A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[billd91]

Does it really matter if videogamey or any other vague term is generally used negatively or positively? I don't think so. I think the main question is whether or not the reader will respect a person's expressed feelings.

 

[Fifth Element]

Well, I'd disagree with this, I suppose. Video-gamey is not inherently an insult.

I don't think anyone is saying that the word is inherently offensive. It's the use of the word that matters.

In the phrase "I think that 4E is the worst edition of D&D ever because it's too videogamey" it's clearly meant as an insult, for example. And if the speaker has any experience on these forums, he knows that the term in question is likely to raise some backs from previous use of that specific term as an insult.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall many statements along the lines of "4E is great! It's so videogamey!" Any actual use of the term is by those putting the game down.

 

[Fifth Element]

Does it really matter if videogamey or any other vague term is generally used negatively or positively? I don't think so. I think the main question is whether or not the reader will respect a person's expressed feelings.

If I'm speaking to a Martian and I say "I feel that all Martians are shifty and stupid", should said Martian respect my expressed feelings? Shifty is a pretty vague term, and stupid is certainly a negative term.

Does "I'm just expressing my opinion" get you out of needing to defend what you say, regardless of what it is?

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I don't think anyone is saying that the word is inherently offensive. It's the use of the word that matters.

In the phrase "I think that 4E is the worst edition of D&D ever because it's too videogamey" it's clearly meant as an insult, for example. And if the speaker has any experience on these forums, he knows that the term in question is likely to raise some backs from previous use of that specific term as an insult.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall many statements along the lines of "4E is great! It's so videogamey!" Any actual use of the term is by those putting the game down.

It's meant as a negative, sure (in that case, and agreed, in most cases). But an insult?

"I think 4e is the worst edition of D&D ever because it's too gamist."

Is gamist an insult, or a description?

 

[Fifth Element]

It's meant as a negative, sure (in that case, and agreed, in most cases). But an insult?

"I think 4e is the worst edition of D&D ever because it's too gamist."

Is gamist an insult, or a description?

Different situation, I'd say, because I have seen people say "I really like X because it's so gamist." Gamist is something that a lot of people say they like about their RPGs.

The subtle insult is more about the people who enjoy 4E, not about the game itself. The game doesn't care what you say about it, it doesn't have any feelings.

If I say "I don't like OD&D because it's too childish", what am I saying about people who prefer OD&D over other editions of D&D?

 

[racoffin]

I don't think anyone is saying that the word is inherently offensive. It's the use of the word that matters.

In the phrase "I think that 4E is the worst edition of D&D ever because it's too videogamey" it's clearly meant as an insult, for example. And if the speaker has any experience on these forums, he knows that the term in question is likely to raise some backs from previous use of that specific term as an insult.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall many statements along the lines of "4E is great! It's so videogamey!" Any actual use of the term is by those putting the game down.

So shouldn't the argument then be "stop attacking/insulting 4E by using this term" instead of trying to hammer down a singular definition for a word that seems to invoke different responses in people?

I can certainly respect that as a request in the never-ending battle to put aside the Edition Wars weapons rather than some battle against words and opinions.

 

[Fifth Element]

So shouldn't the argument then be "stop attacking/insulting 4E by using this term" instead of trying to hammer down a singular definition for a word that seems to invoke different responses in people?

I can certainly respect that as a request in the never-ending battle to put aside the Edition Wars weapons rather than some battle against words and opinions.

I think that's part of it, sure. Much of the Edition Wars relies on vaguely-defined terms, so that you're not committed to a specific point and can dodge around defenses more easily.

 

[ggroy]

hammer down a singular definition for a word that seems to invoke different responses in people?

This here is where the war is already lost before it has even started.

Try getting any large group of people to agree on a singular precise definition of anything.

 

[Fifth Element]

Try getting any large group of people to agree on a singular precise definition of anything.

Indeed. Try "D&D" and see how far you get.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

In fact you missed a very important one of mine. This is the first time that explanation has been expressed clearly. It is normally wrapped up in a whole bunch of nonsense that often goes with misunderstanding the powers system and commonly with houseruling 3.X and then claiming that's the only way the game should be played.

After 300+ posts on this thread, you have finally given something that can be discussed rather than yet more obfuscation, misunderstandings and distortions about 4e, and other junk burying your message. The outcome may be important - but until you came along no one had given a clear illustration of what that outcome was.

(For the record I find 4e far less constraining than 3e and especially 2e because I find constraints on the low end of a character's abilities far more crippling than those on the high end. YMMV.)

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.

And here again it's you that's ignoring what was actually being discussed. Dannager had ripped to shreds everything being discussed. You might all have meant something about constraints but what you were actually discussing was nonsense about healing surges and the power system. And what was being discussed was what your side claimed the problem was.

It is a classic strawman argument at worst, and a classic failure to understand the other side at best.

It's a classic failure to understand the other side, based on a classic failure to explain and communicate. You are, so far as I am aware, the first person who compares it to a video game to move off symptoms and talk about the actual cause. If symptoms are all you are giving to talk about then symptoms will be talked about.

It is the subjective valuation, not the broad terminology, which is offensive.

Both are for different reasons. And that the broad terminology is offensive (or more accurately exasperating and makes many of those who play 4e twitch towards the ignore list) is a good reason not to use it.

Well, I'd disagree with this, I suppose. Video-gamey is not inherently an insult.

Possibly not. Neither is whistling. But go into a crowded bar in Atalanta and loudly whistle "Marching through Georgia". Tell me if you get out with all your teeth.

My point is simply that it's not inherently an insult.

Of course it isn't. Context matters. And the context of calling 4e video-gamey is the legions of idiots and trolls who kept saying "Hur-hur. It's just like WoW." Those you happily align yourself with based on the rest of this post.

But, one can easily draw a comparison to something without meaning any slight against the subject which was compared to.

Of course. But when you are told you are being unintentionally offensive, unless you have any good reason to wish to move to being intentionally offensive (as in the case of someone thinking "it's okay to have an African American president" is offensive), then the polite thing to do is stop being offensive. The all too common thing to do is double down and switch from being unintentionally offensive to deliberately offensive.

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.

No. What won't work is to move from not logically backing something up to trying to back it up and failing. As far as I know, honestly saying "That's just what I feel and I can't express it any more clearly than that" is not something that has caused serious issues.

Things are subjective. People have different likes and dislikes.

People have overlapping likes and dislikes - and not everything is subjective. The search to understand people is never meaningless even if you don't find agreement.

Because, in the end, play what you like

And here we agree.