RPGWatch Side Quest: The Avatar and Me

You have a valid point about WORDS, which is why I accused Roqua of making the re=definers fallacy!! :) However, changing the meaning of words is one of my pet hates!! I don't like what has happened to the word 'gay' for example. It causes problems when reading poetry and Shakespeare for example!! I'm an old fashioned purist with the English Language!! And NO CM, that's NOT because I was around when it was created!!!! :biggrin:
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,805
Location
Australia
And NO CM, that's NOT because I was around when it was created!!!! :biggrin:
You were middle-aged by then? ;)

You have a valid point about WORDS, which is why I accused Roqua of making the re=definers fallacy!! :) However, changing the meaning of words is one of my pet hates!!
The problem is that the meaning of words cycles around into creating a new reality. I was just reading the Dark Messiah review linked off of the front page, and that guy all but says 'this is the new meaning of RPG - those of you who like turn-based and more detailed stuff are (add derisive tone here) 'hardcore' people ... who don't like anything anyway' ...
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,912
I have to agree with you there, Mike.
Quoted from the article:

"On the surface, Dark Messiah Might and Magic is a masterful reinvention of a legendary franchise, taking turn based strategy role playing elements and transforming it into a first person action "shooter." "

The WORDS say it is a reinvention--the actuality is that it is completely divorced from its' predecessors and is an action shooter. Which is fine, but why not just say that?

Also,assuming that turning the original game into a totally different kind of game would be perceived as 'masterful' to actual players of the franchise is pretty simpleminded.

I think you're totally correct and the term rpg has been raped to the casualty ward and means whatever the reviewer or marketer thinks his imaginary audience would like it to mean.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,834
I think you're totally correct and the term rpg has been raped to the casualty ward and means whatever the reviewer or marketer thinks his imaginary audience would like it to mean.

At some point someone in a marketing department realized that adding 'customization' and 'RPG elements' to descriptions and making them interchangeable would make selling a game more easy to a broader audience. It was at that point that any and all context around actual role-playing was forever lost and dead.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,912
I haven't re-defined anything, so there can be no re-definer's fallacy. I gave plenty of examples that can be challenged but no one has done so yet. If I can't be disproven, I am logically correct.

And since no one seems interested in challenging my proofs, let me ask this: what is wrong with a rpg being called a rpg and an action game with rpg elements being called an action game with rpg elements?

Corwin and I agree that BaK, which most consider to be a rpg is not a rpg, so why can't other games that are not rpgs not be considered rpgs? This has nothing to do with what I think is a good game. I love Bloodlines, I love Bak, I love JA and x-com, I love mario kart, but it still doesn't make me question what I know to be true through commen sense, historical presidence, and logic. You can love God and don't have to believe that dinosaurs were scientific satananic propoganda. You can love rpgs, love a game that has rpg elements, and still love it without it actually being an rpg.


Your continual restatement of the incontrovertible truth of your position, along with content-free rhetoric like this "I'm right and you're wrong" bullshit, belie your claim to be discussing this in good faith. You're not open to the possibility that you're wrong. Any further words would be wasted on you. I'm done.

I am open to the possibility I am wrong. I've been hoping someone can disprove my proofs. I want a challenge. I'm sorry that me claiming to be right angers you, from now on I will use the more politically correct and sensitive term of "not-wrong" when refering to how right and correct I am on this issue if it will make you feel better. I'm kind of at a hang-up for what to call my adversaries. "Not-right" just doesn't have that certain charm I was looking for. Maybe a code word would work? Like "special" or "right challenged." I could use some help with the lingo.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
474
How about "on-topic"? What about "not given to dumping his ridiculous, begging-the-question 'proofs' on threads that have nothing to do with what is or isn't an RPG"? I'm okay with those.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
321
"On-topic" it is. I am "not-wrong" and you are "on-topic." (The other title was too long, even as an acronym it would still be too long).
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
474
Heh.

(And seven other characters. What do you have against economy of expression, Dhruin?)
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
321
Roqua has now committed an Ad Ignoratiam (sp). Classically, if you can't prove something true, then it must be false and vice versa!! It's still a fallacy!! :)
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,805
Location
Australia
You have now commited an Avoid. Classically, if you can't beat em, tell them they are wrong without articulation. I wish you would debate me so I could point out a fallacy in your reasoning, but you won't give any.

