The general decline of gaming

[Baddygoal]

 

[shihonage]

Let's not forget Future Cop:LAPD (PC version had Internet coop too I believe), where you played a transforming ED209 dude, and G-Police.

 

[Luzur]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8CYhfsbX48

never forget.

 

[Black Bart Charley]

Hey Black Fart Charley you still haven't commented on me saying that I like challenging combat against enemies that are stronger than your party and have to be defeated by tactics/skill, or trying to win an EB campaign when playing with a small faction surrounded by stronger enemies.

Well, good for you. I dont know though, maybe you suck too much (as implied by your "ja2 is hard" experience), maybe you larp too much (not using cheapo night tactics) but stop using wishy washy terms. Whats "stronger"? I played vanilla Rome. Its fucking boring. The tactical AI is a horrorfest. The strategical AI is a horrorfest. The only possibility of achieving a playable game balance is by swarming you with enemies. Thats not a good game. I mean, in retrospect, they would not swarm you with enemies if they had human like AI because the AI would fucking crush you. But they do. And you still win...

So you'd probably agree with me that these kinds of things are fun and REAL GAEMS even though they're not "balanced" (or, much rather, the balance is in favour of the AI).

You are a slow one. How often do I need to tell you that that balance != mirrormatching?
If they are good games depends on the rules and the ai in single player. If the AI has no glaring holes like in XCOM or JA2, than yes. You could call them good games.

Do you even know what this thread is about?

Its about a young fellow without style or substance.

You posted a Wiki article, lets see what that says... Nothing in there or the rest of the article that might suggest that games like X-COM or JA2 are not 'true' games. Challenge is largely subjective.

Read the whole article. Move some grey cells around. There is no definite definition of game. But I like Crawfords the most.

an interactive, goal-oriented activity, with active agents to play against, in which players (including active agents) can interfere with each other.

Now JA2 and XCOM are so broken that they are actually puzzles but not games.
And dont pull the insanity defense. Challenge is not as subjective as you'd like it to be.

what PC games do you both consider to be good/great/excellent/tr00 gaems?

tr00? whats that? 4chan is that way, bro.
I liked Quake 3 Arena, GalCiv2 performs as a single player game without time limits the best from what I've played, I play Street Fighter 3rd strike with a bro every other week as Ibuki and get my ass handed to me (not a good game) but as Ken I can go toe to toe with his main, Dudley (good game). Panzer Gerenal has a decent time limit to it which makes it a good puzzle, probably more game than the things you consider good.

Granted the AI is exploitable (*if you choose to*) and after enough playthroughs you'll know all its tricks and tactics, but its the same with humans.

No, its not. AI always behave the same.

I'm saying the integral part of single player video games isn't challenge or gameplay at all. I'm not going so far as to say what the integral part then is

 

[SCO]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8CYhfsbX48

never forget.

Mother of God...

 

[Black Cat]

@ Black Bart Charley

Are you actually saying the main difference between a single player good, uhm, gaming game from a LARPing game is ruleset, balance, and quality of the AI or am I misunderstanding something here?

 

[JarlFrank]

I dont know though, maybe you suck too much (as implied by your "ja2 is hard" experience)

Where did I say JA2 is hard?
I never said it was hard. I said it has good gameplay and an adequate AI. I never said it was exceptionally hard. I never did use night tactics, preferring a good old shootout, but even then it's not really hard as long as you know what you're doing. I said it can be a challenge, especially on your first playthrough when you're not familiar with the exploits yet.

Whats "stronger"? I played vanilla Rome. Its fucking boring. The tactical AI is a horrorfest. The strategical AI is a horrorfest. The only possibility of achieving a playable game balance is by swarming you with enemies. Thats not a good game. I mean, in retrospect, they would not swarm you with enemies if they had human like AI because the AI would fucking crush you. But they do. And you still win...

Vanilla is nothing like most of the mods. The mods have longer combat, which the AI can handle better, in some mods the AI is improved (especially on the campaign map), and some nations are very hard to play. Take Pontos in Europa Barbarorum - you start with one province, surrounded by the Seleukid Empire which is pretty huge and at war with you, you will get into debt by the second turn unless you either disband some units (which leaves you helpless) or conquer some rich adjacent provinces very quickly. Vanilla Rome is piss easy with just about any faction and cannot be compared with mods.

