Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imban" data-source="post: 4740844" data-attributes="member: 29206">It's pretty hard to say what people's preferences for things are, yes, since they differ for everyone, but your bolded line is dangerously wrong - it sounds an awful lot like &quot;No level of verisimilitude is necessary&quot; as opposed to &quot;no single level of verisimilitude is necessary&quot;, and while I'd argue the latter is wrong too (because enough consistency to stop people from giant frogging locked doors is probably necessary to everyone), the former is basically the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy" target="_blank">Perfect solution fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a> in action: I might strictly prefer games where all damage is actually greivous physical (or &quot;life force&quot;) wounds inflicted upon a character, while Nabmi might strictly prefer games where no injury incompatible with life (for example, skinny-dipping in magma, repeated greataxe blows to the forehead, etc.) is possibly survivable. Our preferences for levels of verisimilitude (&quot;Healing spells heal being demoralized? People can be fatally demoralized or mind-boggled? What?&quot; and &quot;People can survive third-degree burns to 100% of their body? What?&quot;) are clearly incompatible, but you seem to be advocating game designers realize this and... write a game that satisfies neither of us because it can't possibly satisfy us both.Which is fine, if what you're actually saying is &quot;I have very low verisimilitude preferences and want game designers to write games that satisfy me.&quot;, but that doesn't occupy a more privileged position than any other.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imban, post: 4740844, member: 29206"] It's pretty hard to say what people's preferences for things are, yes, since they differ for everyone, but your bolded line is dangerously wrong - it sounds an awful lot like "No level of verisimilitude is necessary" as opposed to "no single level of verisimilitude is necessary", and while I'd argue the latter is wrong too (because enough consistency to stop people from giant frogging locked doors is probably necessary to everyone), the former is basically the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy]Perfect solution fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url] in action: I might strictly prefer games where all damage is actually greivous physical (or "life force") wounds inflicted upon a character, while Nabmi might strictly prefer games where no injury incompatible with life (for example, skinny-dipping in magma, repeated greataxe blows to the forehead, etc.) is possibly survivable. Our preferences for levels of verisimilitude ("Healing spells heal being demoralized? People can be fatally demoralized or mind-boggled? What?" and "People can survive third-degree burns to 100% of their body? What?") are clearly incompatible, but you seem to be advocating game designers realize this and... write a game that satisfies neither of us because it can't possibly satisfy us both. Which is fine, if what you're actually saying is "I have very low verisimilitude preferences and want game designers to write games that satisfy [b]me[/b].", but that doesn't occupy a more privileged position than any other. [/QUOTE]

Verification