A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[Raven Crowking]

A similar type of slur I've noticed some people using over the years, is the phrase "just like a comic book" to describe movies, books, tv shows, etc ... they don't like.

Call me prejudiced, but that's exactly how I feel about Ghost World, Road to Perdition, A&E's The Walking Dead, and V For Vendetta. Just like a comic book.

----

As for "videogamey", the use of language, as suggested by Neonchameleon, may well be a strong contributor, because the language chosen does very much affect how things feel when they are being read.

I would also, in some instances, mention artwork. The more artwork looks like it is texture-mapped, the more it looks like a still from a video game.

Those are not necessarily bad things in and of themselves, though. This is especially true if you have a stated goal of appealing to the MMORPG crowd. Maybe doubly true if you are trying to create a computer-mapped VT at the same time. Maybe triply true if you have noticed that the MMORPG subscription model is a huge revenue generator, and you'd like a slice of that pie.


RC

 

[Oryan77]

The comment about it being videogamey is about as valid as one about it being too jabberwock-y.

Except that videogamey will give a person an idea about what the speaker is about to say. Jabberwocky doesn't. Just because you don't get what I'm referring to doesn't mean someone else won't. I can use the term sandbox when talking to two of my players. I guarantee neither of them would have the slightest clue as to what "sandbox" meant. I bet you do though. But because they don't understand the term doesn't mean that the term is not a valid term.

Eh? Of course it was their intent. HP haven't purely represented physical wounds in D&D since forever.

I have a strong feeling that the designers implemented healing surges because it was a "cool" or "fun" game rule, then they figured out how to explain that rule in real world terms so they can get away with using the rule. Maybe I'm wrong, but I get that impression from a lot of rules being used in 4e D&D. Before anyone starts jumping down my throat over this opinion, keep in mind, I don't care and I don't want to argue about it.

If "Too videogamey" is the only objection you have to healing surges, then the thing I think you don't like about them is that they are newfangled and not like the D&D you grew up with.

No, not at all. I didn't explain why I don't like healing surges because it's not what this thread is about. Rest assured that I do have my reasons for not liking them and the easiest way to start off my explanation is to say it's too videogamey.

If I like something and I think it works well in my version of D&D, then I have no problem using it. Being "new" and "different" is not a reason for me to dislike something right away. I don't mind giving new things a chance. I also don't care if other people like to use them. I'll have no problem at all playing in someone's game that uses things I don't like to use.

This thread is 15 pages long and it is obvious that people who are butthurt by this term are going to stay butthurt no matter how we try to explain it away. You guys are way too defensive about this term. It's not a knock to video games at all. I don't understand why that is so hard to accept and why you care so much. Really, it shouldn't be this big of a deal.

 

[Oryan77]

Which says that his version of videogamey has nothing to do with actual video games.

That's pretty much it. The term is used more to describe the "feel" that you do or don't want in your game. It's not a literal hatred of what a video game does.

Video games can be more relaxing and I can zone out as I play it and have a good time. I can overlook realism and not even care about "why" my characters do the crazy things they do in the video game. Nothing needs an explanation when I'm playing video games. I don't take video games as seriously as I take my D&D games, that's what I like about D&D, it's much different. If they were the same, then we'd only need to play one or the other.

So when I'm saying something is videogamey, it is just something that I'm ok with using in a video game, but I don't really want to do it like that in my D&D game. How is that possibly knocking video games?

 

[jmucchiello]

After 15 pages all that's really happened is people have imprecisely told the OP that his problem isn't "videogamey", it is English. Basically, this is how English is spoken. English is an imprecise language and humans are even more imprecise than English. To expect all words to have one specific meaning is to not understand English itself. The OP is tilting at windmills if he expects his rant here to convince anybody to stop using his pet peeve terminology when discussing likes and dislikes in RPGs.

Generally, when something ticks you off on an Internet forum, you should step back and understand what is ticking you off and whether you think the poster is trying to tick you off. If he is, he's a troll and feeding him is a mistake. If he is not, then you should attempt to discover why it made you mad because having ruled out it being his intent, the reason can only be within you. This does not work in practice since Humans are also emotional and emotions are just as imprecise as language.