From your liking GalCiv2 I notice that AI is the top priority for you in games, even if it's quite lacking in interesting content. MoO2 was a much better 4x, with more and more interesting features and deeper gameplay, but arguably with a worse AI than GalCiv2.

 

[Baddygoal]

Well, good for you. I dont know though, maybe you suck too much (as implied by your "ja2 is hard" experience), maybe you larp too much (not using cheapo night tactics) but stop using wishy washy terms. Whats "stronger"? I played vanilla Rome. Its fucking boring. The tactical AI is a horrorfest. The strategical AI is a horrorfest. The only possibility of achieving a playable game balance is by swarming you with enemies. Thats not a good game. I mean, in retrospect, they would not swarm you with enemies if they had human like AI because the AI would fucking crush you. But they do. And you still win...

ITT BBC states his l33t-ness and hardcore-ness. How is challenge not subjective?

You posted a Wiki article, lets see what that says... Nothing in there or the rest of the article that might suggest that games like X-COM or JA2 are not 'true' games. Challenge is largely subjective.

Read the whole article. Move some grey cells around. There is no definite definition of game. But I like Crawfords the most.

an interactive, goal-oriented activity, with active agents to play against, in which players (including active agents) can interfere with each other.

Now JA2 and XCOM are so broken that they are actually puzzles but not games.
And dont pull the insanity defense. Challenge is not as subjective as you'd like it to be.

Exactly, there is no definite definition of 'game'. You just picked one that fits what you think constitutes a game. It must be really frustrating for you seeing the 'game industry' and 'pc games' which you think should be the 'puzzle industry' and 'pc puzzlers'.

what PC games do you both consider to be good/great/excellent/tr00 gaems?

tr00? whats that? 4chan is that way, bro.
I liked Quake 3 Arena, GalCiv2 performs as a single player game without time limits the best from what I've played, I play Street Fighter 3rd strike with a bro every other week as Ibuki and get my ass handed to me (not a good game) but as Ken I can go toe to toe with his main, Dudley (good game). Panzer Gerenal has a decent time limit to it which makes it a good puzzle, probably more game than the things you consider good.

Q3 Arena (and by extension Quake Live) is (and will always be) among my top favourite multiplayer FPSs. GalCiv 2 is also a really good game, one of my favourites as well. But the balance and challenge in those games isn't always perfect. Your opponents aren't always the same skill level in Q3. If being owned = bad game and being at the same level = good game, your enjoyment of Q3 should vary wildly depending on who you play against. Do you happen to play any Role-Playing Puzzlers?

Granted the AI is exploitable (*if you choose to*) and after enough playthroughs you'll know all its tricks and tactics, but its the same with humans.

No, its not. AI always behave the same.

What makes good AI then? AI that can adapt? AI that makes mistakes?

 

[Black Bart Charley]

Are you actually saying the main difference between a single player good, uhm, gaming game from a LARPing game is ruleset, balance, and quality of the AI or am I misunderstanding something here?

Right. Its just that the balance is interwoven with AI in single player computer games and the AI usually sucks, which makes games like Fallout, Bloodlines, BG, JA, XCOM not games.
Granted, this definition has some loopholes I see, wobbly at places, buts it a good one.

1.Creative expression is art if made for its own beauty, and entertainment if made for money.
2.A piece of entertainment is a plaything if it is interactive. Movies and books are cited as examples of non-interactive entertainment.
3.If no goals are associated with a plaything, it is a toy. (Crawford notes that by his definition, (a) a toy can become a game element if the player makes up rules, and (b) The Sims and SimCity are toys, not games.) If it has goals, a plaything is a challenge.
4.If a challenge has no "active agent against whom you compete," it is a puzzle; if there is one, it is a conflict. (Crawford admits that this is a subjective test. Video games with noticeably algorithmic artificial intelligence can be played as puzzles; these include the patterns used to evade ghosts in Pac-Man.)
5.Finally, if the player can only outperform the opponent, but not attack them to interfere with their performance, the conflict is a competition. (Competitions include racing and figure skating.) However, if attacks are allowed, then the conflict qualifies as a game.

Where did I say JA2 is hard? I said it has good gameplay and an adequate AI.

You said its challenging and someone would need a playthrough to figure out the exploits... The AI is not adequate, its dumb. Thats

MoO2 was a much better 4x, with more and more interesting features and deeper gameplay

I had that discussion with someone else here and he disappeared after it got lengthly and to definitions of what constitutes "deep gameplay". I dunno, maybe broken tactical combat is "deep gameplay" for fucks like you. I have high standards and intellectual honesty.

