What on earth does "video-gamey" mean?

[TimeOut]

Except that description only works if marking was limited to those in melee reach, which it is not.

You can attack targets inside your reach, but that requires just another description. Ranged attacks that mark the target are of course even more difficult to describe.

Just describe it, if you need it. Maybe the fighter has thrown an axe that was barely deflected by the shield and shouted an insult on top of it. The reason for "marking" does not count, all that is important is the result. That is why it is a game and not a simulation.

I never said that I like the concept of "aggro control through marking" in 4e. It is not a great system, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.

I said that aggro management and aggro control are concepts that are a great idea, nothing more.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

It is odd that you can get an extra healing surge by pressing up up down down left right left right B A and start.

You should see what you get when you enter the Konami code!

 

[Hussar]

It. Feels. Like. A. Videogame.


If you know what all those words mean individually, you shouldn't have a hard time understanding them when they're put together to form a sentence.

I see a lot teeth gnashing, and no shortage of insults directed at people who see similarities between 4.0 and videogames. I don't understand why the fact that some people see these similarities is so threatening to so many people at ENworld. I'm not going to bother guessing why.

But, it's a legitimate opinion. Everyone I know in real life shares this opinion, from my gaming group to the schlubs at my FLGS. 4.0 feels more like a videogame than D&D to us. Belittling our opinions certainly isn't going to change them.

This has been a drum I've been banging on for a while. Heck, I did that whole Anime Challenge thing in my sig precisely for this sort of thing.

All of these so-called criticisms - animey, video-gamey, board-gamey, card-gamey whatever - are sloppy short hands that only serve to obscure any point you are trying to make. The terms, in and of themselves, are so vague that they can mean anything you like.

I remember some time ago being able to apply the term Pokemount to Shadowfax and then watch the head explosions of the Tolkien fans.

If you have a valid criticsm of a game, make it. There are lots of things you can criticise in any edition. 4e is certainly not immune to that. But, relying on vague, overwrought terminology that clouds the issue doesn't actually serve any purpose other than hot buttoning a topic and turning it into yet another edition war.

Instead of saying, "X edition is video-gamey" (after all, this is hardly a new criticism), refer specifically to those elements you don't like. If you find the concept of aggro distasteful, talk about that. If you think there is too strong of a focus on combat, say, "I think X edition is too strongly focused on combat" rather than trying to score points on the Internet.

 

[hazel monday]

All of these so-called criticisms - animey, video-gamey, board-gamey, card-gamey whatever - are sloppy short hands that only serve to obscure any point you are trying to make.

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.

 

[The Little Raven]

[There's an old saying that goes something like 'If one man calls you a horse, that man is a fool. If ten men call you a horse, buy yourself a saddle.'

There's also an old saying that says something like "Even if a lot of people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

And what do these sayings actually prove? Nothing, except that we can cite old sayings to dismiss eachother's opinions.

 

[The Little Raven]

You should see what you get when you enter the Konami code!

Ummm... well... that IS the Konami Code.

 

[Gothmog]

The things I think people (including sometimes myself) mean about it being more videogamey:

1) Everything is about combat now. Now don't try the "I still roleplay!!!!" dodge, that's not the point. Look at the wizard for a good example of this. Wizards were durn fun to play if you wanted them to be. You got all sorts of neat spells in with combat spells. Now, wizards are blasters. By contrast, bards are gone (Yeah, to return, if you wanna pay more for them), because they aren't as strong a combat class. Like it or not, the mechanics seem to be way more combat focused now.

Actually, this was very true of 3E as well. Remember when 3E came out, the designers said they tried to rebalance all the classes based on their combat abilities and potential and standardize the experience point progression? Problem was, they didn't do a very good job of it. This is one of the areas that when people say 3E was "deeply flawed" immediately springs to my mind.

Witness the complete dominance of the game past level 8 by casters, or the complete brokenness of druids and certain cleric builds. The 4E team too a long, hard look at the completely broken features of 3E and rebalanced the classes with powers so they have similar combat ability at a given level, but with different types and effects of powers.

2) I think the powers system draws a lot of these complaints. "More Abilities = More Fun" seems to be the growing trend in MMOs... Fighters in early MMOs were like fighters in past versions of DnD. They hit stuff with sharp things. Now fighters in current MMOS don't hit things with sharp stuff, they perform "Dance of the Seven Blades" or "Lunging Doomsday Thrust". The focus on the "class role" seems to be kind of the same thing.

That brings us to powers. Like I said above, to level the playing field some, all classes needed to be put on a similar power level as they advanced through their careers. Yes, that means wizards, clerics and casters lose some power, but other classes benefit from their loss and make the game more enjoyable for the group as a whole. Casters can make up for this with rituals (which I love the implementation of) to regain some of their versatilty, but no longer will casters completely dominate every other class in the game.

3) Agro control abilities. Meh.

I kinda felt the same about this as you did until I saw it in action while playing 4E. Now I like it. Marking/aggo makes sense- a trained warrior will tend to occupy your attention more than someone not so skilled, and diverting your attention even for an instant opens your defenses up so you can get smacked. Marking also encourages teamwork on the part of the players and coordination of battle plans- something 4E is great for in contrast with the 3E "lone wolf" characters in combat. I've seen some people try the lone wolf thing in 4E- its not pretty, but then again, it shouldn't be.

 

[The Little Raven]

Except that description only works if marking was limited to those in melee reach, which it is not.

You still have to maintain pressure on the marked target to keep them marked, whether it's the Fighter's mark that expires at the end of their next turn (and thus needs to be reapplied at least every other round) or the Paladin's mark that requires you to attack the target or end your turn adjacent to it or the mark expires. Both of those perfectly represent you having to continue to focus your combat attention on the target to maintain the mark.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

Ummm... well... that IS the Konami Code.

D'OH!

Obviously, it's been years...

 

[pawsplay]

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