What on earth does "video-gamey" mean?

[Tervin]

Save points, railroading, repetition & cheat codes.

I am houseruling in save points and cheat codes. My players will love me, won't they?

 

[Rechan]

We've had save points since "Rope Trick".

 

[Remathilis]

To me, "video-gamey" implies something that's in the opposite direction from "literary".

Problem is, D&D has never done "literally" well either. Maybe at first level, but a group of 8th level PCs...

can wade into a common goblin horde with little fear of death due to superior AC and hp.

Do not fear disease (remove disease), paralysis (remove paralysis), curses (remove curse), poison (neutralize poison), ability damage/drain or negative levels (restoration/death ward) or fear itself (remove fear/divine courage).

Pass over mundane hazards (dimension door, fly, levitate, spider climb, polymorph, wild shape) with ease.

conjure or create minions to fight for them or other mundane tasks (animate dead, summon monster, summon nature's ally, unseen servant)

Create nearly any scroll, potion, magic weapon, magic armor, wondrous item, or wand via the spending of time, gold and XP.

Do not need to worry about hunger or thirst (create food and water), sight (light, daylight, darkvision), packing (floating disc, secret chest) temperature (endure elements), languages (comp languages, tongues) or even problems with camping (Tiny Hut, Secure Shelter, Rope Trick)

When it comes down to it, D&D never did Literary heros. Ever.

 

[Tervin]

I really like 4th edition. I don't play any MMO, and I doubt that I ever will. My girlfriend plays them a lot with great skill, so I would say I have a clue on how they work. I have played (and beaten) as good as every D&D game released for the PC, so I would say I have a clue about that kind of games too.

And I do think 4th edition is videogamey. Perhaps not in the way people who use videogamey as blanket criticism use it, but still videogamey. (If I use the word videogamey enough times it will stop looking stupid and instead seem like something to proud of. Which word? Videogamey. See it is starting to work already! Videogamey. Ok perhaps not yet.)

And I do think 4th Edition being videogamey in the way that I mean is a Good Thing. Why? Because by videogamey I mean a game system that can be translated into a videogame without losing all of the things that make it tick. The free form improvisation part that is still at the game's core is not very videogamey, but that is to be expected. But combats, rituals, game economy and skill challenges are videogamey enough that they can be programmed. And that can lead to good D&D games on teh computer. Which is both for good for people who like those games, and for people who want real D&D to attract new players. And if D&D is videogamey in my version of videogamey, these new players will feel at home with it.

What could videogamey mean otherwise? Shallow? All about killing the mobs? All about grinding for levels and loot? Those things are negative videogamey stuff, but I think they have more to do with the adventures, the world and the DM than with the game itself.

Videogamey could also mean being inspired by clever ideas that have been central to how videogames work. Like drawing aggro. (But 4th Edition so far has no Taunt?) Or combat roles. Or having powers recharging in other ways than sleeping eight hours.

Videogamey could also be that spells and powers are no longer allowed to be vague, esoteric and open ended. This is something I have mixed feelings about myself, but I absolutely understand the need for this videogamey decision.

So yes, to me this new great game is videogamey. And that is not reason to like it or dislike it. Because videogamey can mean way too many things for that to really work.

Have a videogamey day! My work here is done.

 

[pawsplay]

And like nearly every of those "shortcuts", only the one who uses it does understand its true meaning. Leaving all the others totally clueless in the dark.

It's much easier to say than CRPG-y. I'm not even sure how to pronounce that. I'm just going to assume the average roleplayer knows D&D is more like Gauntlet than it is Tetris and go with "videogamey."

 

[Hussar]

You misunderstand. When I say " 4.0 feels and plays like a videogame" the point I'm trying to make is that "4.0 feels and plays like a videogame."

I'm not trying to use some secret code when i say that.

I'm not trying to obscure the issue. It's not some "sloppy shorthand".

I mean exactly what I say: 4.0 feels and plays like a videogame. It's not a value judgement. It's just my opinion about the game. If you like videogames then it's a good thing. If, like me, you don't, then it's not a good thing.