ITT BBC states his l33t-ness and hardcore-ness. How is challenge not subjective?

br0 c4n u rly sc0re p0lnts wIth thls? Challenge is not as fucking subjective as you want it to be. Insanity defense does not work here. Oblivion is not challenging. Bell curves exist.

Exactly, there is no definite definition of 'game'. You just picked one that fits what you think constitutes a game.

I picked the best one. The others are shitty one liners without any background thought that could encompass fapping as game.

It must be really frustrating for you seeing the 'game industry' and 'pc games' which you think should be the 'puzzle industry' and 'pc puzzlers'.

You have no fucking idea. But I stopped srs playing somewhere in 2005. Btw, how is the RPG industry faring? I bet you liked Mass Defect, the RPG. Kekeke.

Do you happen to play any Role-Playing Puzzlers

If one is older than my hardware and If they are not fpv or 3pv. I think KotC was the last rpg I played. Did you play KotC?

What makes good AI then?

That it poses at least a 50/50 threat in a mirrormatch. Eg, an equally skilled human.
Dont start with the fact that such an AI would crush you in asymmetrical setup, thats what balance is for.
Hell, I even accept timelimits as a cheapo balancing of shit AI...

 

[Baddygoal]

1.Creative expression is art if made for its own beauty, and entertainment if made for money.
2.A piece of entertainment is a plaything if it is interactive. Movies and books are cited as examples of non-interactive entertainment.
3.If no goals are associated with a plaything, it is a toy. (Crawford notes that by his definition, (a) a toy can become a game element if the player makes up rules, and (b) The Sims and SimCity are toys, not games.) If it has goals, a plaything is a challenge.
4.If a challenge has no "active agent against whom you compete," it is a puzzle; if there is one, it is a conflict. (Crawford admits that this is a subjective test. Video games with noticeably algorithmic artificial intelligence can be played as puzzles; these include the patterns used to evade ghosts in Pac-Man.)
5.Finally, if the player can only outperform the opponent, but not attack them to interfere with their performance, the conflict is a competition. (Competitions include racing and figure skating.) However, if attacks are allowed, then the conflict qualifies as a game.

1. There are many, many things wrong with this, so I'll just ignore #1 alltogether.

2. No arguments with this. Toys, board games, pc games etc. are interactive.

3. This guy is just assigning definitions to words that already have existing meanings.(b) is contradicted by (a). A player often has some sort of 'goal' in mind for both these games and Sim/Tycoon/Sandbox games in general. In fact, mini-goals are defined so often that the line between a 'toy' and a 'game/challenge' by Crawford's definition is so often blurred that it's no longer a line, more like a spectrum. Even things as small as "I'm going to make this Sims guy live up to 80 years old and have children with all his neighbours" is a goal.

4. Ok, by this definition some games can be played as puzzles, should the player choose to. So you only have yourself to blame . Either way, he admits that it's subjective. But note the wording; puzzles aren't separate from games, puzzles are a subset of games. Platformers are puzzles, yet they are also games. Still, I agree that some games can be treated as puzzles, but once again I think the line that separates them is more of a spectrum as in #3.

5. Trackmania is a competition, but Need For Speed is a game. But do racing games become puzzles in single player and games in multiplayer? Depends on the AI I suppose, but still there is no hard line that separates 'puzzles' and 'games' when it comes to PC games.

Anyway, this is a definition, and not the best one either.

That it poses at least a 50/50 threat in a mirrormatch. Eg, an equally skilled human.

What JarlFrank was trying to get at, is that sometimes it's fun and interesting to go up against a human/AI who is not exactly on the same level as the player, sometimes above, sometimes below.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

That it poses at least a 50/50 threat in a mirrormatch. Eg, an equally skilled human.

What JarlFrank was trying to get at, is that sometimes it's fun and interesting to go up against a human/AI who is not exactly on the same level as the player, sometimes above, sometimes below.

I think that his point is that it would become a toy not a game.

 

[Black Bart Charley]

This guy is just assigning definitions to words that already have existing meanings

Doodly fucking doo. Meanings from THE GREAT BOOK OF EXISTING MEANINGS! He could as well call them term1 term2 and cockbitchballs.

