Spare us the manipulative metaphors

[Chainsaw Mage]

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.

As long as you've got your dictionary handy, try looking up "pedantic".

 

[Desdichado]

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.

That's true for the 2e to 3e change. 3.5 is hardly well described as a change that is a "response to the environment."

 

[aurance]

As long as you've got your dictionary handy, try looking up "pedantic".

There's nothing pedantic about it. It's common knowledge. The original rant put forth something which is patently untrue and I just pointed it out.

Why don't you try looking up "snarky?"

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

There's nothing pedantic about it. It's common knowledge. The original rant put forth something which is patently untrue and I just pointed it out.

Why don't you try looking up "snarky?"

Oh yeah? Why don't you try looking up "onomatopoeia"?

 

[aurance]

Oh yeah? Why don't you try looking up "onomatopoeia"?

I'm not really sure what you are trying to be defensive about.

 

[Dinkeldog]

??? How did he make your day? By saying he's heard rants and that was one of them? Is that all it takes to make your day?

Atom Again may be a bit grumpy in how he expressed himself, but his point is perfectly valid. Metaphors DO shape how we think, and when applied to RPGs, it's hard to justify the use of biological and electronic-oriented metaphors.

Do you have something to add to the discussion, or just more cheap shots?

I'm a computer engineer. I think of everything in electronic-oriented metaphors. I also use emoticons in non-electronic writing.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

I'm not really sure what you are trying to be defensive about.

Oh, yeah? Oh, yeah? Well why don't you try looking up "parliamentarian"?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

*Six* years? Yeah, right...I betcha we'll see 4th edition by summer of 2006.

As soon as the core books hit a slump in sales that is not explainable by a general slump in the industry, the scene at WotC will look like:

RED ALERT! RED ALERT! ARM TORPEDO TUBES! LAUNCH 4TH EDITION!

I predict the next edition will not appear until 3.5 has worn out its lifespan as a sales item, and will be conceived as a grasping way to keep gamers in the market by providing them with shiny new books to which upgrading will be claimed to be both mandatory and orgasmic. Compare this to 3rd edition, which I understand as an attempt to breathe new life into a game that was in danger of dying out, as performed by some nice folks who really liked the game. Compare to 3.5, which was a cash grab riding on the back of an errata page.

 

[Aristotle]

It seems to me that both sides (those who stick to previous versions and those who prefer to buy into the newest version) take offense at the phrases and attitudes of the other side.

Upgrading does not imply 'better', but rather newer. When I buy new software it's often buggy, so I stick with older (more stable) versions of critical applications until such time as the bugs are worked out to my satisfaction.

I don't think its meant to be a slight against those of you who choose to play older versions of the game, but I can certainly see how it could be perceived by one if you were defensive.

I'm defensive about playing the newest version of the game when I speak to people who prefer older versions. I find myself feeling like I'm being told I'm a mindless drone willing to pay for crap, and that I don't have any ability to discern a good game from a bad one. It smacks of elitism... but I'd like to think that, that is my fault. That I'm reading to much into what's being said, and instead I should just concentrate on playing the game and having fun. *shrug*

 

[FireLance]

That's true for the 2e to 3e change. 3.5 is hardly well described as a change that is a "response to the environment."

I guess the 3.5e changes were a mixed bag: some patches for bugs, some clarifications, and some experiments. Overall, I though they were improvement and offhand the only 3.0e rule I can think of that I preferred to 3.5e is that you could overrun on a charge.