There's really nothing to argue about. You can think my opinion's wrong. that's fine. But you can't objectively prove my opinion's wrong any more than I can prove that yours is wrong. It's a waste of time to try.

But, it is a value judgement. There are lots and lots of negative connotations associated with the term. Anyone who has spent any time reading various RPG forums knows that it's a negative term, so it's use, unless used in ignorance (unlikely), is meant as a negative criticism. No one says, "Hey Edition X is video-gamey YAY!!!"

I realize I cannot objectively prove your preference wrong. Of course that's true. I would, however, like to actually know what you, or anyone else, finds wrong in the system. It may be that I've missed something and we can work together to fix it. Or, it may be that you have missed something and I can bring it to your attention. Either way, we can move forward. Or, we can agree to disagree. Without any additional information though, we're just spinning our wheels because you cannot know if I understand what you are saying without further qualifying your opinion.

I feel 4e is more videogame. It's a subjective opinion, and it's not an absolute, just the observation that 4e seems more videgamey to me. Some reasons:

- Doing a critical hit and having little green numbers appear next to your allies as they heal.
- Special power moves you can only use every so often.
- Armor organized into class-specific slots, a la Final Fantasy.
- Weapons likewise.
- Less emphasis on building the character you want, and instead working with the classes you have.
- Some really over the top moves, like knocking your opponents around.
- Endless magic missiles.
- Pretty much ignoring "how the world works" and focusing on game play.
- Skills sidelined except for special mini-puzzles.
- Completely abstracted gil, I mean, gold piece economy, in which everything from healing potions to horses to flaming swords has a specific cost, is available in essentially unlimited quanities, and is always level appropriate for the stage in the game. Too much shoppiness.

When I say 4e has become more videogamey, I'm thinking specifically of games like:

- The Gauntlet games
- Legend of Zelda
- Golden Axe
- The D&D arcade game
- Knights of the Round
- Kadash
- Final Fantasy
- Dragon Warrior

Excellent post Pawsplay. This is EXACTLY what I was looking for. I may or may not agree with your points, but, at least now we have a starting point for discussion. Which we didn't before. Well done you.

On a specific note, I think you are mistaken in the skills department. Yes, there are specific skill challenges, however, that is not the only time skills can be used. Skills can be used pretty much the same as they could be used in 3e. There is, though, an additional use in the Skill Challenge.

See, that's how the discussion should go. Pawsplay has made a very specific criticism, I disagree and present evidence why I think the way I do. I think Pawsplay has not read the rules and is going by the snippets we've seen from various places and doesn't have the whole picture.

I could easily be wrong though. But, this is how conversation should go.

They did not want an answer, they just wanted to argue why it's wrong to call 4th Edition a video game feel like game. It's like saying something "tastes like chicken" and being told your taste buds are wrong.

No. I do want an answer. There are many here that do. However, many of us are also veterans of a thousand edition wars where we saw EXACTLY the same criticisms made of another edition. Word for word exactly. It wasn't true back then and it probably isn't true now. I've been riding this horse for years, trying to get people to actually state facts, rather than vague, obscure criticisms that are meaningless.

And that's the problem, these hot button words are entirely meaningless. They don't tell the reader anything, other than "I don't like X". If you don't like it, say so. Then say why. Don't assume that using vague language gets your point across and don't get annoyed when people misunderstand you.

Learn to be precise. Trust me, I'm an English teacher.

Now Delta also comes up with an excellent list of criticisms. Now we can talk about this.

To me, "video-gamey" implies something that's in the opposite direction from "literary". Here's three examples:

(1) Hit points that fluctuate up and down quickly without long-term ramifications. Literary characters frequently have to spend a long time convalescing if they receive a significant wound. Early AD&D had very low natural healing rates, week-long rests after 0 hit points, bad after-effects from raises, etc. As healing proliferates -- more magic and healing surges, full healing in 1 night in 4E -- that's more like a videogame.

