A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[JamesonCourage]

It looks like this thread is mostly devolving into a loop that looks something like this, as of this point:

1) "Video-gamey" isn't a precise term.
2) But it isn't necessarily insulting.
3) But it's not specific enough to be useful.
4) But it is useful in a general sense.
5) Not specifically, it's not.
6) You can get specifics by asking.
7) Why not just skip that and tell us specifics originally?
8) Because it's not how dialogue works.
9) It should be.
10) It's not.
11) Well, it should be.
12) Well, it's not.
13) Well...

AND

1) Your insults against 4e aren't valid.
2) In our opinion, it is valid.
3) Not logically.
4) We're talking about feelings.
5) But we can shred your reasons if you state them.
6) I still feel this way.
7) It's not logical, though.
8) That's not how things work.
9) It should be.
10) Well, it's not.
11) Well, it should be.
12) Well, it's not.
13) Well...

I'd suggest we call it a day, folks. It's just slowly ramping up in hostility again, and after the two very lenient warnings we've had already, I don't know if it's wise to continue these circles. Just my two cents, though

 

[The Shaman]

When you say "videogamey", do you mean going about in a large premade world where you are free to save the world or just run around having random adventures and doing whatever you feel like, even collecting books?

Can I buy a ship and hire a crew and some mercenaries to go conquer Akavir, building a large statue carved in my character's likeness at the place where we land?

Still wondering.



Also wondering why I get "[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION]" every time I try to use the 'Mention' feature.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Your scenario is talking about variations within a single cuisine. In other words, elements within the game. That's more like the garlic analogy upthread.

Actually, it wasn't. It was, however, in part based on the misunderstanding it was talking about variations within a single cuisine. The two cusines in question are Italian and American-Italian but because this wasn't laid out clearly we had miscommunications like Peperoni first being thought to be an Italian term (it isn't) then being confused with salami (of which it is a type but isn't generically the same any more than a chilli pepper is a generic pepper).

 

[Aeolius]

before the thread gets closed for redundancy, can someone please change the title to "STOP POKING MEEEEEEEE!"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If someone posts a comment that says an RPG has too much simulationism for their taste (or not enough), than I can offer a variety of responses. Some of them involve asking deeper questions about what elements are too simulationist. But others would be about the benefits or downsides of simulationism itself, and a discussion could unfold directly about their preference.

And

If someone posts a comment that says an RPG is too videogamey, with no other context... then the discussion still can't begin until I respond with, "What in the world do you mean by 'videogamey'?"

(emphasis mine)

You're cool with doing that for "simulationist" but not OK with doing that for "videogamey."

Sounds like a classic double-standard to me.

 

[Glade Riven]

Seriously...I never thought this thread would go to 30 pages. I skipped a good 15 of them, but the debate hadn't changed in that timeframe.

I just find it really odd that there is an argument being made for an assumption that I should know what you are talking about if you use a very vague term. And, if I express frustration at the insistence of people to use a vague term (even when asked to clarify, because some people - not necessarally in this thread - have been asked and have replied in equally vague terms), that is somehow a wrong and terrible thing to do.

Since I do not believe that expressing my frustration is a terrible thing to do, or being frustrated by these circomstances is an illigitemate feeling to have, this conversasion is going nowhere.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Can I buy a ship and hire a crew and some mercenaries to go conquer Akavir, building a large statue carved in my character's likeness at the place where we land?

Sorry for not responding to this one.

I don't think you can do that in the game I mentioned. Then again, I don't know enough about the Elder Scroll games to be sure. I can point to a game where you can do any one of those things, but not all three in the same game, except many for Dwarf Fortress. I could say "find a mod" for it but that's sort of cheating in my book. That's like saying the fighter/wizard power problems was no big deal because you could house rule around it.

Also, as far as I know, the tradition in many video games was to just give the player a ship after a certain plot point. It also depends if your dead set on conquering Akavir. Would you settle for a different land?

 

[The Shaman]

Would you settle for a different land?

No, in this case, I wouldn't.

My point, going all the way back to page one, is that if a roleplaying game doesn't provide me with that kind of freedom as a player, then game-play is too constrained for my tastes.