A player often has (made up) some sort of 'goal' in mind

Are you fucking kidding me? I ram a big great black cock in my ass and have the goal not to get AIDS. BEST GAME EVA! LARPING IS NO GAMING!

more like a spectrum

NEWS AT 11, WORLD GOES TO GREYSCALE!

But note the wording; puzzles aren't separate from games, puzzles are a subset of games.

And toys too and sitting on a shitter, laying eggs, too.
Lets put em all together and call em games. That would make the idiots happy.

But do racing games become puzzles in single player and games in multiplayer? Depends on the AI I suppose

Depends on the balance! The AI would rip anyone a new one.

but still there is no hard line that separates 'puzzles' and 'games' when it comes to PC games.

Yes there is and its hard enough. Well, technically the Bulls team from 1998 playing against 3rd graders in the playoffs is a game... But in reality this challenge has no "active agent against whom you compete," so it is a puzzle.

Anyway, this is a definition, and not the best one either.

Yeah, he forgot nr6. For a game to be good, it has to be balanced, rule- and challenge-wise.
But pretty please, please provide the best definition that your educated self came across in the research of games.

What JarlFrank was trying to get at, is that sometimes it's fun and interesting to go up against a human/AI who is not exactly on the same level as the player, sometimes above, sometimes below.

I dont give a fuck whats fun to idiots. I like dressing up as an old woman and running a run down motel. What? Yes, Mom, I am coming. No, she is just hungry, thats all.

I want you to think about what is a game and how to compare them, how to rate them and how to apply that to your favorite shit objectively. For DummFrank is a lost hippie cause and nothing will ever reach him.

 

[DraQ]

However, it's probably the single, most crippling notion anyone ever tried to apply to a single player game. How would you try to balance such a game anyway - with not only vastly asymmetrical setup, but also with one of the sides having vastly different capabilities than the other, because only one of the sides is human.
Now, there are some elements of balance that are just bare essentials in a single player game - game should be completable, game should avoid allowing excessive cheese, and game should provide some actual challenge, but the notion itself is way too vague, especially in RPGs, and there are too many uncontrollable variables involved to make even attempting to achieve balance beyond the essentials I've outlined anything but futile.

See how he supports me? Enough complexity -> broken balance -> broken design. Not only that, the AI programmer is just flabbergasted by all the possibilities. And it always happens. I hate that. I see the glaring flaws and the game becomes a tedious exercise in abusing them because I am fucking surely not gonna play even field with a dumb AI. I am here to game by rules, to reach an objective, to win. And some dude the page before said that he doesn't care that a game has overpowered shit in it. Well, he is the posterboy of shit design and oblivion love. If someone gives you a gun and pitts you against a dude with a sword, will you rather have a sword too? Oh I forgot, you create arbitrary rules to make it more challenging. Well, chess masters are known to play multiple opponents at once but at least their rulework is solid. What I am trying to say is, shit design stays shit design.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

The thing that undermines your tirades is that computer games haven't been about challenge or balance for a fucking long time. As computational power, storage capacity and graphics improved, the computer games found themselves a new avenue - instead of simplistic gamist exercises in PvP (or exercises in futility in case of games that cannot be beaten and the goal is to imply score as well as possible) they have become simulationist experiences. Their goal is no longer to challenge the player, but to allow player to experience something he cannot or wouldn't dare to experience in real life.
RPGs in particular are complex, simulationist experiences, as they experienced this shift much earlier when someone at some point noticed that wargames turned adventures cannot be adequately balanced anyway, and having the GM playing against the players is not an asset but a problem preventing doing interesting stuff with storytelling. As a consequence GM was promoted from side in conflict to a god, the engine running the simulation.
Challenge and balance are still there, but they are subservient to the goal of creating experience by creating tension and playing their part in the gameworld consistency. Your god's sole purpose in SP gaming is sucking the dick of the gaming experience.

If I play, say, Wizardry 8 in ironman, it's not because I wish to fap over the extra challenge and my manliness in overcoming it, I do so because it intensifies the experience.

If I despise Call of Derp: Black Cocks, it's because the experience it provides is far below my standards, especialy in regards to its adaptability.

If I wanted adversarial gameplay I would play either Go or some DM FPS depending on the mood.

The point of AI is not to replace a human - which is impossible - but to enable a human to play alone.