 

[Dannager]

Not really, because you're trying to tell me what I'm saying, not ask what I'm saying. I may feel that 4e is videogamey - that's the description of my feelings at a general, overview level. If you want to know more about my statement, you're free to ask what about 4e makes it feel videogamey enough to make that statement. And in the course of a conversation, I'd most likely explain my reasoning.

That's the question that should follow-up any statement about an RPG being videogamey.

Yes. We know.

And when we do ask people with this complaint ("4e is too videogamey!") to provide their reasons for why they believe it to be videogamey, almost invariably, their reasons have nothing to do with video games, or their reasons are rooted in traits shared by all game media, not just video games. Which, in turn, leads us to wonder why they bother drawing a comparison to a specific media (which tells us literally nothing and confuses the hell out of the argument itself) when they could just explain what they don't like from the get-go.

Again, you are clearly not following the argument here. This is troubling in and of itself. Post after post, I have been forced to expand the logic in the hopes that you will actually follow it, and that has not happened. I will expand it further.

"I don't like 4e because it is too videogamey!" is logically sound if:

1) You don't like video games.

For most people who use the above argument, premise 1 is not true. They do like video games, or at least they like some video games. So the argument "I don't like 4e because it is too videogamey!" does not have a rational grounding, and its imprecision (for goodness sakes, it even uses a totally made-up word!) makes it next to worthless in discussion.

"I don't like 4e because it contains certain elements that remind me of video games!" is closer to logically sound. Let's examine. It requires:

1) You don't like video games.
2) 4e contains elements that it shares with video games.

Again, premise 1 ruins the argument from the get-go, but at least you included the second bit.

"I don't like 4e because it contains certain elements that remind me of video games, and those elements make tabletop gaming less enjoyable!" is logically sound, if:

1) 4e contains elements that it shares with video games.
2) Those elements make tabletop gaming less enjoyable.

See how this argument no longer requires the "You don't like video games," premise? By clarifying that these elements are only bad when applied to tabletop gaming, you rid yourself of that ball and chain.

The problem, of course, is that the argument, while sound, is worthlessly imprecise. It does not explain which elements it shares with video games, nor does it explain how those elements make tabletop gaming less enjoyable.

As we know from 15 pages of back-and-forth on this very topic, no one agrees on a single set of "videogamey" elements. The following conversation is totally plausible:

Person A: "Man, 4e is too videogamey."
Person B: "I know! You don't suffer any negative effects until you hit 0 hit points!"
Person A: "What? That's not videogamey at all! That's been part of D&D forever!"
Person B: "But it's just like a video game!"

Etc.

The end result is that you have to actually explain what you mean in order for there to be any productive discussion. We are arguing that it's way easier, and way less inflammatory, and involves way fewer pointless posts, if you'd just skip the whole "4e is too videogamey!" nonsense in favor of fast-forwarding six back-and-forth posts into the future to the inevitable point where you have to explain exactly what you do and don't like anyway. Save us the headache of trying to guess at what you mean with your incredibly imprecise terminology, and at the same time stop railing against video games as though they're the red-headed stepchild of the interactive entertainment world (a title that our hobby of choice is far more deserving of).

 

[Dannager]

Except that videogamey will give a person an idea about what the speaker is about to say.

No. It doesn't.

As we've pointed out time and again, the only idea it gives us as to what the speaker is about to say is that it a) probably won't actually have anything to do with your typical video game, or b) if it does have anything to do with video games, it is probably also shared by every other interactive entertainment media out there (board games, video games, older tabletop games, etc.).

Basically, saying something is videogamey, at this point, essentially tells us it probably isn't videogamey at all. It has gone from descriptively worthless to descriptively confusing.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

"I don't like 4e because it is too videogamey!" is logically sound if:

1) You don't like video games.

Or if I do like video games, but I don't want video game like elements in my rpgs. I like surfing. I also like skeet shooting. But skeet surfing is just not my thing, Val Kilmer be damned.

 

[jmucchiello]

Again, you are clearly not following the argument here. This is troubling in and of itself. Post after post, I have been forced to expand the logic in the hopes that you will actually follow it, and that has not happened. I will expand it further.

You are expecting logic where it does not exist. People "hate/dislike" emotionally first. You are expecting humans to act against their nature.

The problem, of course, is that the argument, while sound, is worthlessly imprecise.

See my prior post. People are imprecise. Have you never noticed this before? People are bad at self-examination and self-evaluation. Have you never noticed this before?

The end result is that you have to actually explain what you mean in order for there to be any productive discussion. We are arguing that it's way easier, and way less inflammatory, and involves way fewer pointless posts, if you'd just skip the whole "4e is too videogamey!" nonsense in favor of fast-forwarding six back-and-forth posts into the future (emphasis added) to the inevitable point where you have to explain exactly what you do and don't like anyway. Save us the headache of trying to guess at what you mean with your incredibly imprecise terminology, and at the same time stop railing against video games as though they're the red-headed stepchild of the interactive entertainment world (a title that our hobby of choice is far more deserving of).

Or you could just accept that some people need those six back-and-forth posts to understand that videogamey is imprecise because in their mind it makes PERFECT sense to say videogamey. Unless you have some means to impose Vulcan-like logic onto a poster BEFORE he posts, you just have to deal with him being imprecise at first. That's how the world is.

Humans can hold conflicting view simultaneously without insanity because they are imprecise and inconsistent. It is also how we can lie to ourselves but can't understand how others can't see the truth right in front of their noses.

 

[billd91]

Yes. We know.

And when we do ask people with this complaint ("4e is too videogamey!") to provide their reasons for why they believe it to be videogamey, almost invariably, their reasons have nothing to do with video games, or their reasons are rooted in traits shared by all game media, not just video games. Which, in turn, leads us to wonder why they bother drawing a comparison to a specific media (which tells us literally nothing and confuses the hell out of the argument itself) when they could just explain what they don't like from the get-go.

It would be beneficial if people said what elements they found unfortunately (or even fortunately for people who think it's good) video gamey. But not everyone has the same communication skills or time to expound on their specific gripes every single time the topic comes up. That's true of any generalization or high level impression people make of anything. And that's why it's a conversation starter, not a thesis.

As for why people make comparisons with a specific media when a trait may be common to many samples in multiple media - you have to realize that people don't have universal experiences. If the first place I ever encountered a ridiculously large bladed sword was in anime, I think it would be quite reasonable to refer to an RPG that included similar elements as being anime-influenced. You're always going to encounter the issues of perspective and personal experience.

I, for example, don't consider a character being unimpaired until their hit points are all gone as being video gamey at all. For one thing, I suspect it's a feature of tabletop games that didn't come by way of video games. I'm also comfortable with it as a game abstraction because there are numerous real-life cases in which an injured person had no idea they were injured thanks to the effect of hormones on the system.

In the end, frankly, what's my incentive to expound on what I mean? You'll probably just try to nitpick it to death and tell me what I should be feeling anyway. Like so...

and at the same time stop railing against video games as though they're the red-headed stepchild of the interactive entertainment world (a title that our hobby of choice is far more deserving of).

If I were to feel that video games will lead to the downfall of western civilization, or even if I just found the controllers to be annoying, why should I stop railing against video games? The only reason I should stop, assuming I'm doing so within the rules of this message board, is because I don't happen to feel that way, not because you think I shouldn't.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No. It doesn't.

As we've pointed out time and again, the only idea it gives us as to what the speaker is about to say is that it a) probably won't actually have anything to do with your typical video game, or b) if it does have anything to do with video games, it is probably also shared by every other interactive entertainment media out there (board games, video games, older tabletop games, etc.).

Basically, saying something is videogamey, at this point, essentially tells us it probably isn't videogamey at all. It has gone from descriptively worthless to descriptively confusing.

And yet, somehow, only the Select Few continue to find it confusing........

If you are willing to argue that what is meant by the speaker cannot possibly be what the speaker means, despite anything the speaker says, until you cannot possibly understand the meaning of a phrase -- any phrase! -- you shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand what is being said.

Moreover, you shouldn't be surprised that others do understand, despite your protestations to the contrary.


RC