Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9409513" data-attributes="member: 8461">As in, "haven't succeeded yet."And who developed the game? Because it wasn't WotC.Which has yet to release a single game.No, it does not feel that way at all. More like you're looking at a McDonald's sign and noting how their meals come wrapped in containers, and so therefore they're a box company.And in that regard, they're alike in that they have yet to actually become a video game company.No it doesn't. It feels extremely material.So by your logic, Hasbro is an RPG company? That's an...interesting take on things. Not very accurate, but interesting. All kidding aside though, the fact of the matter is that a company isn't what their subsidiary is; that's sort of the entire point of having a subsidiary, leaving aside the legal reasons. That is the practical difference, in other words. Particularly since you've repeatedly expressed an oddly sanguine attitude toward the future with regards to them trying to become an industry that they've never been part of, yet have a disastrous track record of trying to break into.And here you've granted my central premise, which is that in the process of digitizing the game, its scope becomes limited.Yes, and that's a bad thing, which you yourself have just admitted as per above.No, it didn't. It never has, not even once. You cannot reasonably compare Champions of Krynn with the course of play that you see in, say, Critical Role. The idea that D&D has already been digitized is self-evidently false, because as you yourself noted, that limits its scope.Completely false; most of the game hasn't been digitized, and can't be. No video game system can properly digitize a game whose central premise is "anything can be attempted."Or any of the numerous other steps involved. An engine that's limited in scope cannot properly encapsulate the limitless potential of imaginative play.Let me turn that around to show why this question is misstated: why exactly is it that you think that there's no difference between a course of D&D around the table and playing Champions of Krynn?I suppose if you discard central aspects of something, the peripheral aspects would seem more important.It's very much a distinction of action, just in addition to the legal distinction.No, it's nothing like that; your analogy here is in no way apt.Leaving aside the mistaken characterization of fearfulness, you're continuing with an incorrect analogy, so it's no surprise that your conclusion is also incorrect.And when it releases that, then it can characterize itself as that kind of company, though even then characterizing itself that way as opposed to what it's been releasing for decades strikes me as wrongheaded.On the contrary, what's weird is this insistance that because they're trying to make video games, that means that they have, and so can be correctly characterized that way.So by that logic, any company with a webpage is a web design company?It's the central point, in fact. That they've been trying to do something doesn't mean that they're able to do it.So all of their manufacturing containers for their food means that they're actually a box company?Which developers are you referring to, insofar as they've never released a single video game? (Of course, that people butcher language, which then becomes standardized, is hardly anything new, or salient for that matter.)No, it really doesn't.Wait, so now it's about what a company is doing "primarily"? So by your logic, shouldn't WotC be "primarily" a paper company, since they've released more paper products than digital?That's a different issue from saying that his background means we can infer with reasonable accuracy that he'll be better than his predecessors.</blockquote>

Verification