As opposed to playing with someone? Everytime where AI is involved, a human can do a better job. Be it a symmetrical setup like in chess or not like in some rpg trash fight. So essentially the AI should behave like a human, eg replacing one, but not laugh at you when you lose. But it is never up to par. So the game becomes different design-wise, compensating for that inability. Be it through masses of enemies or timelimits or whatever enters the developers mind to counteract the crappy AI.

The role of the AI is not replace human, but to be a part of the simulation. It's true that human tends to be better than the AI at playing characters, because human brain is an impressive machine and both, social aspects and raw fight-for-survival aspects are something human mind has evolved for.

Black Bart Charley is wrong to use chess as example of perfect balance.

Never said "perfect". I would be wrong by "perfecting" it alone because the set up is not symmetrical.

And won't be as long as the game is TB - lololol.

Balance without symmetry is fucking tricky even if the game is simple and the differences small. Attempts to fine-tune a complex, highly asymmetrical SP game border on insanity. You can and should patch all the holes and runaway ripple effects you can find, but other than that it's not about the balance anyway.

If you want balance, you should either play a DM (but on a strictly symmetrical map), or some game with simple and abstract ruleset, like Go.

As for "larping" around exploits, it's essentially patching the game with rules that exist only in your brain. It's shit solution and a last resort, but don't rules of Chess or Go exist only in players' brains, but aren't reflected by anything about board or pieces?

unrealistically perfectionist expectations

Thats how everyone should roll.

No. If you set a bar somewhere where it cannot possibly be reached, you're just whiner. High - yes, perfectionist - possibly, but complaining that the Sun isn't square won't get you anywhere.

From what I gather you absolutely hate SP computer games, especially when they are complex, like good cRPGs tend to - duly noted. This forum, however, is mostly a gaming forum, is mostly focused on SP gaming, and is mostly focused on complex games like RPGs. From what I gather this means that RPGCodex profile of interest is nearly a perfect match with things you disdain, so if you could be so kind, GTFO.

 

[Destroid]

Botmatch.

 

[dextermorgan]

The whole notion that the answer to the gaming question of life, the universe and everything is "balance" is ridiculous in and of itself, and running with it all high and mighty as though you discovered the holy grail of video games only makes you look like a BBC.

 

[S_Verner]

You fuckers are forgetting Tribes. A game that could have 128 players on 18kbps pipes without any visible lag.

Game development is utter shit, and patches ruined everything.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

However, it's probably the single, most crippling notion anyone ever tried to apply to a single player game. How would you try to balance such a game anyway - with not only vastly asymmetrical setup, but also with one of the sides having vastly different capabilities than the other, because only one of the sides is human.
Now, there are some elements of balance that are just bare essentials in a single player game - game should be completable, game should avoid allowing excessive cheese, and game should provide some actual challenge, but the notion itself is way too vague, especially in RPGs, and there are too many uncontrollable variables involved to make even attempting to achieve balance beyond the essentials I've outlined anything but futile.

See how he supports me? Enough complexity -> broken balance -> broken design. Not only that, the AI programmer is just flabbergasted by all the possibilities. And it always happens. I hate that. I see the glaring flaws and the game becomes a tedious exercise in abusing them because I am fucking surely not gonna play even field with a dumb AI. I am here to game by rules, to reach an objective, to win. And some dude the page before said that he doesn't care that a game has overpowered shit in it. Well, he is the posterboy of shit design and oblivion love. If someone gives you a gun and pitts you against a dude with a sword, will you rather have a sword too? Oh I forgot, you create arbitrary rules to make it more challenging. Well, chess masters are known to play multiple opponents at once but at least their rulework is solid. What I am trying to say is, shit design stays shit design.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

The thing that undermines your tirades is that computer games haven't been about challenge or balance for a fucking long time. As computational power, storage capacity and graphics improved, the computer games found themselves a new avenue - instead of simplistic gamist exercises in PvP (or exercises in futility in case of games that cannot be beaten and the goal is to imply score as well as possible) they have become simulationist experiences. Their goal is no longer to challenge the player, but to allow player to experience something he cannot or wouldn't dare to experience in real life.
RPGs in particular are complex, simulationist experiences, as they experienced this shift much earlier when someone at some point noticed that wargames turned adventures cannot be adequately balanced anyway, and having the GM playing against the players is not an asset but a problem preventing doing interesting stuff with storytelling. As a consequence GM was promoted from side in conflict to a god, the engine running the simulation.
Challenge and balance are still there, but they are subservient to the goal of creating experience by creating tension and playing their part in the gameworld consistency. Your god's sole purpose in SP gaming is sucking the dick of the gaming experience.

