Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dethklok" data-source="post: 6172476" data-attributes="member: 6746469">Look, I get the impression you really don't want to argue, and that's fine with me. But you said you didn't quite get what I was saying, so I'll elaborate.Pushed? Maybe sometimes, but generally no, I don't think that's true. There are games which are unbalanced on purpose, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and lots of games have players roll up their attributes, so that even characters of the same level have different amounts of power. Likewise many games don't give you the freedom to play different character types, like the rules-lite (and loads of fun) Kobolds Ate My Baby, where everyone plays a nearly identical kobold.I disagree with this sentiment. Yes, it is about taste. But some people have bad taste. Because some games are not very good, and others are downright awful.People say this all the time about art; there are many words for bad art or literature, like &quot;kitsch,&quot; &quot;gimcrack,&quot; &quot;trite,&quot; or &quot;maudlin.&quot; But when discussing roleplaying games, the idea of taste is itself considered to be in bad taste. The irony of course is that gamers love heaping scorn upon awful games (like FATAL, about which you can read an excellent review <a href="http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14567.phtml" target="_blank">here</a>). But when it comes time to admit that making fun of bad games, on the grounds that they are much worse than other games, logically entails admitting that games differ vastly in how good they are, most gamers just don't want to go there.If you don't agree with me on this, that's fine. Argue away. But this will be my last word in the thread.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dethklok, post: 6172476, member: 6746469"] Look, I get the impression you really don't want to argue, and that's fine with me. But you said you didn't quite get what I was saying, so I'll elaborate. Pushed? Maybe sometimes, but generally no, I don't think that's true. There are games which are unbalanced on purpose, like [I]Buffy the Vampire Slayer[/I], and lots of games have players roll up their attributes, so that even characters of the same level have different amounts of power. Likewise many games don't give you the freedom to play different character types, like the rules-lite (and loads of fun) [I]Kobolds Ate My Baby[/I], where everyone plays a nearly identical kobold. I disagree with this sentiment. Yes, it is about taste. But [I]some people have bad taste[/I]. Because some games are not very good, and others are downright awful. People say this all the time about art; there are many words for bad art or literature, like "kitsch," "gimcrack," "trite," or "maudlin." But when discussing roleplaying games, the idea of taste is itself considered to be in bad taste. The irony of course is that gamers love heaping scorn upon awful games (like FATAL, about which you can read an excellent review [URL="http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14567.phtml"]here[/URL]). But when it comes time to admit that making fun of bad games, on the grounds that they are much worse than other games, logically entails admitting that games differ vastly in how good they are, most gamers just don't want to go there. If you don't agree with me on this, that's fine. Argue away. But this will be my last word in the thread. [/QUOTE]

Verification