Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

MSFD on Bethesda's uber next-gen skill system

Balor

Arcane
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
5,186
Location
Russia
"I agree that the simple fun should not REPLACE intelligent entertainment, but it may very well ADD to it."
Well, question is, since game cannot provide ENDLESS fun, therefore each facet of the game that provides 'simple fun' - takes away from intelligent fun that could be in it's place.
Am I right or what? :)
 

ExMonk

Scholar
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
353
Location
Lexington, KY
Twinfalls said:
This IS about 'staying true' to something. It's about staying true to the standards and ambitions of the original Daggerfall team. This is not something you can dismiss by simply saying 'but it's gonna be fun'. No-one here wants a game that is 'no fun'. To suggest that this is some kind of core dogma here is preposterous. Expecting a level of role-playing sophistication which would make the Daggerfall team proud is not the same as wanting some kind of grognard stat-heavy spreadsheet game mired in dour real-world mundaneness.

Ad Fontes!
 

galsiah

Erudite
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,613
Location
Montreal
GhanBuriGhan said:
I guess I got hung up on semantics, and then everyone got hung up on mine. Serves me right. I guess I would still maintain that there is a certain automatism here to scoff at simple fun as opposed to complex, intelligent fun. I agree that the simple fun should not REPLACE intelligent entertainment, but it may very well ADD to it.
The problem is that "simple fun" is difficult to achieve without ruining the "intelligent fun". If you could add simple fun without causing a problem, then most people here might accept that (or perhaps I'm being naive :)).

Take the *Staff == Rocket Launcher* comparison. You're quite right that running about with a rocket launcher can provide a lot of simple fun. Doing the same with a staff is sure to be fun too. However, when I've been running around with a rocket launcher in e.g. Doom or Quake, it has never put me in mind of a sorcerer wielding arcane magic.

Strafing across a room and launching a series of fireballs at enemies just doesn't feel right. There's no feeling of awe at the greatness of the magic, only a cheap shooting-gallery thrill with a few explosions thrown in. There's nothing wrong with that, but its place is in an FPS, not an RPG.

The "adding simple fun" idea is pretty similar to the idea of taking a fun RPG, a fun FPS and a fun Strategy game, combining all three and hoping for a game three times as fun. Clearly that isn't going to work - you should only add an element from another genre if it takes nothing away from the original fun to do so. I'm not saying this can never work, but usually it doesn't.
The simple fun provided by staves as rocket launchers is very unlikely to compensate for the loss of atmosphere. Powerful, impressively explosive spells are all very well - but they should feel like magic, not like rocket lauchers.

Atmospheric simple fun would be welcome, but it is hard to achieve.
 

Proweler

Scholar
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
203
LlamaGod said:
yes, since I want videogames to not be like real-life, they should all be completely retarded.

There is a whole lot between so "inteligent" it's tedious and boring and completely retarded.
 

Imbecile

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
1,267
Location
Bristol, England
galsiah said:
Take the *Staff == Rocket Launcher* comparison. You're quite right that running about with a rocket launcher can provide a lot of simple fun. Doing the same with a staff is sure to be fun too. However, when I've been running around with a rocket launcher in e.g. Doom or Quake, it has never put me in mind of a sorcerer wielding arcane magic.

The simple fun provided by staves as rocket launchers is very unlikely to compensate for the loss of atmosphere. Powerful, impressively explosive spells are all very well - but they should feel like magic, not like rocket lauchers.

.

I know that I'm diverging wildly from the topic, but I've never really got the whole staff rocket launcher problem. To me crossbows have always been comparable to say - a pump action shotgun. A mage shooting a fireball from his fingertips is generally comparable to someone using a rocket launcher in a FPS. Its hard to avoid the parallel - they are, after all ranged weapons of one sort of another.

The sort of fun you get from this aspect of combat in a first person RPG or a FPS tends to be simple fun, I guess where the complexity comes in slightly is managing the stats behind those crossbow shenanigans in an RPG, or by having the opportunity to deal with the situation in another way. "Action RPGs" seem to be, to me at least, the combination of simple fun and intelligent fun, and tend to pull a few people in from the pools of fans of each type of fun.
 

bryce777

Erudite
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
4,225
Location
In my country the system operates YOU
Simple, perhaps, but fun? it just seems idiotic to me, and goes against the whole idea of a mage, who shoud be intelligent, mysterious, and powerful, not some moron running around going bew! bew! bew! with a stick.

