Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9730822" data-attributes="member: 71699">I'm not claiming any exception to general principles. We agree that...The minions mechanic is thus not excluded from subjects of moral investigation.Seeing as I am not arguing that the minions mechanic is special, I do not see the import of your assertion here.I am proposing that the minion mechanic, looked at through the lense of Goethe's third question, was not worth doing in the case that one sees achieving a design aim of &quot;players get to enjoy carving through the mob like a knife through butter&quot; as problematic rhetoric. Adducing arguments along the lines of Bogost's persuasive games and procedural rhetorics. A principle can be followed that is roughly &quot;given games can serve as rhetoric, we are justified in preferring to avoid mechanics that embody rhetorics we consider problematic.&quot;I do not say that this principle applies solely to minions mechanics, nor that it should be applied in any special way to the minions mechanic, but only that it does indeed apply to the minions mechanic. You've made no argument dispelling that, but rather offered &quot;what about X?&quot;This is a form of whataboutism. It can be true that the minion mechanics embody a problematic rhetoric whether or not it is also true that other mechanics do.I haven't suggested that removing the minions mechanic alone will be sufficient to achieve the ends you outline. The scope of my critique is the minions mechanic itself. The designers state their aims, most seem to accept that those aims are to some extent achieved, I am pointing out that they are, under conditions that I spell out, not worth doing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9730822, member: 71699"] I'm not claiming any exception to general principles. We agree that... The minions mechanic is thus not excluded from subjects of moral investigation. Seeing as I am not arguing that the minions mechanic is special, I do not see the import of your assertion here. I am proposing that the minion mechanic, looked at through the lense of Goethe's third question, was not worth doing [I]in the case that[/I] one sees achieving a design aim of "players get to enjoy carving through the mob like a knife through butter" as problematic rhetoric. Adducing arguments along the lines of Bogost's persuasive games and procedural rhetorics. A principle can be followed that is roughly "given games can serve as rhetoric, we are justified in preferring to avoid mechanics that embody rhetorics we consider problematic." I do not say that this principle applies solely to minions mechanics, nor that it should be applied in any special way to the minions mechanic, but only that it does indeed apply to the minions mechanic. You've made no argument dispelling that, but rather offered "what about X?" This is a form of whataboutism. It can be true that the minion mechanics embody a problematic rhetoric whether or not it is also true that other mechanics do. I haven't suggested that removing the minions mechanic alone will be sufficient to achieve the ends you outline. The scope of my critique is the minions mechanic itself. The designers state their aims, most seem to accept that those aims are to some extent achieved, I am pointing out that they are, under conditions that I spell out, not worth doing. [/QUOTE]

Verification