A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[billd91]

They ought to. I'm all for holding companies to a higher standard than random unknown message board goons. But when said message board goons decide to be personally insulted by someone saying something that wasn't intended to be insulting (e.g., WotC pooping on trolls) and then pivot on their heels to say that it's silly to be insulted by something that wasn't intended as insulting when they do it, I don't know how else to view that except as hypocritical.

A lot of people offended by WotC's marketing will probably acknowledge that WotC didn't intend to insult them. It just ended up that way. That's different from inferring that they intended to insult and that's the crux of the difference between positions here that you're glossing over.

People defending the use of the term videogamey are saying you can't infer that the use is necessarily insulting... regardless of whether you may personally be offended by its use or not.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

When you criticize something, it is poor form to do so without including constructive commentary.

It's also poor form to open with an info dump. "Videogamey" is a catchall term- like "Gen Xers", "Latino", "mammals", "gamist" and "rocks"- use of which with subsequent clarification is perfectly acceptable and commonplace.

Simply by changing the language you use in a very minimal way

OK, suggest a better catchall term.

Skipping over terms like "videogamey" in favor of meaningful explanation is a win-win, which is why so many of us are frankly flabbergasted as to why it's received such resistance

And we're flabbergasted that a common linguistic practice is so confusing to y'all.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

a lot of people offended by wotc's marketing will probably acknowledge that wotc didn't intend to insult them. It just ended up that way. That's different from inferring that they intended to insult and that's the crux of the difference between positions here that you're glossing over.

qft.

 

[Oryan77]

It is troubling that you seem to be unaware of the difference in role criticism and compliment play in discussion.

When you compliment something, it is generally accepted that you can do so without making that compliment constructive, and that's okay.

When you criticize something, it is poor form to do so without including constructive commentary.

Neither of which makes any difference in my comparison to the complaint about the term videogamey when you get right down to it. Nitpick all you want, but I'm unaware of nothing. Maybe you didn't hear, but I finished reading the internet long ago.

*Really, I'm just posting so I can keep saying videogamey. I've never had the chance to say it as much as this, so I'm thrilled we're at page 35.

 

[WizarDru]

OK, suggest a better catchall term.

Honestly, I'm still unclear as to what it's a catchall term FOR. Console games? Computer games? Any game that runs on an electronic interface? That's fine if that's what it is, I just haven't heard (or perhaps missed) what the agreed upon definition of 'videogamey' is. I would assume that it's 'any game played on an electronic interface, usually with a fairly simple control interface', but I really haven't heard otherwise.

I mean, 'Gen Xers' has a fairly set meaning. Like the 'Silver Age' in comics, not everyone agrees on the start and end dates, but everyone generally agrees on the most of the range. 'Mammals' has a pretty concise definition. Rocks likewise can be wide-ranging, but it still has a basis in observational and scientific definitions. Gamist is probably a good analogy...it's clear that it's exact definition is about as vague as 'videogamey'.

And it's hardly a complaint exclusive to 4E, either. I saw the term launched at 3E plenty of times (usually in terms of why it was bad). In the case of 4E, I have people specifically refer to 4E as 'like a video game' or 'like an MMO' and consider that a positive. So clearly it isn't always used as a pejorative in conversation.

 

[Locien]

OK, suggest a better catchall term.

I'll take a few guesses at what "videogamey" means
1. "Closed ended". the rules are limited to a very specific scope to the point the game seems excessively limited. House ruling to fix the problems would likely change the rules enough such that you may need a whole system. Can be linked to how most video games are limited in what they do due to programming limits
2. "Too combat focused". Traces to your action games. here the fucus is on fighting and action.
3. "Setting is poorly constructed/not well thought out/just plain random". Traces to many game, like Super Mario Brothers, where the setting is more a backdrop for exciting and exotic locations. Also exists in many japanese console RPGs due to third hand knowledge of fantasy tropes, I don't think many japanese console RPG makers read much fantasy literature(but I could be wrong-I do though there is a strong publishing market in japan, and there is a lot of science fiction, fantasy, and Horror that gets published there, both translated and written)
Again, 1 could be most specific complaint to "videogameyness", but 2 and 3 are more likly to be invoked, even though these problems predate widespread videogame adoption.