A mage should win by intelligent spell use and strategy, not reflexes.

Anyway, it is funny people still argue over oblivion. It is pretty obvious that this game is going to suck balls to anyone who likes anything aproaching what an rpg is. Really, it has no more place here than than hexen does at this point.
 

Imbecile

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
1,267
Location
Bristol, England
bryce777 said:
Simple, perhaps, but fun? it just seems idiotic to me, and goes against the whole idea of a mage, who shoud be intelligent, mysterious, and powerful, not some moron running around going bew! bew! bew! with a stick.
.

...Or with their hand, or with a crossbow....etc...

I agree that there should be more depth to spellcasting, but in general real time RPG spellcasting takes the simple approach firing out spells with their hand. Admittedly you dont get the bew! bew! bew! noise, but I guess you can add that yourself.

My point was that it has always been this way. the fact that a stick is used now doesnt make the core gameplay any more simplistic.

Like I said most real time RPGs that Ive played have a relatively simplistic magic system. I would like it if mages required more intelligent play, but how would you go about doing this - without making mages too difficult for joe average to play? (although I guess you could argue that this would be the whole point)
 

GhanBuriGhan

Erudite
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
1,170
Balor said:
"I agree that the simple fun should not REPLACE intelligent entertainment, but it may very well ADD to it."
Well, question is, since game cannot provide ENDLESS fun, therefore each facet of the game that provides 'simple fun' - takes away from intelligent fun that could be in it's place.
Am I right or what? :)

A very predictable argument, but no, of course you are NOT right! :)
That would assume that a) intelligent fun would be terribly difficult to make, leaving no resources for anything else, which I think we all would deny is true. It takes some guts and intelligence, but not really that much in terms of resources.
b) It would assume that all games are made with the same limitations of funding and personel, which is obviously not true either.
c) Not even this elitist little place agrees on what actually constitutes intelligent versus dumb fun, so how should developers know :)



galsiah said:
...Take the *Staff == Rocket Launcher* comparison. You're quite right that running about with a rocket launcher can provide a lot of simple fun. Doing the same with a staff is sure to be fun too. However, when I've been running around with a rocket launcher in e.g. Doom or Quake, it has never put me in mind of a sorcerer wielding arcane magic.

Strafing across a room and launching a series of fireballs at enemies just doesn't feel right. There's no feeling of awe at the greatness of the magic, only a cheap shooting-gallery thrill with a few explosions thrown in. There's nothing wrong with that, but its place is in an FPS, not an RPG.

But that is only true if it really were a rocket launcher with unlimited amunition, that just lies by the roadside. The way MSFD explained however, staffs are rare artefacts, require recharging with soulgems etc.
As to the "greatness of Magic" - I have always seen Tamriel as a place where Magic is common as dirt, and effects are unspectacular, so that feeling was never really there in this particular series. As to the FPS element, Magic in TES has always had that, it's part of the series, and should be made to feel the best it can, not removed, to use a common Codex phrase.
I really wonder what everyones problem is - Before you could shoot fireballs from your enchanted left sock by wiggling with your fingers in magic mode - I much prefer to have an actual staff with something flying out of the end, and the fact that you can't melee attack with it, is a nice offset to its powers. (Nevertheless I am sorry about the loss of melee staves, but thats a different topic, really)
My FEELING is that the mere mention of the "rocket launcher" comparison, and its associations in hard core RPGers brains is the problem, not the actual implementation in this particular case. If Raptormeat had ever posted here before, I would have bet he was specifically baiting you guys :)
 

GhanBuriGhan

Erudite
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
1,170
bryce777 said:
Simple, perhaps, but fun? it just seems idiotic to me, and goes against the whole idea of a mage, who shoud be intelligent, mysterious, and powerful, not some moron running around going bew! bew! bew! with a stick.

A mage should win by intelligent spell use and strategy, not reflexes.

Anyway, it is funny people still argue over oblivion. It is pretty obvious that this game is going to suck balls to anyone who likes anything aproaching what an rpg is. Really, it has no more place here than than hexen does at this point.