Why won't anyone tell me how I'm wrong? I'll take anything at this point, even the classic "it just is." Like boobs just are good. Why? Who knows? So at least say crpgs don't have to be rpgs just because... (we like it like that, who cares?, because its awesome, because labels are for sissies, etc). Something.

And maybe, just maybe, Corwin, someone can prove me wrong, or prove themselves true. But no one has tried. So I couldn't have commited an Ad Ignoratiam, because that would suppose an opposition that at least had something to add to the argument.

And its not like this even fits the catagory. I didn't say "boobs are good, he, he, prove me wrong."

So, due to the utter lack of opposition, I claim tournament rule and win by default. I am sole victor and what I have stated is law. The opposition was challenged, but never showed up.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
474
from roqua- "If I can't be disproven, I am logically correct. That is classic AI!! :)
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,805
Location
Australia
You are also now bordering on argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity). Just to expand on Corwin's observation of your use of AI: If I claim that shape shifting aliens live among us, no one will be able to disprove it, but making this contention makes me neither logical nor correct.

It is impossible for me to disprove your opinion (which is all it is) that an RPG can't rely on the player's manual dexterity, just as it is impossible for you to disprove my opinion that an RPG can make use of a player's dexterity, just as it is impossible for anyone to prove or disprove that a banana-split is only a real banana-split if it doesn't contain any peanuts. You are taking a subjective opinion and presenting it as if it were an objective fact. Proofs in this case are useless.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
176
Which is why I referred to the re-definers fallacy in the first place, since that is precisely what the RDF frequently does!! :)

PS, did I mention that I used to teach this stuff once upon a time!! :biggrin:
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,805
Location
Australia
It shows Corwin, thanks for the free lesson!
Keep this up and soon we'll all be fluent in latin :)
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
176
Yeah, I studied that for several years too!! Actually, I found it quite useful many times and I'm certainly not Catholic!! :)
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,805
Location
Australia
You are also now bordering on argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity). Just to expand on Corwin's observation of your use of AI: If I claim that shape shifting aliens live among us, no one will be able to disprove it, but making this contention makes me neither logical nor correct.

It is impossible for me to disprove your opinion (which is all it is) that an RPG can't rely on the player's manual dexterity, just as it is impossible for you to disprove my opinion that an RPG can make use of a player's dexterity, just as it is impossible for anyone to prove or disprove that a banana-split is only a real banana-split if it doesn't contain any peanuts. You are taking a subjective opinion and presenting it as if it were an objective fact. Proofs in this case are useless.

The last thing I want is other's pity. And if it's your opinion that rpgs can use player's physical abilities and still be rpgs, give examples on why. Articulate. You guys are all brilliant in how its only my opinion, etc, without having any real substance, examples, or arguments to your posts.

Tell my how it is my opinion, tell me how my examples are wrong. This peanut gallery sniping bullshit has to end. If I'm wrong, tell me how. Challenge my arguements or come up with some of your own with some substance. Besdies retarded alien analogies.

Basically, you guys need to man-up or sit down and shut up. Or at least stop with your goddamn peanut gallery bullshit. If no one wants to challenge my arguement, or come up with their own reasons as to why I wrong, then please, enough with the nonsense.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
474
--roqua crack corn and i don't care--

rpgwatch - the fewest deleted posts and an independent research group proves it.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
1,386
Location
California
Sorry, Geist. He won't know what your reply has to do with his argument ("Alien analogies? Categories? What? What???") unless you respond directly to his proof. Attacking his assumptions won't cut it, because he doesn't understand that he's made any, or that a proof requires them.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
321
Sorry, Geist. He won't know what your reply has to do with his argument ("Alien analogies? Categories? What? What???") unless you respond directly to his proof. Attacking his assumptions won't cut it, because he doesn't understand that he's made any, or that a proof requires them.

RPGs exist, that is not a question. Aliens existance is not a fact. The existance of God is not a fact. Shapechanging si not a fact. You can have opinions on if aliens exist, etc. But the RPG is an invention, and this site is dedicated to the computer versions of them. My whole original post is designed to show that what this aspect of rpgs we are discusing is not opinion. So saying, "yeah huh!" when I articulated my point, or giving useless examples unrelated or connect or even lacking the ability to be connected to this argument has no bearing on anything. If you give a valid argument, I'll refute it if I can, or at least take it seriously enough and respect it enough to respond with points and a some content. Nonsense and peanut gallery sniping doesn't add any substance to this debate.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
474
Back
Top Bottom