What on earth does "video-gamey" mean?

[Delta]

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.

(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.

(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.

 

[Scribble]

No, it's more like we said "This tastes kinda like juice, but I'm not sure what juice, but I know I don't like it." Then we were pestered to specify why we think it tastes like juice, and we said "Well, it's sweet and tangy", and were promptly told we were wrong, that's what Soda tastes like, and anyways Juice and Soda are great so we shouldn't complain.

or it tastes kind of like juice... " What kind of juice? "Orange juice!" I don't taste anything acidic in it though... "it's just my opinion!"

We can go back and forth... Isay we stick to the actual debate instead of trying to bash other people's arguments.

 

[Gallo22]

No, we want objective statements that can be discussed, rather than emotion-based "It just feels that way" comments which do nothing for discussion. When people present reasonable claims about it, we can discuss it, but when it comes down to "It just does, and I can't explain why," then we go nowhere.

OK. Here goes. 4th Edition feels video gamey to me because when I see a fantasy style video/computer game (i.e. WoW) I see all sorts of special effects going on during play. (that's what's suppost to happen, a video/computer game is suppost to please the eye).

Now that I've gotten to play 4th edition (yes I've played it and DMed it) I see the same affects that a video game has. no matter what the players do, there is some sort of "special effects" going off to make their abilities seem, well...video gamey.

There you go Mourn. Is that a good enough explaniation for you? I'm sure you have something up your sleeve to tell me my view is wrong or scued, or I don't know anything about video game even though I own and play Nintendo, Super Nintendo, Sega, PlayStation2, X-Box360 and a Wii.

 

[Rechan]

But my feelings about 4.0 and videogames isn't about technical knowledge. It's about a gut reaction. My gut reaction to 4.0 is that it reminds me of my attempts to play videogames. They both failed to capture my imagination in exactly the same way.

Capture imagination?

I thought the point of RPGs was to make a story with a character that's yours, irregardless of mechanics.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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

Legolas = bishonen.

Legolas/Gimli = yaoi love. Tolkien isn't just anime, it's sick pervy anime.

 

[Rechan]

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.

I don't recall many fictional characters living in worlds that their best buddy can touch them with a spell he has x times a day to get his health back, either. A healer in the party who can restore you to full health so you can go into the next room to kill stuff is utterly anti-literary, but it's been a part of D&D for a long, long time.

As for long term ramifications, when was the last time there were solid rules that "If you get into a fight, you can lose a limb or an eye" in D&D.

As far as "Long term rest" is concerned, I've never been in a game where anyone depended on long-term resting; it's always been "I cast cure x". The "You wait a week/month/year to slowly regain your hit points" seems to just be a rule that no one used, but was just "There" to simulate reality. I'd rather the ruleset reflect how people play the game.

(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.

Depends on the genre. Swashbuckling and Pulp, for instance, there's always something that's flashy in every fight.

(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.

Hmm. Now, when you say "less visual", do you also mean things like no props? No maps? I daresay that props have always been a part, have always been visual. Just like mapping - references. "I attack the orc" "Which orc?" "The one you said was by Jim" "Wait, no, I said the Orc was shooting an *arrow* at Jim." "This is confusing."

If just by Miniatures, then yes, you have a point. But then, I played 3e without a grid (online via text medium), and am playing 4e online without a grid (online via text medium), and both are a PITA for the reason I sited above regarding points of reference.

 

[Tsyr]

No, to discuss it. To say "I won't give a reason or any objective evidence because all you'll do is try and pick it apart" is a total cop-out that just tells me that you have no objective support for the claim.

As already demonstrated, when presented in a reasonable and discussion-worthy fashion (like residuum), I'm more than willing to concede points of similarity (residuum IS very much like WoW enchanting/disenchanting).

It was a subjective opinion to begin with. Never the less, I did try to provide examples of things that I thought were responsible for that feeling - and it's an overall feeling, not related to one specific thing - and for my troubles I essentially was told that I was wrong to think that that was videogamey, and in any event it was a good mechanic, so who cares?

Not going to bother anymore, sorry.

 

[Wormwood]

Legolas = bishonen.

Legolas/Gimli = yaoi love. Tolkien isn't just anime, it's sick pervy anime.

Laughed. Out. Loud.

 

[blargney the second]

This is an interesting discussion so far, guys! Pawsplay, I particularly enjoyed your specific parallels and can totally understand them.

I'd like to request that everybody refrain from ascribing motives to other people so the mods aren't forced to close this thread. Thank you!

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

Delta, while I think your examples are valid observations of how stories have changed over time, I also think it's a disservice to turn video games and literary into a dichotomy. If only because movies display a lot of the same properties that you've attributed to video games. I was forcibly reminded of that during Iron Man and Indiana Jones.
-blarg

 

[WizarDru]

4.0 feels like a videogame to me. Naming a buch of videogames I've never heard of or played doesn't change how I feel about it. Sorry.

I'm not trying to change your feelings. It's your opinion and perfectly valid. I'm just explaining the disconnect. That you aren't actually familiar with video-games makes me wonder why you choose to use the term. I mean, it seems like an odd thing to say in that context. Especially when you're discussing the term with folks who are very familiar with video games and don't understand why you choose that term.

By way of comparison, Delta shows off some valid points as to why he considers it 'video-gamey'. I may or may not agree with all his points, but they actually reference video games and I can see why he would make the comment. If I said 'D&D is like Major League Sports' and someone who watched ESPN every waking moment asked me how, he'd be confused if my reply was 'well, I don't really know anything about the rules of football, baseball, bmx racing, snowboarding or the rally-car racing, but that's just how it feels to me.' Because the disconnect is that it's an all-inclusive statement that includes such wildly diverse sports that it wouldn't make sense to him.