Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="chaochou" data-source="post: 5617855" data-attributes="member: 99817">As I've said in previous posts, characters within a game can not explain anything. They cannot think anything without their players deciding they think it, they cannot explain anything without their player explaining it, they can not act, move, eat, see, hear or exist without the players calling them and their actions into existence. They are not independent entities, but extensions of the people imagining them.But the theory uses the pretense that there is an independent wizard - with his own logical explanation of a fireball spell - as a rhetorical device to shift the blame for the author's failings onto a game he doesn't like.He asks the 1e/2e/3e wizard (that is, he asks himself) how fireball works - and tells himself that it's logical.He asks the 4e rogue (that is, he asks himself) how a daily power works - and tells himself he doesn't understand it.But because he's disguised the question to himself as one asked of a 4e rogue, now he says: &quot;Haha! 4e is to blame!&quot;Once you see through that trick, the whole 'theory' falls apart.All his theory says is a 'disassociated mechanic' is one he can't, won't or doesn't want to conceptualise. Had he said such a thing, it might actually have been useful to someone, somewhere. It's not such a bad concept for a game designer to bear in mind.As it is, the entire 'theory' looks little more than an attempt to make the author's prejudices sound like objective analysis.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="chaochou, post: 5617855, member: 99817"] As I've said in previous posts, characters within a game can not explain anything. They cannot think anything without their players deciding they think it, they cannot explain anything without their player explaining it, they can not act, move, eat, see, hear or exist without the players calling them and their actions into existence. They are not independent entities, but extensions of the people imagining them. But the theory uses the pretense that there is an independent wizard - with his own logical explanation of a fireball spell - as a rhetorical device to shift the blame for the author's failings onto a game he doesn't like. He asks the 1e/2e/3e wizard (that is, he asks himself) how fireball works - and tells himself that it's logical. He asks the 4e rogue (that is, he asks himself) how a daily power works - and tells himself he doesn't understand it. But because he's disguised the question to himself as one asked of a 4e rogue, now he says: "Haha! 4e is to blame!" Once you see through that trick, the whole 'theory' falls apart. All his theory says is a 'disassociated mechanic' is one he can't, won't or doesn't want to conceptualise. Had he said such a thing, it might actually have been useful to someone, somewhere. It's not such a bad concept for a game designer to bear in mind. As it is, the entire 'theory' looks little more than an attempt to make the author's prejudices sound like objective analysis. [/QUOTE]

Verification