Those constraints could be imposed by the limitations in the code of a video game, focused rules intended to promote a narrow range of game-play options in a pen-and-paper game, or a tabletop referee unwilling to roll with those kinds of player choices.

In any case, from what I was able to read about the 'Elder Scrolls' games, I disagree with your assertion that the game you cited is an example of "a large premade world where you are free to save the world or just run around having random adventures and doing whatever you feel like, even collecting books." For really 'doing whatever I feel like,' there's simply no match for a human being running the game.

 

[Bluenose]

If I say a game isn't simulationist enough for me, I am saying that it does not do an adequate job of simulating reality.

Point of order: Simulationist doesn't have to refer to simulating reality. Toon is arguably simulationist, except that it's simulating cartoons. Pendragon is simulating medieval stories about King Arthur rather than the reality of whatever figure he might or might not have been in post-Roman Britain.

(emphasis mine)

You're cool with doing that for "simulationist" but not OK with doing that for "videogamey."

Sounds like a classic double-standard to me.

There are several posts in this thread where people have insisted that 'videogamey' is a perfectly understood term, and insisted there was no need to expand on it.

My point, going all the way back to page one, is that if a roleplaying game doesn't provide me with that kind of freedom as a player, then game-play is too constrained for my tastes.

Those constraints could be imposed by the limitations in the code of a video game, focused rules intended to promote a narrow range of game-play options in a pen-and-paper game, or a tabletop referee unwilling to roll with those kinds of player choices.

This though is hardly grounds for suggesting it's something that could be applied to one particular tabletop RPG over another. If the GM goes along with something, I can do it in any tabletop RPG. If they don't, I can't. The system involved is irrelevant.

 

[MrMyth]

You really feel that "I don't like this food, it's too Italian" does not, in any way, indicate that the speaker does not care for Italian food? You really feel that "I don't like this food, it's too Italian" does not, in any way, indicate that the speaker does not care for Italian food?

Not when I'm in an Indian restaurant. Not if I ordered something from the traditional kosher or halal menu.

The critique of Italian food is not inherent in the statement.

It could be, yes, that what they are saying is that they "do not like Italian for this meal, or at this time." But they didn't actually go ahead and say so - they've instead just presented Italian food as a negative quality, without any limitation on how or why. Without that context you provide above.

The dislike of Italian food is not the only possible intent of that statement, but it is a possible intent - and, thus, you risk that being the interpretation that some take away from it. (And, of course, sometimes that is what is meant.)

If someone posts a comment that says an RPG has too much simulationism for their taste (or not enough), than I can offer a variety of responses. Some of them involve asking deeper questions about what elements are too simulationist. But others would be about the benefits or downsides of simulationism itself, and a discussion could unfold directly about their preference.

If someone posts a comment that says an RPG is too videogamey, with no other context... then the discussion still can't begin until I respond with, "What in the world do you mean by 'videogamey'?"

You're cool with doing that for "simulationist" but not OK with doing that for "videogamey."

Sounds like a classic double-standard to me.

Because the problem with the second is that it is the only avenue of conversation. With the first, there are various directions the conversation can go in - you do not need to ask those questions for the conversation to continue. In the second scenario, you do.

I'm not saying that asking someone to provide more details is a bad thing! I'm saying that offering a statement that requires them to do so, on the other hand, is. Well, "bad" might be too harsh a term - it just isn't useful, in my mind. That's all I've been saying.

If someone posts a comment that says an RPG is too videogamey, with no other context... then the discussion still can't begin until I respond with, "What in the world do you mean by 'videogamey'?"

And what's wrong with that?

That's the point I'm trying to make. "tired of people knocking videogames" as the OP titled this thread is an inappropriate and emotional response. Instead, just ask for clarification and attempt to establish common ground. Move on, move forward. There is no reason to be for or against "videogamey". If you don't understand, ask for clarification. If you understand, agree or disagree and continue talking. Is that so hard? Be the water, bend, don't break.

Well, I still maintain I've absolutely seen people make the comparison to video games with the view that video games are a more mindless and inferior form of entertainment to an RPG. I can see the original response as a reasonable one to such an attitude.

As for how hard it is to just ask for clarification... it certainly isn't the end of the world, sure. At the same time, all I've said myself is that using such an uncertain term, especially in a casual and dismissive fashion, is unlikely to further a discussion.