Ce sujet est fermé
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Why would we agree to that? Isn't that exactly how I'm suggesting we should classify objects?
Isn't that how we determine what anything in the world is - by comparing it to some standard?
I thought your "Yes, but the latter is wrong" meant, "Yes, [I agree with what you said] but the latter is wrong." What was the "Yes" signifying agreement to?
As to that particular debate, I just don't have the energy for it. I can already see how the discussion would go.
I would start by posing the thought experiment Wittgenstein did: can you create a logically exhaustive definition of a game using only neccesary and sufficient conditions? You would counter by claiming that we in fact define things into existence - a bird is a bird precisely because we produce a list of neccesary/sufficient conditions for what a bird is and then that is a bird. I would counter with the fact that this actually fails to conform to reality, since it introduces the problem of natural kinds. You would ask me to clarify because you think I have it backwards saying you have it backwards, we would shift things to a debate over fundamental assumptions about knowledge...
No, I would rather avoid it.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
By what non-arbitrary standard could
anyone possible draw a line between some in-game events and others and
describe only some of them as gameplay?
That particular poster introduced an arbitrary distinction, so I was using the term in the narrow sense. As to the broad sense, we would only need to come up with a definition for gameplay. Insofar as we had a definition for gameplay that included statistics but excluded dialogue, we would have a non-arbitrary basis for the clasification.
As to what specifically would do this, you know I would turn to the issue of player experience and which features are designed to simulate physical interaction and which are designed to simulate laws of nature.
The problem with using Wikipedia as a source on an issue
like this is that it will tend to reflect the current popular opinion,
without regard for the popular opinion of just a few years ago (let
alone the popular opinion of 2 decades ago), and that an opinion is more
popular now is not a reason to think it is more accurate. In fact,
given that nearly every popular opinion in history has ultimately been
shown to be false, shouldn't we expect the same is true of those
currently popular?
That was precisely the point. My claim was that the problem with classifying RPGs (or any genre) is really a problem of classification; we have no good theory of how to classify things, so the problem with classifying them is just that - the lack of a method.
I appealed to popular opinion in this case only to show that telling me ME is not this thing but the other does not address the fundamental issue that i) there is no way currently we can do this, and ii) there is no agreement over how this could work, even inprinciple and iii) one particular attempt to do this produced, by the poster's standard, an absurd conclusion (that to be an RPG you have to have combat driven statistic and player customizability in the ability sense, Diablo has these elements contra ME, but both ME and Diablo are exclusively adventure games).
Modifié par In Exile, 13 août 2010 - 06:11 .
Retour en haut
