Why is "videogame" a bad word?

[TheEvil]

but do the orcs stay in their rooms guarding their pies the whole time.. without leaving to go to the bathroom, to sleep, to buy more things, or to eat?

in a videogame they would just stay there.

Actually, the residents of towns in Ultima 5 (1988) did all of these things (well, maybe not the bathroom). It was one of the things I really loved about the game and was very disappointed that it didn't catch on.

 

[WizarDru]

I think it didn't catch on for several reasons: one, it's significantly more work to code without necessarily providing an equally significantly better game. Two, not all games benefit from that approach.

Some games after Ultima V did offer this approach, but few have a location where it applies as succintcly. Deus Ex (the original) featured some of this, as I recall. Beyond Good and Evil had a limited amount of this, as well, in addition to being one of the most underrated games EVAR.

 

[RFisher]

I can honestly say that playing d20 D&D has felt more like a videogame at times than any other roleplaying game I've played. I didn't think of that analogy, but it fit my feeling when I heard it.

I can't explain exactly why. Part of it seems to be how feats & some other aspects feel more like "power ups" than similar mechanics do in other games. Indeed, even among video games, "power ups" can have a more natural or more artificial feel. In roleplaying games, I prefer them to feel more natural. I can't put my finger on the difference, but it's there.

I think another example of what contributes to this feeling of mine is rules like the paladin's Pokémount.

Now, this is a subtle thing. It's not that d20 D&D feels exactly like a videogame to me, it's just that it feels a bit more like a video game than another other roleplaying game has. It's not that no other game has similar features, it's just that--overall--d20 D&D gives me that feeling more than other games.

I don't use it to say that anyone is playing wrong. I use it to express an aspect of the games I play in that I don't tend to enjoy.

& it's nothing against video games. I still have my Atari 2600, Sega Genesis, & PS2.

 

[Gothmog]

I do not believe that 3e will stand the test of time. In the end, this edition has followed the crunch and catered to the gamist. How many of these books will you keep as references for futures games? How many of them spark the imagination and would be something that you wanted to keep a lifetime?

I still use my Legends and Lore, my Bard's Handbook, and 1e DMG. Once the rules change, my 3e books will be obsolete. There is nothing there that would cause me to keep referencing them. I will just "upgrade" to the next edition.

Yet, I will still use my Bard's Handbook as a source of inspiration when I want to play a bard. In the end, 3e is a great game, but the elements that make it transcend from game to lifestyle are missing.

I couldn't agree more. Rules don't make for a compelling or fun game, the setting and details do. While I agree the 3e rules are a more coherent and easier set to use, I don't get excited when I read a new PrC, spell, magic item, or feat description (monster sometimes, but more for the concept). What gets my imagination going are a number of the 3rd party books like Midnight, Freeport, IKCG, and Book of Fiends. Those books have great conceptual ideas that I can use once 3e is gone. I know I won't return to the WotC "crunch" books once this edition is over with- there would be no reason to. I still use the old MC from 2nd edition for its incredible creature descriptions rather than the lame new ones, and many of the old 2nd edition Complete books- esp Dwarves, Bards, Villians, Campaign Guide and the green historical books.

 

[barsoomcore]

WizDru: We disagree on the basic nature of videogames. Which is okay with me, but I didn't want you going away thinking "That darn barsoomcore, he just doesn't get it!"



I'm familiar with the vast array of computer games out there, though I don't play a lot, since puzzle-solving isn't my thing. And yes, Silent Hill: 2 is a puzzle-solving game. The puzzles are tremendously complex and the milieu in which they are presented is very engaging and compelling, but you're still solving puzzles, and fundamentally, in any video game, you need to learn to press the right buttons in the right sequence at the right time. There may not be a one-to-one relationship between those button-pushes and changes in the onscreen display, but the principle remains the same. And that sequence is defined ahead of time by the designers of the game, and if you come up with a solution that they didn't foresee, there is no way for you to make it happen. Which, however many stories about bad DMs you care to throw up, is not necessarily true in D&D.

I am not saying that people who like these games are lazy and seeking instant gratification. I am not saying that these games cannot be powerful experiences.

I AM saying that there is a fundamental philosophical difference between a computer game and a pen & paper RPG -- and that is that the mind of a person does not need to be pre-programmed to handle any situation. It can respond to new ideas and unforeseen actions with creativity and inspiration. A computer game is incapable of doing that, and because of that, all computer games are fundamentally puzzle-solving experiences.

This isn't a bash or a dig or a jab or a swipe. I don't think the term "videogamey" is really about this -- it's about the Diablo-style power-ups. Which is, I agree, a misrepresentation of the very wide array of computer game options.

I don't have anything against computer games or the people who like them. It's not an activity I spend much time at, but then I do lots of things that other people think aren't fun. It would be a dull old world if we all liked the same things.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Hey Barsoomcore, just need to make one side point:

Video game design such that fufilling events that weren't designed into the system can happen is one of the lofty ideals of game design. Games might not be there yet, but they're getting ever closer. It's harder in RPG's and story based games though.

And, on another random tangent, I was also thinking about running a Videogamey campaign, where I took a videogame adventure/RPG mindset to everything. Hilights included: The magic map that always had the current goal hilighted, Hero badges that let everyone know who the heroes are, infinite equipment, tons of action, princesses to be rescued, plot hooks that waitied forever, and loads of magical loot (most of which sucked compared to the placed stuff, and was there to be sold).

