever asked to come up with a decent answer to what the term means without going to crap about powers, healing surges, and the like.

And constrained is something that can be discussed without being unclear and doesn't have a history of offensive nonsense from people who demonstrably do not know what they are talking about and associated putdowns attached to it.

Erm, no. You've actually got those turned around.

"I don't like 4e" is, if you don't like 4e, a statement of fact. If you say it and you do like 4e, it is a false statement. It is a statement about an opinion, but the statement itself is either true or false.

Point.

"4e is too like a video game", OTOH, is a statement of opinion, expressed as a statement of opinion. If you are unclear, those words "too like" express a valuation. Valuations, by their nature, are subjective.

And point. I expressed the problem even worse than the people talking about things being video-gamey. The problem is that too like a video game claims to be based on something - and this should be a hook for discussion. But I have asked repeatedly what is meant - and every time I've asked I've come to the conclusion that by the logic being used by the speaker we want a video-gamey edition of D&D, 2e is by far the most - then 1e, then 3e, then 4e. Your post I am replying to is the first time anyone's said anything that makes sense.

Actually, "I find the term videogamey to be too Jabberwocky" makes perfect sense to me, assuming that you are referring to the poem, which contains made-up nonsense words.

As opposed to the monster in the monster manual. There are many ways of taking it - which is why requests for clarification are made. And normally come back with nonsense like Thunderfoot's (which, let's not forget, included a slur on the intellegence of any DM who actually used the rules of D&D 3.X rather than automatically houseruling).

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.

Granted. But there is a world of difference between "I think that's a made up nonsense word" and "Only an idiot would make up a nonsense-word like that". (Or, more accurately for the context of the term, "Only a grognard who doesn't even like changing his underwear would make up a term like that" - the history of inaccurate comparisons to video games being used to put down 4e irrespective of truth values is older than 4e itself).

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.

And that's not what it is from this side of the keyboard. It's the trying to sneak a classic put-down or insult (too like WoW) in under the radar. Or the use of it by people who don't know any better.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Neonechameleon, your post deserves a longer reply, but all I can do right now is:

After my Point 1, you apparently missed the point. It doesn't matter if the cause comes from video games, only if the outcome of that cause creates a similar feeling of artificial constraint to what is felt in video game play.

Likewise, no one who says "X feels like mashing buttons on a controller" actually believes that the cause is a physical controller, or has anything to do with a physical controller. It is the outcome that is important.

Which is (one of several reasons) why Dannager's "rip to shreds" simply need not apply. He attacks the cause as not being videogamey, while ignoring the outcome that is being discussed. It is a classic strawman argument at worst, and a classic failure to understand the other side at best.

And from all the posts pointing material like this out that he has blithely ignored, I am betting it is a willing failure to understand, if it is a failure to understand at all.

About the thought being offensive: See Hussar's last post above this one. Hell, see your own post to which I am replying. The difference is not a broad meaning, the difference is that what is expressed is not neutral. Was does not neutral mean? It shows evidence of subjective valuation. What does that mean? It is the subjective valuation, not the broad terminology, which is offensive.


RC

 

[JamesonCourage]

There is a huge difference. Nice is not a put down (unless you are The Witch). Video-gamey is. Especially given 4e's history of being declared to be just like World of Warcraft. (Or early 3e's of being just like Diablo). It is therefore deliberately offensive or ignorantly offensive.

Well, I'd disagree with this, I suppose. Video-gamey is not inherently an insult. Yes, many people say it knowing it will insult other people, even if that is not the case. However, I can say that I think that it's okay to have an African American president, and I know it will offend other people. I'm still going to express my reasonable opinion, and if someone else wants to get offended by it (even though I didn't mean it offensively), there's not much I can do about that.

Like I've said several times before in this thread, it's like when I hear that Metal Gear games are too much like movies. It's not that movies are bad, it's that certain people don't want to feel like a video game is a movie. Other people feel Metal Gear is a great game, and don't think it's like a movie at all. They can debate whether or not it feels like a movie, but at the end of the day, the first individual is still going to think it feels like a movie, because it's based on theme, rather than specifics (I go into more detail on that in previous posts).

If I dislike mushrooms on my pizza, it's not a slight against mushrooms, and I don't think that other people shouldn't use mushrooms on their pizza. If I go on to say I dislike fish, and describe fish as reminding me of mushrooms because of texture, you can debate whether or not the texture is similar, but it's still going to remind me of mushrooms. It doesn't mean I think mushrooms should be banned, blown up, or otherwise disposed of, but it does mean that it's not a good fit for me.

My point is simply that it's not inherently an insult. People may find it insulting. And, to be fair, certain people who use the term will say it knowing others will find it insulting. But, one can easily draw a comparison to something without meaning any slight against the subject which was compared to.

Again, I don't know if this is going anywhere. It still seems like we have certain extreme elements, and people lining up on one side or another. I think that's rather unhealthy to thread discussion (as it becomes Semantic Thread Debate Time), but maybe I'm wrong. It just seems like people feel the need to say that a feeling is invalid without logically backing it up, and that simply won't work, as unfair as that might be.

Things are subjective. People have different likes and dislikes. I'd say that people shouldn't take things too personally (on either side here, since there are obviously two sides), and should agree to disagree. Because, in the end, play what you like

 

[Bluenose]

Neonechameleon, your post deserves a longer reply, but all I can do right now is:

After my Point 1, you apparently missed the point. It doesn't matter if the cause comes from video games, only if the outcome of that cause creates a similar feeling of artificial constraint to what is felt in video game play.

RC

And at last you actually put up something that can be discussed. Artificial constraints, as an inherent feature of video games that aren't present in tabletop RPGs. And it's quite correct. This interactive creative story-telling is the area where tabletop RPGs exceed the capacity of (nearly all) other forms of entertainment. The ability of a GM to create something to handle people moving past those constraints is just such a key area. Of course, it doesn't help that 4e still has just such a mechanism in the form of a GM.

Not that this is unique to videogames. I would point out that there are a lot of other media in which artificial constraints appear when you try to interact with them in a way not intended by the creator. I can't see what is happening to the left of the lady in the Mona Lisa. Is that not an artificial constraint? Yet I don't think it's possible to describe the Mona Lisa as videogamey, without looking incredibly stupid. I can't follow the story of Cardinal Richelieu except when it interacts with that of the Musketeers, but I think most people would not accept a claim that The Three Musketeers is videogamey.

tl;dr Medium and Message are being confused.

 

[ggroy]

At least they're up front about not caring about communication. The internet is for making sure everyone knows your opinions, not for worthwhile discussion, don'tchaknow.

In practice, internet communication isn't much different than a "blood sport" (both figuratively and literally).

 

[ggroy]

"I don't know, it's just a feeling, I can't put it any better than that."

This sounds almost like a definition of "truthiness".

Truthiness | Define Truthiness at Dictionary.com

truthiness
— n

informal (of a belief, etc) the quality of being considered to be true because of what the believer wishes or feels, regardless of the facts