Funny though, that one of the mechanics that actually required some intelligent aproach, the high reflect onsome creatures left most people here baffled.
As for the rest of your post, you are an idiot! :)
Firstly bitching about not-good-enough RPG's is from what I have seen the main reason for the Codex' existance. Secondly, you haven't played it yet. Thirdly, even in the worst case scenario it is still abouth 50 time more RPG then Hexen. Finally I have a feeling that not everyone here is so sure they are actually gonna hate it quite that much. they will have to hate it from principle, but maybe they can still secretly play it locked with a laptop in the bathroom, and then post how much it sucks :)
 

bryce777

Erudite
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
4,225
Location
In my country the system operates YOU
Imbecile said:
bryce777 said:
Simple, perhaps, but fun? it just seems idiotic to me, and goes against the whole idea of a mage, who shoud be intelligent, mysterious, and powerful, not some moron running around going bew! bew! bew! with a stick.
.

...Or with their hand, or with a crossbow....etc...

I agree that there should be more depth to spellcasting, but in general real time RPG spellcasting takes the simple approach firing out spells with their hand. Admittedly you dont get the bew! bew! bew! noise, but I guess you can add that yourself.

My point was that it has always been this way. the fact that a stick is used now doesnt make the core gameplay any more simplistic.

Like I said most real time RPGs that Ive played have a relatively simplistic magic system. I would like it if mages required more intelligent play, but how would you go about doing this - without making mages too difficult for joe average to play? (although I guess you could argue that this would be the whole point)

Well, the way it sounds you would juice up your staff and run around shooting until it ran out. It doesn't get much more hexent han that.

In daggerfall, it was somewhat videogamish, but mostly I just designed horrible spells that did things like paralized and then poisoned enemies. I never played in a videogamish manner. Now, it seems there is more leaning towards doing so, to be honest.

I do dislike realtime in general, but if they kept the rest the same as daggerfall or even more complex, I would go for it.
 

OverrideB1

Scholar
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
443
Location
The other side of the mirror
While I don't have a problem with the whole "magic item == rocket-launcher" concept, what I do have a problem with is that a mage now has no choice other than to load up with the rocket-launcher plus another weapon for when the artifact and he are out of magicka.

There is a traditional (well, western traditional) device that fires out magic spells - the wand.

This is the sticking point for me with Oblivion - the bete noir if you will - it is now impossible to fire a heap of spells from your staff and then, when the magicka is depleted, whack someone over the head with it. The game mechanics have been dumbed down (not 'streamlined', not 'improved', not 'made more accessible' - dumbed down) so that the single simplest weapon type, the precursor to every other weapon, cannot be used. No, instead you've got to be a mage with a sword, or a blunt axe, or a zooming longbow for those times when you and your collection of staves are out of power.

Unless, of course, magicka regen is so pumped that you are never depleted or magicka regen potions are as cheap as dirt the 'pure' mage is going to have to load down with a collection of filled soul-stones to keep his staff up and running - otherwise the concept of 'pure' mage just got shafted by Bethesda.... again.
 

bryce777

Erudite
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
4,225
Location
In my country the system operates YOU
GhanBuriGhan said:
bryce777 said:
Simple, perhaps, but fun? it just seems idiotic to me, and goes against the whole idea of a mage, who shoud be intelligent, mysterious, and powerful, not some moron running around going bew! bew! bew! with a stick.

A mage should win by intelligent spell use and strategy, not reflexes.

Anyway, it is funny people still argue over oblivion. It is pretty obvious that this game is going to suck balls to anyone who likes anything aproaching what an rpg is. Really, it has no more place here than than hexen does at this point.

Funny though, that one of the mechanics that actually required some intelligent aproach, the high reflect onsome creatures left most people here baffled.
As for the rest of your post, you are an idiot! :)
Firstly bitching about not-good-enough RPG's is from what I have seen the main reason for the Codex' existance. Secondly, you haven't played it yet. Thirdly, even in the worst case scenario it is still abouth 50 time more RPG then Hexen. Finally I have a feeling that not everyone here is so sure they are actually gonna hate it quite that much. they will have to hate it from principle, but maybe they can still secretly play it locked with a laptop in the bathroom, and then post how much it sucks :)

"Funny though, that one of the mechanics that actually required some intelligent aproach, the high reflect onsome creatures left most people here baffled." Whatchu talkin bout, willis?

