Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8659834" data-attributes="member: 16814">You moved the pea.&nbsp; Your initial claim is a look at the social implications of people choosing these games because they highlight identity issues.&nbsp; Here, you've switched to arguing about games being focused at all versus being not focused.&nbsp; You've altered the argument so that you're defending games that are focused from some imagined claim that I'm saying that claiming games are focused is pigeonholing them.My comments were to your original claim.&nbsp; I have no issue with noting some games are focused.Okay, your ask about the social implications of choosing games because of identity focuses doesn't seem to even be addressed with this statement.&nbsp; You've created an example that is trivially dealt with.&nbsp; I have no problems with your example.&nbsp; It doesn't expand to any other cases, nor to your initial claims.&nbsp; It's a red herring.I mean, this is only true through specific lenses -- your assuming a particular lens is universal and aiming to discredit any other kinds of analysis with a moral value claim.&nbsp; I think this gets very far out of bounds, though, so it should probably be dropped.No, I can scroll up.&nbsp; Your post was asking if thematically focused (there's no qualifier to this at this time) indie games are successful because they lean into social identity concerns.&nbsp; I pointed out that this is not anywhere close to universal, and that such a general claim appears to be trying to pigeonhole the entire indie game segment into socially conscious games for exploring identity.&nbsp; I still find that to be reductionist statement that isn't at all born out by a look at that segment.&nbsp; That you've shifted your argument and are claiming offensive at my comment pointed at your original statement -- taking it entirely at face value -- is just moving the goalposts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8659834, member: 16814"] You moved the pea. Your initial claim is a look at the social implications of people choosing these games because they highlight identity issues. Here, you've switched to arguing about games being focused at all versus being not focused. You've altered the argument so that you're defending games that are focused from some imagined claim that I'm saying that claiming games are focused is pigeonholing them. My comments were to your original claim. I have no issue with noting some games are focused. Okay, your ask about the social implications of choosing games because of identity focuses doesn't seem to even be addressed with this statement. You've created an example that is trivially dealt with. I have no problems with your example. It doesn't expand to any other cases, nor to your initial claims. It's a red herring. I mean, this is only true through specific lenses -- your assuming a particular lens is universal and aiming to discredit any other kinds of analysis with a moral value claim. I think this gets very far out of bounds, though, so it should probably be dropped. No, I can scroll up. Your post was asking if thematically focused (there's no qualifier to this at this time) indie games are successful because they lean into social identity concerns. I pointed out that this is not anywhere close to universal, and that [U]such a general claim[/U] appears to be trying to pigeonhole the entire indie game segment into socially conscious games for exploring identity. I still find that to be reductionist statement that isn't at all born out by a look at that segment. That you've shifted your argument and are claiming offensive at my comment pointed at your original statement -- taking it entirely at face value -- is just moving the goalposts. [/QUOTE]

Verification