Disturbingly, almost everyone was intrigued by the idea.

 

[shilsen]

You're all missing the point, which is that videogames are fake fun. They're not real fun at all. Oh, they may seem like fun to the people who are decieved into thinking they're enjoying themselves, but they're not, and anybody who likes any of the same things in RPGs as they do in videogames is also having fake fun. Their experience simply isn't valid.

It's possible that they're not even real people. "Pod" people, let us say, to distinguish them from real people. The existence of such dopplegangers, such enemies within, is more than a little unsettling, indeed even offensive.

You stick that tongue any further into your cheek and it'll be coming out the side of your face

 

[WizarDru]

Which, however many stories about bad DMs you care to throw up, is not necessarily true in D&D.

I am not saying that people who like these games are lazy and seeking instant gratification. I am not saying that these games cannot be powerful experiences.

I AM saying that there is a fundamental philosophical difference between a computer game and a pen & paper RPG -- and that is that the mind of a person does not need to be pre-programmed to handle any situation. It can respond to new ideas and unforeseen actions with creativity and inspiration. A computer game is incapable of doing that, and because of that, all computer games are fundamentally puzzle-solving experiences.

This isn't a bash or a dig or a jab or a swipe. I don't think the term "videogamey" is really about this -- it's about the Diablo-style power-ups. Which is, I agree, a misrepresentation of the very wide array of computer game options.

Which is, in large part, all I was trying to say. You're right, of course. Every video game is a closed box, with your only options usually only being what the designers envisioned. My main point was that that was by design, and that many D&D games are, for the big stuff, not as open as people think. Some games (like mine and yours) are the polar opposite, rich with options and open-ended opportunity. But just as often as not, when you're going through the Sunless Citadel, the module itself doesn't expect or anticipate you trying to start a farm. You can do it, sure, but in the context of the game, that's a rarity. The point being that it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, for many cases.

And I knew you got it, btw. We disagree on a lot of stuff, but you're one sharp cookie, sir. I was more shooting at folks who don't play said games and tend to oversimplify. I mean, I enjoy Final Fantasy style RPGs...but they have nothing on a real game, with real people. So, as it stands, I agree with you. I just don't like the shorthandedness of the term. Game on!

 

[barsoomcore]

As long as you carry on telling me how very clever I am, and continue to agree with me, we'll get along just fine....

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I'm familiar with the vast array of computer games out there, though I don't play a lot, since puzzle-solving isn't my thing. And yes, Silent Hill: 2 is a puzzle-solving game. The puzzles are tremendously complex and the milieu in which they are presented is very engaging and compelling, but you're still solving puzzles, and fundamentally, in any video game, you need to learn to press the right buttons in the right sequence at the right time.

I don't think that level of reductionism is particularly insightful. One could just as easily say that success in a p&p/tabletop gameis defined by moving the right bits of matter in the right sequence at the right time (which should cover both making noises and rolling dice). However, I don't think that would be adequate basis to maintain that both monopoly and Amber are fundamentally the same.

There may not be a one-to-one relationship between those button-pushes and changes in the onscreen display, but the principle remains the same. And that sequence is defined ahead of time by the designers of the game, and if you come up with a solution that they didn't foresee, there is no way for you to make it happen. Which, however many stories about bad DMs you care to throw up, is not necessarily true in D&D.

Not exactly true either. Even if you reduce the concept of game to the concept of a complex puzzle (which I think obscures very real and significant differences between, for instance Tetris and Baldur's Gate II), it's simply not true that the sequence of proper button pushing is determined ahead of time. Rather, the effects that button pushing can create are defined ahead of time. Unlike early games like Ikari Warriors, where the bad guys would come from a predetermined location and follow very simple instructions and a predetermined sequence of manuevers could potentially win the game (though, even then it's highly unlikely that the designers predetermined every possible sequence of button pushing that could win the game), a game like Tetris creates an environment that can be manipulated in preset manners, but itself is random enough that no preset pattern of button mashing could win the game. In games like Baldur's Gate II, it is almost certain that the designers did not even think of every possible combination, much less predetermine which possible button combinations could prove victorious.

So, it's quite possible to come up with a solution that the designers didn't forsee. It's just not possible to do it with tools they didn't create. That's a significant difference. (It's not just limited to video-games either--the same would be true of board games like Axis and Allies or chess).

I AM saying that there is a fundamental philosophical difference between a computer game and a pen & paper RPG -- and that is that the mind of a person does not need to be pre-programmed to handle any situation. It can respond to new ideas and unforeseen actions with creativity and inspiration. A computer game is incapable of doing that, and because of that, all computer games are fundamentally puzzle-solving experiences.

Creativity and inspiration sound nice but it seems to me that the claim you're making about video games could also be made about board games like Chess or Stratego that also have limited input/output options. Even so, calling them puzzles would be a misleading. A chess master certainly engages in a very different activity than someone putting together a jigsaw puzzle.

Even if you want to say that the limited AI (artificial stupidity) makes computerized versions of those games are more akin to solving a puzzle than to using strategies against a living opponent, I think that you've abstracted puzzle solving to a degree that it no longer makes sense to call it a puzzle. To me, it seems much more akin to playing against an uncreative and predictable human opponent than to solving a puzzle.

This isn't a bash or a dig or a jab or a swipe. I don't think the term "videogamey" is really about this -- it's about the Diablo-style power-ups. Which is, I agree, a misrepresentation of the very wide array of computer game options.

They're a misrepresentation of Diablo as well.