Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sadras" data-source="post: 7596152" data-attributes="member: 6688277">But it is not just marketing materials, many gamers use the term more realistic. And we have established that your interest lies in intent/play preferences which had nothing to do with my post and your defense is that your position in the thread has remained constant/unchanged. Honestly, your position in this thread, is inconsequential to my post.&nbsp;Aldarc if you want to base your agreement or disagreement with me on feelings rather than sensible points, that is your prerogative. You replied to my post. All you seem to be doing though with this line of thought is making me jump over unnecessary hurdles to get to the heart of the conversation.You have said you understand the term more realistic but do not like it. If I ask you what term do you prefer - you jump to intent/play preferences.That is not at all helpful given that I'm not discussing intent/play preferences which I deem as something that may be related, but separate.I'm referring to something that attempts, however abstract and via a mechanic, to echo a RL instance within a game.You want to know why I'm attempting to create said mechanic. For me those are separate issues.You expect me to believe that you sincerely cannot see these two things as separate issues. I'm really struggling to take you earnestly here.And I'm not concerned how an exciting rule might be incidental in providing realism by a mechanic's inclusion or exclusion. How in the 9 Hells is that discussing my post or the question I posed to you?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sadras, post: 7596152, member: 6688277"] But it is not just marketing materials, many gamers use the term [I]more realistic[/I]. And we have established that your interest lies in intent/play preferences which had nothing to do with my post and your defense is that your position in the thread has remained constant/unchanged. Honestly, your position in this thread, is inconsequential to my post. Aldarc if you want to base your agreement or disagreement with me on feelings rather than sensible points, that is your prerogative. You replied to my post. All you seem to be doing though with this line of thought is making me jump over unnecessary hurdles to get to the heart of the conversation. You have said you understand the term [I]more realistic[/I] but do not like it. If I ask you what term do you prefer - you jump to intent/play preferences. That is not at all helpful given that I'm not discussing intent/play preferences which I deem as something that may be related, but separate. I'm referring to something that attempts, however abstract and via a mechanic, to echo a RL instance within a game. You want to know why I'm attempting to create said mechanic. For me those are separate issues. You expect me to believe that you sincerely cannot see these two things as separate issues. I'm really struggling to take you earnestly here. And I'm not concerned how an [I]exciting[/I] rule might be incidental in providing [I]realism[/I] by a mechanic's inclusion or exclusion. How in the 9 Hells is that discussing my post or the question I posed to you? [/QUOTE]

Verification