If I play, say, Wizardry 8 in ironman, it's not because I wish to fap over the extra challenge and my manliness in overcoming it, I do so because it intensifies the experience.

AIs are 1000x times shittier at providing simulationist experiences than they are at providing challenge and they already suck at providing non-artificial challenge.

 

[Baddygoal]

Are you fucking kidding me? I ram a big great black cock in my ass and have the goal not to get AIDS. BEST GAME EVA! LARPING IS NO GAMING!

Yes there is and its hard enough. Well, technically the Bulls team from 1998 playing against 3rd graders in the playoffs is a game... But in reality this challenge has no "active agent against whom you compete," so it is a puzzle.

If you play chess against a monkey is that a game or a puzzle? When playing online how often do you find someone that exactly matches your skills?

Yeah, he forgot nr6. For a game to be good, it has to be balanced, rule- and challenge-wise. But pretty please, please provide the best definition that your educated self came across in the research of games.

I don't need to base my understanding and enjoyment of games based on a single definition by some guy.

 

[DraQ]

AIs are 1000x times shittier at providing simulationist experiences than they are at providing challenge and they already suck at providing non-artificial challenge.

Well, that just plain fucking sucks, because there are only two things in games that make computers remotely useful - simulation and eyecandy.

Ability to grind complex simulations is the only qualitative difference computers have brought to entertainment, and AI, even shitty is small, but important facet of this simulation going great lengths to make this simulation less lifeless.

If you don't like simulation, then you don't really need computer games for anything.

 

[Black Bart Charley]

dexter:

The whole notion that the answer to the gaming question of life, the universe and everything is "balance" is ridiculous in and of itself, and running with it all high and mighty as though you discovered the holy grail of video games only makes you look like a :shitty smiley: BBC.

Nice issue I forgot. Meaning of life. There is none. So you are bound to create some form of it. You build your morals around it, your values. I value intelligence (logic) very high, higher than emotion. While the emotions still override intelligence, I am an animal nonetheless, but I recognize that intelligence stands above emotion on a comparative scale. It is better.
And yeah, balance is the holy grail of game design. I did not discover it. I might be running "high" with it, not "mighty" though and it doesnt make me look retarded till you prove otherwise. Bear in mind what "games" are.

Draq:

The thing that undermines your tirades is that computer games haven't been about challenge or balance for a fucking long time. (...) Their goal is no longer to challenge the player, but to allow player to experience something he cannot or wouldn't dare to experience in real life.

Those arent games than. End of story. That is not gaming. Its larping. And suddenly games become incomparable, suddenly Oblivion is a great game. I mean, I like this fluff really really hard and you liek this fluff really really hard and so we have our best game eva. And this schizo likes to mash the the keys of dreamcast game nr42 very much and his opinion about what makes a great game is suddenly valid!

but don't rules of Chess or Go exist only in players' brains, but aren't reflected by anything about board or pieces?

No. They are written down and defined as part of the game to differentiate between that game and this game.

unrealistically perfectionist expectations
...
Thats how everyone should roll.
...
No. If you set a bar somewhere where it cannot possibly be reached, you're just whiner.

Is whining bad? Being a whiner is better than being you though. You are fucking apologist faggot. A dirtscum larper cocksucker assburger victim, disgusting furry and do not deserve to live. Like most people on this forum. Like me. But at least I recognize myself for what I am.

From what I gather you absolutely hate SP computer games, especially when they are complex, like good cRPGs tend to - duly noted. This forum, however, is mostly a gaming forum, is mostly focused on SP gaming, and is mostly focused on complex games like RPGs. From what I gather this means that RPGCodex profile of interest is nearly a perfect match with things you disdain, so if you could be so kind, GTFO.

I hate shit games as anyone should. So instead of me, every moron who likes Morronwind should GTFO.

Baddygoal:
Am I going over your head with the analogies?

If you play chess against a monkey is that a game or a puzzle?

Puzzle

When playing online how often do you find someone that exactly matches your skills?

Dunno. Havent counted. They dont have to exactly match my skills.

I don't need to base my understanding and enjoyment of games based on a single definition by some guy.

You dont need to do anything! But you have to be able to asset the quality of something. You cant, without defining what you are comparing. And you said, Crawfords dichotomies are not the best one. I would like to see a better one. You are not just a loudmouth, are you?