On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:52:58 -0400 Jeff Nowakowski <j...@dilacero.org> wrote:
> On 04/10/2013 05:22 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > > > For many (admittedly, not all) of them, I really don't believe > > "games" is an accurate term (Don't misinterpret that into a > > statement of "Only true 'games' are legitimate" because I never > > said such a thing.) > > But that's essentially what you *are* saying by downplaying the > gameplay that lies at the heart of the "interactive movies" you've > used as examples. That's because the heart of such games *isn't* the gameplay, it's the storytelling. I'm not downplaying anything that the developers themselves aren't already downplaying. > It's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. No, you're just very persistent in trying to turn it into the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I'm merely using terminology to distinguish between story-driven titles and gameplay-driven tiles. *YOU'RE* the one who's falsely insisting that what I meant was "Only the one type is legitimate", despite my numerous statements to the contrary. How many times to I have to tell you in various wordings, "I'm *not* using 'interactive movie' pejoratively" before you'll stop trying to tell me what I meant? > Let's take a > statement from your original post: > > "Modern AAA/big-budget titles are interactive movies, not > videogames, because their focus is story, dialog and cinematics, not > gameplay." > > Which is untrue when it comes to games like BioShock or GTA. At the > end of the day both games are mostly shooters along with other > gameplay elements (like driving in GTA), and you will spend most of > your time playing the game and not watching cinematics. So we disagree on the categorization of a few titles. Big freaking deal. > I gave you a > canonical example of what would be an interactive movie, and you > tried to wave it away because it really was an interactive movie. > That's a complete mischaracterization, and I find it interesting that you've claimed that while *completely* ignoring my very clear statement of: "Keep in mind, I'm using "interactive movie" largely for lack of a better term." Yes, obviously Heavy Rain is a canonical example of "interactive movie", and for goodness sake, I *AGREED* with you and yet you're still complaining. > > It might be a bad thing if the industry focused too heavily on them, > > but that would be a completely different complaint. > > Which has been the essence of your complaint, Now you're just flat-out quoting me out-of-context. Here it is with the proper context re-added: >>Keep in mind, even sandbox titles, which are definitely not >>remotely "interactive movie" or cinematic at all (at least any >>of the ones I've seen), have long been debated as to whether or >>not they are "games". And note that nobody ever said that was a >>bad thing. It might be a bad thing if the industry focused too >>heavily on them, but that would be a completely different complaint. What that means when it's *not* deliberately twisted around is: >> The following are two completely *different* claims: >> >> A. Not being a "game" is an inherently bad thing. >> >> B. Too much indusrtry-wide focus on XXXX (for whatever XXXX) is a >> bad thing. >> >> I am claiming B and *NOT* A. Stop trying to tell me I'm claiming A. See? > based on how games used > to be and your particular tastes, sounding a lot like a grumpy old > man who thinks the industry is suffering because they don't make them > like they used to: > > "Maybe I'm just projecting my own tastes into this, or maybe this is > just because I don't have sales/profits/etc charts for the last 10-20 > years to examine, but lately I'm finding it difficult to believe that > "AAA" games aren't becoming (or already) a mere niche, much like > high-performance sports cars. (Ie, big money, but small market.) > > Part of this is because, as I see it, the "big/AAA games" *as they > used to exist* up until around the early 2000's don't seem to be > around much anymore." > Oh for crap's sake. Yes, newer AAA/big-business games, on average, *do* direct significantly more of their emphasis on story/dialog/cinematic feel/etc than older ones. I was being diplomatic before, but that's really undeniable. Do you think all that comes at no cost in development resources? (Rhetorical, of course. I'm pointing out it's rhetorical so I don't get accused of hyperbole or of actually suggesting that you did think it didn't cost extra resources.) So that requires more sales for sustainability, and then I went on with my reasoning about diminishing audience - clearly marked with disclaimers about my lack of certainly (which you've conveniently quoted for me and also conveniently ignored). And now you come along, slap the big generic "grumpy old man" "don't make them like they used to" labels over the whole thing, and now I'm supposed to believe not only that your "poisoning the well" tactics somehow *aren't* a logical fallacy, but also that I'm the one being categorically dismissive? > > And really, is it so damn horrible to have and voice a negative > > opinion on something? > > Not at all, but when the constant refrain is grumpy-old-man ranting, > it is pretty horrible. Convenient then how the negative opinions just happen to be of your horrible grumpy-old-man variety rather then types you would accept as the "not at all horrible" negative opinions. Next time I'll make sure anything I dislike isn't something you'll decide to imagine a grumpy old man might agree with. True, I admitted to some grumpy-old-man-ness, but I'm not the one abusing it for ad hominem ammunition.