A lot of people might get it out of boredom. I have to wonder how many got morrowind then threw the fucker out the window. I played only one hour and I couldn't fucking stand it. It was obvious right away whoever designed the game was a moron, so I did not deign to play further.

It is obvious, too, that the designers of oblivion are morons, and in fact they are morons squared. A game for morons, by morons, perhaps. I don't see how you have to play a game to know it will be a stinker. My instincts have in fact never once been wrong. I often get games in the bargain bin anyway out of a fleeting hope I am wrong, but I never seem to be.

Back before I bothered with forums I was getting screwed constantly by companies pumping out sequels in name only. Now, when I hear the direction many games are going I know immediately I have no desire to play.

Combat where you run around with a staff as a mage dodging? Combat where you manually have to come up with special attacks? No thanks. that is a video game, not an rpg.

Video games can be fun, bu when I see stuff like horses running back to their master and stealing someone's food so they sell you their gem, being unable to climb over walls, etc. etc. etc. it is obvious not only is it a video game, but it's going to be a fucking idiotic one.

I remember playing my nephew's playstation once...there was this robotech game. Amazing! I thought at first. The graphics looked just like the series. Then I played the fucking thing. You'll be flying and suddenly hit a ceiling at like 1000 feet. The missions are idiotic and without knowing where attacks will come beforehand, impossible. It is almost completely devoid of any pleasure. Which is how I think oblivion will be.

Like morrowind, even the people who do like it will be mostly apologists who are in love with the idea of the game, not the actual game itself. Or total nitwits.
 

Lumpy

Arcane
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
8,525
GhanBuriGhan said:
I really wonder what everyones problem is - Before you could shoot fireballs from your enchanted left sock by wiggling with your fingers in magic mode - I much prefer to have an actual staff with something flying out of the end, and the fact that you can't melee attack with it, is a nice offset to its powers. (Nevertheless I am sorry about the loss of melee staves, but thats a different topic, really)
My FEELING is that the mere mention of the "rocket launcher" comparison, and its associations in hard core RPGers brains is the problem, not the actual implementation in this particular case. If Raptormeat had ever posted here before, I would have bet he was specifically baiting you guys :)
My problem with it which nobody cares about anyway is:
It's great that magic actually goes out of stuff this time around. However, you can't shoot magic from non-staff weapons anymore, and you can't use staves in melee anymore. Enchanted weapons with cast when used on target being rocket launchers is fine with me. The problem is that only staves can be and they can only be the type of weapons mentioned above.
 

Milecolt

Novice
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
22
IMO complexity or dumbing down of games is a little overrated. After everything is said and done, none of the games are really all that complex. After all, it's just a video game and not rocket science. Whether, the staff is a rocket launcher or a melee weapon is not the point. The situations in which I have to use the staff is the more important point. Do I enjoy how I go about using the weapons in the game? Do I care about the characters in the game? Is the story interesting? Those are the important things for me. I will forgive glitches, dumbing down, and other irritating issues if I care about the PC and the story.
 

bryce777

Erudite
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
4,225
Location
In my country the system operates YOU
Milecolt said:
IMO complexity or dumbing down of games is a little overrated. After everything is said and done, none of the games are really all that complex. After all, it's just a video game and not rocket science. Whether, the staff is a rocket launcher or a melee weapon is not the point. The situations in which I have to use the staff is the more important point. Do I enjoy how I go about using the weapons in the game? Do I care about the characters in the game? Is the story interesting? Those are the important things for me. I will forgive glitches, dumbing down, and other irritating issues if I care about the PC and the story.

If you want characters and story, watch a movie. I am not being flippant, but dead serious.

That you call it a video game shows where your perceptions are. That is a huge difference between pc and console games. Or at least until now it has been huge. Calling complex pc games mere video games is ridiculous.

To make things more obvious, if you reduced battles in civilization to a realtime game where you hit guys on the head with a hammer then just think what a different game it would be. It would appeal to some people and even I might like it, but that is not why I bought civilization and not what I want to see.

It's obvious oblivion has stripped away any hint of ebing more than a video game, at this point, though.
 

