Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 4297125" data-attributes="member: 32536">The problem with this definition is that is not applicable to videogames themselves.If you define "videogamey" as this, then you exclude a large number of videogames from being "videogamey". For example, please indicate a place in the game I described above, Fire Emblem, where such a "contradictory" mechanic exists. I don't think you can easily find one.I think you are making the mistake I tried to warn about above: mistaking "gamist" according to Forge theory as meaning the same thing as "like a videogame", or rather masking the false assumption that all videogames are "gamist". Just as much as RPGs, videogames break down into different genres and categories that can possibly be described using terms like "gamist", "simulationist", or "narrativist".There are videogames out there that would consider what you consider "videogamey" to be a mortal sin. An easy example is the Flight Simulator genre. There are people who have turned the idea of making the flight Simulator experience as authentic as possible into an obsession, going as far as building gigantic mock-ups of airplane cockpits and linking those in to a large network of inter-connected simulated pilots and air-traffic controls. Authenticity and realism are the absolute goals, and anything that gets in the way of that is a flaw. Think of it as a "simulationist" MMO of the purest form, where any difference from reality is merely a byproduct of technical limitations.Another issue is that apparently your use of the term "videogamey" applies to things that were not influenced by videogames at all. If "videogamey' means a place where events contradict pre-established canon or the laws of reality for the sake of creating an enjoyable experience, then this has been going on since mankind first starting telling stories. How many times have you seen a character do something in a television series (Star Trek is a good example) that blatantly violates some rule of "physics" that was already established in the show?Don't make such quick assumptions about videogames. There are countless videogames where the videogame designers would make the exact opposite choice that the 4E designers have made.At the very least, I have played plenty of videogames where a mechanical character who did not need to sleep or breathe was completely immune to any condition based on sleeping or breathing, and where a short walk down a corridor filled with poison gas would not hurt that character, but still hurt every other character. At the same time, there are games which would go down the same path as 4E and make "different" characters apply by the same rules. this kind of matter is completely independent of videogames, since videogame designers face the same dilemma as tabletop game designers.Even ignoring older games like the Ultima series and many MMOs, there was a relatively recent videogame called Soul Nomad where you can attack, rob, and forcibly recruit any character you can interact with in a town (other than a limited few characters protected by the mysterious Heroman). I also think the Grand Theft Auto series and the way of the Samurai games need to be mentioned. Your statement also completely ignores entire genres that include games like The Sims...I admit to having a bit of trouble following this one, since you seem to be mixing a couple different ideas together. There are a lot of different factors at work in your example, but nothing there seems to be clear-cut enough for me to comment on.This here is just a rephrasing of "4E's mechanics are bad, so it is videogamey". You would get a lot more respect from me if you dropped the idea that "videogamey means it is bad, and because it is bad it is videogamey".</blockquote>

Verification