I'm not sure if video games are the model here though. Literary characters frequently never actually get hurt. How long does it take Conan to recover from a fight? Other than Frodo, how much time does the Fellowship spend in bed? Heck, after Moria, how much time healing did they take?

It's more just the nature of the game. We take hits regularly. Pretty much every fight, at least one character is going to get pummeled. This is just how RPG's, particularly combat heavy ones like D&D vary from literature.

(2) Flashy abilities used more frequently. In literature, it's rare for a "special ability" to be used more than one, two, or three times in a single story. Videogames often have flashy effects used routinely, over and over again, as part of the regular action. As D&D evolves to have more spell slots, more magic items, and now at-will special abilities for all in 4E, that's more like a videogame.

I can see your point here. And there are definite similarities. Just so we're clear, by flashy special abilities, do you mean actual special effects appearances, or just stuff that's not "swing my sword"? Is Trip in 3e a special ability? Because a number of the classes don't have particularly visible special abilities - fighters for example and rangers and rogues.

I think there is room for debate here, but, I want to be clear on what we're talking about first.

(3) Emphasis on visuals instead of descriptions. Early editions of D&D more generally were played without miniatures and had extremely short, sketchy suggestions for miniature usage -- the primary action was in-character and descriptive, like literature. As the game evolves to more clearly require a map and miniatures, more rules for play with minis, and more reliance on the spectacle of miniatures as part of the business, that visual reliance feels more videogamey.

Now this I can actually see. I see what you are talking about. I can understand why you might think this way.

See, now we can actually have discussion, rather than people shouting from soapboxes.

 

[Terramotus]

I think it's two things -

Fighter types have meaningful options in combat. This is video-gamey because the last video game system to have only one button was the Atari 2600. Notice how in Soul Calibur or Tekken the warriors have actual move lists. Note: this is sometimes confused with being too anime-like, but the dichotomy there is that in anime warriors are allowed to be awesome, whereas in D&D they are not supposed to be.

Casters have actual limitations. This is video-gamey because video games require limitations in order to finish being programmed. Therefore limits for any reason = video games.

 

[CleverNickName]

People who like the newest edition of D&D consider "video-gamey" to be one of the oldest, least-informative, and most outrageously inflamatory remarks that another person could ever use to describe the new game edition.

People who do not like the newest edition of D&D use "video-gamey" to describe the style and playability of the new version as being too similar to that of a video game for their liking.

So really, it depends on who you ask. Outside of these two groups, it really doesn't translate:

"Did you watch the president's State of the Union address?"
"I tried to, but it was just too video-gamey for my tastes."
"I know what you mean, man."

"How much did you pay for gas this morning?"
"Four-fifteen a gallon."
"Man, that's so video-gamey."

"...to have and to hold, from this day forward, till death do you part?"
"Video-gamey!"

"Did you think 4th Edition was too video-gamey?"
"How DARE you!" (clicks 'Report Bad Post,' followed by 'Ignore User')

 

[RigaMortus2]

Why not? There is no shame to steal from MMOs or other genres, games or media, if the concepts are good. If you dislike the concept, don't steal it.

Fine, and when those ideas are stolen, there is no shame in calling them on it. Thus, we get the phrase "this is video-gamey". I guess that answers the OPs question...

 

[Imp]

This whole argument is exactly of a piece with the "let D&D only simulate D&D" argument, except the people pounding that drum aren't happy when others come at it from the videogame angle. If you want to emphasize that the world of the game is only and can only be the world of a game, this is the upshot.

There's always been this tension in D&D, but in 4e it is much, much, much easier to describe the dramatic moments (like fights) in CRPG-reality than it is to interpret the dice differently. True of earlier editions, but more so here. This push is what drives the "videogamey" description – the D&D that only simulates D&D feels more like CRPGs, Japanese or otherwise, than anything else. For obvious evolutionary reasons, CRPGs owing most everything to D&D, etc.

Now, I like videogames! If I want to play one, I'll use silicon to do it. I have no urge to play out a videogame world in pen and paper.

I don't think the class or skill mechanics are particularly more videogame-like, and certainly the more freeform stuff is less so.