Zomg

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
6,984
GhanBuriGhan said:
Firstly bitching about not-good-enough RPG's is from what I have seen the main reason for the Codex' existance. Secondly, you haven't played it yet. Thirdly, even in the worst case scenario it is still abouth 50 time more RPG then Hexen. Finally I have a feeling that not everyone here is so sure they are actually gonna hate it quite that much. they will have to hate it from principle, but maybe they can still secretly play it locked with a laptop in the bathroom, and then post how much it sucks :)

This is an uncharacteristically stupid post from you GBG. You're being baited, you're over-generalizing, you're ascribing secret desiress to others. It's beneath you.



I just want the damn game to be out in the fucking wild already. Maybe one word out of a thousand written about it, here and elsewhere, is actually interesting. Any enthusiasm or disgust I held for the title died months ago. I am moderately positive on Morrowind and this is the point the hype machine has brought me to. There's nothing left to say prima facia about Oblivion besides one-sentence reactions to the drip drip revelation of small features in PR.
 

Section8

Cipher
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
4,321
Location
Wardenclyffe
My thoughts on the "rocket launcher."

First of all, in the newsletter, it sounded as though rocket launchers would be a common, preferential choice of pure mages, and that any old player could choose never to wield a blade, bow or blunt, instead, blasting away with their rocket launcher. In contrast, enchanted mage staves are said to be a rarity. From MSFD's statement of such (in another thread) I kind of see rocket launchers as being in the same class as weapon artifacts in Morrowind - the stuff you almost regret finding, since it's so horribly overpowered that combat is typically over in one swing. At least it's mercifully short. :P

My biggest concern with rocket launchers is that they seem to be neatly compartmentalised away from the game's core systems. No skill is required to use one, nor is any skill gained. The only link to the system is whether the player uses Mysticism and soul gems to keep their launcher juiced, or they spend money to do so. Allusion was also made to an item with unlimited "rocket sauce", so once you get that, you just have a weapon with infinite ammo and occasional reloads.

So, in other words, at some point in the game, it's expected that an item completely dependent on player skill, will supplant entire character builds. From a RPing perspective, it's utterly retarded. There's little reason for a character not to make that choice, unless you're already an uber bladesman/bluntsman/bowman. Likewise the stagnation of skill progression is unlikely to be accounted for in any RP terms, and although such artifacts lend themselves so well to being decisive in a power struggle, I'm doubtful that such quests would be implemented in any interesting way.

From a powergaming/munchkin point of view, you have something that stagnates skill progression, which could be an interesting choice to make, but from the sounds of things, the player is going to be unperturbed by the fact, like they were with the uber weapons in Morrowind. So that basically leaves item progression as the munchkin's sole outlet, and given that these artifacts are rare it's probably going to be a long time between drinks.

From an action gamers perspective, it's probably great fun for a little while, but the appeal is going to fade fast. Sure, havoc physics and brilliant spell effects are fairly new to RPGs, but for those of us who have already played games like Max Payne 2, with it's cinematic ragdoll sequences, or the countless FPS games that involve blowing shit up, it's nothing new. Also, since the game is being developed in parallel for both xbox and PC, it's unlikely that the shooter elements offer any challenge to a keyboard/mouser, since encounters have to also be playable with a more cumbersome analogue stick.

In contrast to the traditionally "handiwork" of mages in first person RPGs, it doesn't stand up. First of all, the character and progression of said character, is paramount to being an effective spell caster. So even if the act of aiming at something and pulling the trigger can be compared to FPS gaming, there's still a great deal of underlying depth to concern the player. Secondly, a mage's hand is a conduit for all sorts of crazy. I'd hope that a typical combat situation against multiple opponents as a frail mage would require a careful interplay of varied spell effects. A rocket launcher has a single spell, and encourages repeated use, even if traditional spells can be cast offhand.

So it seems to me, that artificial, illogical choices from the player's perspective must be made in order to preserve the character and the game experience. Just once, I'd like to see such uberness accounted for by the game and setting. The good guys recognise the potential for misuse with such unconstrained power, so the seek to either control or destroy it. The bad guys, either want it for personal use, or recognise the potential for equipping shock troops, since no skill is required beyond recharging, and that's what allows them to exert control over their rocket launcher troops.

