Dark Jezter
First Post
"I don't see why we have to build a ray gun to aim at a planet I've never heard of."Mark said:
"Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos."
Spare us the manipulative metaphors
- Thread starter Atom Again
- Start date
"Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos."
Impeesa
Explorer
Of course, when a book is written with the sole purpose of updating, correcting, and generally improving a game based on past experience with the prior version (e.g. D&D 3.5, new WoD), then they're entirely correct in describing it as an evolutionary improvement or upgrade.
--Impeesa--
--Impeesa--
haiiro
First Post
Atom Again said:
Fair enough. I guess the terminology doesn't bother me -- sometimes I think it's appropriate, and the rest of the time I can decide for myself whether the new edition is better.
For instance, I think "rebooting" is a pretty apt way to describe the WoD switchover: it's not just a new edition of the game, it's a new approach coupled with a somewhat altered world. As I understand it, everything that happened in the "old" WoD is written off in the new.
Similarly, I think describing 3.5e as an "evolution" of 3.0 is also fairly accurate. IMO, RPGs do evolve, though not in the "self-aware organisms" sense: they evolve because, just as no scenario survives contact with the players, the way rules are used changed over time. If I could squeeze the word "meta" in there somewhere, I would have.
I do think you're spot on about people feeling like they need to upgrade. It's always irked me that the various incarnations of Warhammer have followed a cycle of releasing every race/group book for the current edition, and then immediately putting out a new edition and starting over. At least, that's how I've perceived it.
On the whole, I see where you're coming from, but I don't entirely agree that it's all just emotional manipulation.
FireLance
Legend
I won't take issue with "upgrading" or "rebooting", but I will say that there is nothing about "evolving" that implies improvement beyond an increased capacity to thrive in the current environment. When an ice age happens, heavy fur becomes important so creatures get heavy fur. When the ice age goes away, heavy fur becomes a liability so creatures lose it. When the ice age comes back again, heavy fur will also return. Gaining or losing heavy fur - "evolving", if you will - is neither positive or negative, just a response to the environment.
Similarly, I would say that games evolve to suit the preferences of the players. This is especially true for role-playing games, where every set of house-rules can be considered a mutated strain of the original.
Similarly, I would say that games evolve to suit the preferences of the players. This is especially true for role-playing games, where every set of house-rules can be considered a mutated strain of the original.
Henry
Autoexreginated
I do think a game can evolve, as I've personally taken participation in the process myself, with friends as we have created new games for our own amusement, and changed those when they were not complicated enough for our tastes, or did not model what we wanted sufficiently. Back in the olden days, this happened quite a bit with my friends and I, but I suspect our age and free time have something to do with why we don't any more.
Interesting to note: I used to think otherwise, that "the younger generation doesn't create games from scratch anymore," but it was meeting Jeph and some of his friends who taught me otherwise by listening to some of their groups' experiences at a gameday. My group was more wargame oriented when we did it, but it's a grand tradition that continues today. It's not just gaming company hype, it to me really is the best way to describe a process. It also does not imply to me that a previous game is inviable, it's just not as suited to modelling a certain activity that you want to model.
Interesting to note: I used to think otherwise, that "the younger generation doesn't create games from scratch anymore," but it was meeting Jeph and some of his friends who taught me otherwise by listening to some of their groups' experiences at a gameday.
My group was more wargame oriented when we did it, but it's a grand tradition that continues today. It's not just gaming company hype, it to me really is the best way to describe a process. It also does not imply to me that a previous game is inviable, it's just not as suited to modelling a certain activity that you want to model.
RangerWickett
Legend
Many people misinterpret evolution. Evolution does not result in creatures being inherently better. It simply results in change, change that favors those creatures best-adapted to the current environment.
D&D 3rd edition was an evolutionary advancement in gaming. Gamers in 2000 were such that the new edition was much more successful than the old edition would have been if they'd stayed with that. 3rd edition succeeded well in the current situation. In 6 years, when conditions are different, 4th edition will likely adapt to what gamers want. It will be more digital, likely will have rules devoted both to game play and to adding flavor to the game (World of Darkness has always done well on account of providing a great setting, not having tons of rulebooks).
So yes, they're perfectly right to use 'biological' terminology. The metaphor is apt. If you went back to 1974, maybe D&D 3e would not be a success. People might not have been ready for a game that required so much number crunching. But now we seem to like it. Good job.
Keep evolving, ye species, games, and individuals.
D&D 3rd edition was an evolutionary advancement in gaming. Gamers in 2000 were such that the new edition was much more successful than the old edition would have been if they'd stayed with that. 3rd edition succeeded well in the current situation. In 6 years, when conditions are different, 4th edition will likely adapt to what gamers want. It will be more digital, likely will have rules devoted both to game play and to adding flavor to the game (World of Darkness has always done well on account of providing a great setting, not having tons of rulebooks).
So yes, they're perfectly right to use 'biological' terminology. The metaphor is apt. If you went back to 1974, maybe D&D 3e would not be a success. People might not have been ready for a game that required so much number crunching. But now we seem to like it. Good job.
Keep evolving, ye species, games, and individuals.
aurance
Explorer
Other than "rebooting," all those other words are used in many applications besides biology and computers. So they're not really metaphors as much as just words used in appropriate context.
Games do get upgraded, games do evolve.
Upgrade:
: to raise or improve the grade of: as a : to improve (livestock) by use of purebred sires b : to advance to a job requiring a higher level of skill especially as part of a training program c : to raise the quality of d : to raise the classification and usually the price of without improving the quality e : to extend the usefulness of (as a device)
Evolve:
1 : EMIT
2 a : DERIVE, EDUCE b : to produce by natural evolutionary processes c : DEVELOP, WORK OUT
Nothing exclusively biological or computing about those.
Games do get upgraded, games do evolve.
Upgrade:
: to raise or improve the grade of: as a : to improve (livestock) by use of purebred sires b : to advance to a job requiring a higher level of skill especially as part of a training program c : to raise the quality of d : to raise the classification and usually the price of without improving the quality e : to extend the usefulness of (as a device)
Evolve:
1 : EMIT
2 a : DERIVE, EDUCE b : to produce by natural evolutionary processes c : DEVELOP, WORK OUT
Nothing exclusively biological or computing about those.
Similar Threads