 

[Glade Riven]

For a bit of the "shoe on the other foot," there were responses earlier in this thread that were rather odd replies.

For example, when I used Legend of Zelda as an example of learning how to design good dungeons for traditional roleplaying, someone came back and pointed out other things of Legends of Zelda that were inhibitors if applied to tabletop gaming (such as a linear storyline of Zelda = railroading). My first thoughts?

Why would I do that?

There is no reason why I should use elements from videogames in my traditional roleplaying that are limitations of the particular format.

Now, apparently when gamers who see something useful from videogames decide to incorporate those elements into traditional gaming, it does run the risk of something being too "videogamey." I do not see this as a bad thing.

Those arguing for the use of the term "too videogamey" or "this is too much like a videogame" have been railing for several pages about how they are not responsible for their poor choice of a descriptor which could (and often is) misinterpreted, especially when others have used it as either an insult to games (insinuating that nothing from videogames could be worthy of adopting for tabletop use), and how it is the fault of the reader for misinterpreting it. A poor descriptor is a poor descriptor, so take some responsibility for your word choice. Not everybody can get away with arguing what the definition of "is" is.

But this thread shows that several posters on the other side are guilty of the same type of assumptions. Baby with the bathwater, as it were. At least in my own particular instance, I did give specific examples of things that I've learned from videogames that have enhanced my tabletop gaming experiance. The response was for people to point out things I don't use from videogames that people don't like to see at the table.

Well, since I don't use those things, problem solve. But it does make them guilty of faulty assumptions not based on the examples I posted. But I did use specific examples, instead of just spouting "Videogames are great and everything should be 'ported over."

There is a huge difference between using a vague descriptor and expecting people to know what you are talking about and going into specific examples to show what you are talking about. With the wide variety of ways "this is like a videogame" can and has been used, it is a poor descriptor.

If you expect me to know what you are talking about, be more specific.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Honestly, I'm still unclear as to what it's a catchall term FOR. Console games? Computer games? Any game that runs on an electronic interface? That's fine if that's what it is, I just haven't heard (or perhaps missed) what the agreed upon definition of 'videogamey' is. I would assume that it's 'any game played on an electronic interface, usually with a fairly simple control interface', but I really haven't heard otherwise.

The section I bolded is all you need.

'Gen Xers' has a fairly set meaning.

Technically yes, but when used in conversation and commentary, it's used as a catchall for certain things that are popular with us, but are in no way unique to us...and in many ways are more prevalent in Gen Y. It's been expanded far beyond it's initial boundaries.

'Mammals' has a pretty concise definition

It does, but it's broad enough that if you tried to say something is "too mammalian"- ridiculous, I know, but we're just talking about the way words are used- would you know what that person meant instantly, or would you wonder if that something was too hairy, lactated too much, was too dependent on live birth, or something else? You'd need more clarification. And if you found the speaker was thinking about a nearly hairless cetaciN, a bat or a platypus, wouldn't you wonder why the term "mammalian" was used?

Rocks likewise can be wide-ranging, but it still has a basis in observational and scientific definitions.

I can guarantee you that the popular usage of "rock" and the scientific use of "rock" are NOT identical. Especially if the speaker was referring to music...

 

[Mark CMG]

A poor descriptor is (. . .)

It doesn't appear that everyone, if many, agree that it is a poor descriptor. Some are even fine with it being a less than precise descriptor in favor of its use as shorthand. You keep coming back to this false premise as an undeniable assertion of truth and it is limiting your ability to participate in a meaningful discussion.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you expect me to know what you are talking about, be more specific.

If you don't understand what I'm saying by my use of a term, don't infer an insult, ask me to clarify.