To address the "fun" discussion, I think the rocket launcher is an ideal illustration of how something that in itself is fun, can actual transpire to harm the interplay of the game's systems.
 

Milecolt

Novice
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
22
"To make things more obvious, if you reduced battles in civilization to a realtime game where you hit guys on the head with a hammer then just think what a different game it would be. It would appeal to some people and even I might like it, but that is not why I bought civilization and not what I want to see. "


I was talking about RPG's. This being a RPG topic, I didn't think I needed to make the distinction clear. I haven't played Civ 4. I've played Civ 3 (and still play) and enjoy it immensely. What you expect from a game changes from genre to genre and sometimes within the genre (for me). A game like Civilization is a completely different beast and was not within the context of the argument I was trying to make.
 

bryce777

Erudite
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
4,225
Location
In my country the system operates YOU
Milecolt said:
"To make things more obvious, if you reduced battles in civilization to a realtime game where you hit guys on the head with a hammer then just think what a different game it would be. It would appeal to some people and even I might like it, but that is not why I bought civilization and not what I want to see. "


I was talking about RPG's. This being a RPG topic, I didn't think I needed to make the distinction clear. I haven't played Civ 4. I've played Civ 3 (and still play) and enjoy it immensely. What you expect from a game changes from genre to genre and sometimes within the genre (for me). A game like Civilization is a completely different beast and was not within the context of the argument I was trying to make.

Well, an rpg is a pretty complex thing, traditionally. Much more complex than civilization, in many cases. I used that example because there is nothing that could remotely be construed as action in civilization.

Darklands is extremely complex, for example. I would use that as an example, but they have realime combat that in itself is fairly simple.
 

Milecolt

Novice
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
22
bryce777 said:
Darklands is extremely complex, for example. I would use that as an example, but they have realime combat that in itself is fairly simple.
I haven't played Darklands. How is it complex? Can you give me an example?
 

bryce777

Erudite
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
4,225
Location
In my country the system operates YOU
Milecolt said:
bryce777 said:
Darklands is extremely complex, for example. I would use that as an example, but they have realime combat that in itself is fairly simple.
I haven't played Darklands. How is it complex? Can you give me an example?
If you play any older rpg, you will see what I mean. Your comment kind of shows the rpgs you have played have been pretty light ones.

In darklands, even creating your party takes a fair bit of thought.
 

HardCode

Erudite
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
1,138
bryce777 said:
Calling complex pc games mere video games is ridiculous.

Quoted for truth.

A "video game" is something like on an Atari 2600. Even the machines in the arcade were called video games, because there was a screen producing electronic video. However, that term no longer is a valid blanket name for everything on an electronic screen. It's kind of like calling a motorcycle, motorboat, or train an "automobile".
 

Section8

Cipher
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
4,321
Location
Wardenclyffe
Personally, I think "video game" is a reasonable catch all moniker. It's easy to make further distinctions within that blanket term, such as "PC Games," "Console Games," "Arcade Games," "Handheld Games," etc.

What other blanket term would you use? "Computer Games" implies an exclusion of arcade or console games, and just plain "Games" is too loose as a classification, maybe "Electronic Games?" That to me still seems more of a reference to Tiger or Game & Watch style Handhelds.
 

HardCode

Erudite
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
1,138
There is no NEED for a blanket statement, just as their is no blanket statement that encompassed billiards and tic-tac-toe games, other than "games" of course. It's the lumping together of PC games and console games is what is hurting PC games to begin with.
 

bryce777

Erudite
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
4,225
Location
In my country the system operates YOU
Section8 said:
Personally, I think "video game" is a reasonable catch all moniker. It's easy to make further distinctions within that blanket term, such as "PC Games," "Console Games," "Arcade Games," "Handheld Games," etc.

What other blanket term would you use? "Computer Games" implies an exclusion of arcade or console games, and just plain "Games" is too loose as a classification, maybe "Electronic Games?" That to me still seems more of a reference to Tiger or Game & Watch style Handhelds.

Video games as a catchall seems to have happened around 2000, also right when computer games went to utter shit.

Since they have nothing to do with each other (or should not) I don't see the need to lump them together.

It makes zero sense to me to have playstation garbage in the same store as computer games.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom