A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[Raven Crowking]

Now we'll see definitions in action. RC, I'm using us as an example. I hope you don't mind...

RC here seems to conflate "rational" with "mathematically logical". I am not of the opinion that they are the same. I hold there is a difference between pure logic and rationality, a difference between being logical, and being reasonable, lucid, in control of one's faculties.

This simple difference has, in the past, had us butting heads. But, I now accept that he does not usually make the distinction I do, so I don't jump on him like a trampoline when he says things like this.

You're right; that was sloppy language on my part.

And, as I recently XPed you, I can't do it for the final paragraph.

(Also, I'm not springy enough to jump on like a trampoline.)


RC

 

[MrMyth]

But the thing is, this isn't really tied to videogames at all.

Sure it is- for that person. Otherwise they wouldn't have said it.

(But, for the record, there was other stuff in that spoiler tag I agreed with.)

Yeah, just to clarify, when I said, "this isn't really tied to videogames", I wasn't saying, "That person's objection is not tied to videogames", but rather, "The phenomenon here is not tied to videogames."

My point was mainly that the same sort of objection could come up in all sorts of other scenarios. If I see a rogue with a power specifically emulating a Prine of Persia wall-crawling manuever, the discordance it causes me is the same sort of thing as when I see a character who is clearly patterned after someone from the Matrix.

And, at heart, it is largely a personal concern - some people like seeing these sorts of references built into the game, or seeing D&D draw in interesting flavor and ideas from other places, while others prefer it to remain self-contained and avoid references that will jar a player out of the game.

Again- you know, we could use a "blue in the face" smiley"- you're making an inference that is not actually being implied by the speaker.

"Element X in 4Ed is videogamey, so I don't like it in my TTRPG" is not inherently a knock on videogames, it is an assertion that because X is like a videogame to that person, they don't want it in their TTRPG. It says NOTHING about how they feel about videogames.

For example, "Your soup is too garlicky" does not imply that the speaker does not like garlic, just that the taste of garlic in that dish is too strong or is at odds with other flavors in the soup.

Definitely a good point. It is certainly possible to simply be talking about the degree of influence of an element as a bad thing, rather than saying that anything of that element is itself bad.

That said, I've certainly seen posts where that "videogamey" is absolutely used in a negative connotation. And especially when it is used in a throwaway fashion, "4E is terrible because of how videogamey it is," I suspect many people will read that as indicating some sort of value judgement about video games themselves.

Now, not every mention of video games will read this way! And usually the ones that don't are the ones that give context and explanation for the criticism.

The one issue that still remains, though, is the vagueness of the word itself. Your example, "This soup is too garlicky," might not be an ideal comparison. After all, garlic is a component used in a variety of foods, including soup. Video games, however, are a medium, much like RPGs themselves. The term covers a much broader range of concepts than a more readily defined term like 'garlic'. And the most fundamental and instrinsic elements of a video game - being an electronic game accessed through a computer or console or similar video device - is usually not what someone is referring to when drawing comparisons to RPGs.

So calling an RPG "too videogamey" is more the equivalent of saying, "This soup is too casserole-like." Without any context, it is hard to tell what they mean - are they concerned about specific ingredients in the soup that they normally expect in a casserole? Some element of the soup design (a crunchy layer on top) normally expected in other dishes? Does it just resemble a casserole too much in appearance, thus making it hard for them to eat, even though they know that if they close their eyes they will have no complaints about the taste?

Just comparing it to a casserole is, well, largely useless. It isn't until further explanation is given that one can understand the criticism. And that criticism likely ends up having little to do with casseroles themselves, and instead something else much more specific.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I suspect many people will read that as indicating some sort of value judgement about video games themselves.

That is reader error, then, because that is not what the statement says either explicitly nor by necessary implication.

The one issue that still remains, though, is the vagueness of the word itself. Your example, "This soup is too garlicky," might not be an ideal comparison. After all, garlic is a component used in a variety of foods, including soup. Video games, however, are a medium, much like RPGs themselves. The term covers a much broader range of concepts than a more readily defined term like 'garlic'. And the most fundamental and instrinsic elements of a video game - being an electronic game accessed through a computer or console or similar video device - is usually not what someone is referring to when drawing comparisons to RPGs.

Trust me, garlic is not to be used in every soup- like hungarian cold fruit soup- nor should it be the first thing you taste in most.

So the comparison stands.

 

[jmucchiello]

But you can manipulate it. This happens all the time in real life.

People, generally speaking, are lemmings and herding animals all rolled into one. With a few exceptional people that crop up occasionally.

If you haven't, I'd suggests reading some Plato, especially his Allegory Of The Cave in his work "The Republic".

The Republic | filepedia.org

You are directing me to philosophy? You who sometimes thinks he's a god? All I can say to that is you should be directing me to Machiavelli, not Plato.

My point though is, short of orbital mind control lasers, you can't stop J. Random RPG-player from posting emotionally about how WotC killed their pet sacred cow in D&D 5.232 and comparing it unfavorably to video games. You are tilting at windmills.

This whole thread is about STOPPING people from saying stuff without THINKING first. That is an impossible goal with implication far outside how videogamey 4e is. If you can stop people from acting without thinking you can end violence and bigotry and hate. Let me know when you figure that out. I'll fly out to Stockholm to witness your awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[MrMyth]

That is reader error, then, because that is not what the statement says either explicitly nor by necessary implication.

~shrug~ I don't know what to tell you, at this point. I have undeniably seen posts that have referenced video games in a way that carried a negative connotation. I think that using the term "videogamey" as a dismissive criticism of other games often, but not always, carries an implied criticism of video games themselves.

If that is not the case for you, fair enough. I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss this as simply reader error, nor claim that that the term is entirely neutral within the context in which we are seeing it used.

Trust me, garlic is not to be used in every soup- like hungarian cold fruit soup- nor should it be the first thing you taste in most.

So the comparison stands.

I think you missed my point. It isn't a question of whether garlic is found in some or all soups. It is that soup is a category of foods, while garlic is an ingredient in many different types of foods. Similarly, roleplaying games are a category, a medium - but so are video games. Complaining about an RPG being too much like a video game is the equivalent of complaining about a soup being too much like some other category of food - a casserole, a pasta dish, pizza.

Without context or explanation, the comparison is largely meaningless.

 

[WHW4]

Know what I'm tired of? "Game Theory." It sounds about as legitimate as "Legonomics."

To contribute: I like tomato soup.

 

[Mark CMG]

~shrug~ I don't know what to tell you, at this point. I have undeniably seen posts that have referenced video games in a way that carried a negative connotation. I think that using the term "videogamey" as a dismissive criticism of other games often, but not always, carries an implied criticism of video games themselves.

I have seen it used in a similar manner though if it was meant dismissively I took it to mean that something the poster saw as fine as an element in a video game was not welcome as an element of their tabletop game, not that the element was necessarily bad in and of itself. So, negative to the porting over, dismissive of it being translated to the tabletop, but not so much negative or dismissive of the element prima facie or without due consideration.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I have undeniably seen posts that have referenced video games in a way that carried a negative connotation.

I'm not saying "videogamey" isn't being used as a critique- it is- but it isn't being used as a critique of videogames.

I think you missed my point. It isn't a question of whether garlic is found in some or all soups. It is that soup is a category of foods, while garlic is an ingredient in many different types of foods. Similarly, roleplaying games are a category, a medium - but so are video games. Complaining about an RPG being too much like a video game is the equivalent of complaining about a soup being too much like some other category of food - a casserole, a pasta dish, pizza.

I understand.

However, when I see people make the videogame comparison, they are usually saying someaspect of the game is that way, not the game as a whole, which we've been doing in this thread on occasion for brevity's sake.

(At least, that's what I've been doing.)

But if someone IS actually critiquing the game as a whole in that fashion, all we need do is change the framework of my analogy slightly.

"Your use of garlic, wine and fennel in this meal has rendered it too Italian in style- we were looking for something more Southwestern in flavor."

The judgement is not of Italian cuisine, but that the meal in question is not within the parameters of expectations. The speaker may love Italian cuisine, but not for the purpose he had in mind. At this time, he rejects the meal because it does not meet his overall expectations.

 

[JamesonCourage]

~shrug~ I don't know what to tell you, at this point. I have undeniably seen posts that have referenced video games in a way that carried a negative connotation. I think that using the term "videogamey" as a dismissive criticism of other games often, but not always, carries an implied criticism of video games themselves.

If that is not the case for you, fair enough. I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss this as simply reader error, nor claim that that the term is entirely neutral within the context in which we are seeing it used.

I'll try to sum up what I've been saying (I don't want to speak for anyone else) so far in this thread. I've been saying that the phrase "feels too much like a video game" is not inherently insulting to video games. And it's not.

However, people will use the term to insult other things (3.x, 4e, etc.), and that is an insult on those systems. They may even insult against video games in their post, by using phrases like "[edition] feels too much like a video games. I don't play video games, because I dislike them."

But, again, I'd point out that the phrase "feels too video-gamey" by itself does not imply insult against video games. Undoubtedly you've seen people use it to insult various editions, or even insult video games. However, I think it was more to do with qualifiers than the actual first statement.

I'm just trying to show where my divide in the conversation stands. I'm not trying to speak for anyone else

 

[Bluenose]

I'm not saying "videogamey" isn't being used as a critique- it is- but it isn't being used as a critique of videogames.



I understand.

However, when I see people make the videogame comparison, they are usually saying someaspect of the game is that way, not the game as a whole, which we've been doing in this thread on occasion for brevity's sake.

(At least, that's what I've been doing.)

But if someone IS actually critiquing the game as a whole in that fashion, all we need do is change the framework of my analogy slightly.

"Your use of garlic, wine and fennel in this meal has rendered it too Italian in style- we were looking for something more Southwestern in flavor."

The judgement is not of Italian cuisine, but that the meal in question is not within the parameters of expectations. The speaker may love Italian cuisine, but not for the purpose he had in mind. At this time, he rejects the meal because it does not meet his overall expectations.

So what are these common factors of videogames that can be identified as appearing in some tabletop RPGs and not others? Played on a computer, lacking a GM, restricted range of possible actions - these are things videogames have in common and tabletop RPGs don't, but I don't think you can point to one particular tabletop game and say it has them.

Too much flavouring, rather than too much garlic. Lots of flavours, but objecting to flavour rather than garlic is not exactly meaningful.