Quote:Videogames require images.

Such as the mental images that the text in text-based games (adventure, RPG, whatever...) describes.

It is so, so sad and stupid to watch you try to keep denying that fact.

You can't just use the parts of the definitions you like! It doesn't work that way!

Quote:But the topics are relevant, unlike our debates... you may not acknowledge it but there IS a difference there.

Quote:Not holes in the ground... I mean stuff like dungeon floors. Like the lava in the two lava dungeons in OoT vs the lava in WW... in WW it teleports you to the enterance with minimal injury, while in OoT it hurts you quite quickly and you could easily die in it... and WW uses that technique in a lot of other places where OoT would have a much more deadly obsticle.

Oh yeah, and while the fights in OoT aren't that complex, neither are the ones in WW! Ooh, so sometimes I have to circle around behind them as well as attack/block/jump...

Quote:You're completely ignoring the main definitions and trying to twist around the other definitions to help your case! "Mental Images", good grief!

So I guess if someone made a game where you press a button in conjunction with a sound (and there was no visual aspect at all, no monitor, nothing), and it was just a simple pen-like device, you would call that a video game as well. Or I could play with my calculator and have a mental image of a giant fairy princess being rescued by a dragon slayer and call that a game. Or how about my toaster oven? Sometimes I toast things and then imagine jumping over lava pits, and that's a mental image, so it must be a game!

Quote:1.An electronic or computerized game played by manipulating images on a video display or television screen.

2.n : a game played against a computer [syn: computer game]

Quote:image
6. A mental picture of something not real or present.
7.
a. A vivid description or representation.
b. A figure of speech, especially a metaphor or simile.
c. A concrete representation, as in art, literature, or music, that is expressive or evocative of something else: night as an image of death

imaged, imaging, images
5. To describe, especially so vividly as to evoke a mental picture of.

Quote:Ooh, there are holes in the ground! That makes it so much better!

And in WW you would backflip (which you could do in OoT but it wasn't really necessary), jump over your enemies, counter, etc. You obviously haven't played WW for very long if you think the combat system is as shallow as OoT's. It's not as deep as say, The Mark of Kri of course, but it is a step up from OoT.

Quote:Wow, you sure do go to great lengths to manage to make it sound like you have absolutely no clue what I am saying... if you honestly think that I even remotely think any of your "examples" are videogames you must be quite deluded.

Quote:(these are just the most relevant ones in 'image')


Now... the first defintion of Video Game is "An electronic or computerized game played by manipulating images on a video display or television screen."

One definition of Image -- one that fits, very, very well, in the case of text-based games -- is "A vivid description or representation.".

Okay, there are clear differences between text-based games and graphical ones. Text-based games describe something in words and have your mind create the picture based on those words. Like a book, except interactive... while graphical ones create the picture for you. But the words on the screen are a representation of the image... its still the image, but in a different form. Kind of like a 2d image versus a 3d one, taken to a larger degree...

Sure, its a quite different form of image, but its a quite good one. Words can do what pictures cannot, after all... I've always loved it when games let you examine things and get text explanations as they can say so much that pictures just can't adaquately do. Text-based games just take that one step further... its just a different form of the same art!

Oh, there is one other big category of text-based games other than interactive fiction (text-based adventure games) -- text-based RPGs and MUDs. Those are also games, similar to RPGs and MMORPGs respectively, except with no graphics... they were once relatively popular as well.

Interesting to know that MUDs aren't games, OB1... I guess you learn something every day...

Quote:"holes in the ground"? What in the WORLD are you talking about? It clearly has nothing do do with my point... because I never mention "holes". Just the fact that WW loves to put, in places where OoT would put a surface where you can walk but will take constant injury, a surface that might hurt you a quarter heart and teleports you to the room enterance, thus greatly decreasing the difficulty... are you trying really hard to act like you don't understand me or something? I don't get it...

Quote:Oh yeah, and WW is a step up from OoT in the complexity of the combat system, but the small amount of added depth is countered (from a fun standpoint) by the greatly lessened difficulty of said combat.

Quote:Maybe you don't see the difference, but I can see it quite clearly. OoT is still a fairly challenging game for me. Beating that thing with zero deaths would be quite hard. I haven't come anywhere near that in any of my plays of the game, and think that it'd require some pretty serious play to do... that or a lot of quitting just before I die and a bunch of time on my hands to redo what I've done already... WW? I am sure that I'll beat it with no deaths on my first try.

Quote:What you are doing is taking one definition of a certain type of image and distorting it to fit your argument. Look at that first definition of video game again. It very clearly states that you have to manipulate and image on a video display or tv screen, not one that is in your mind! When you play a text-based game you are changing the image in your MIND, not the one on the screen! THAT is the major difference that you seem so hell-bent on trying to ignore, and why you lost this argument a LONG time ago.

Quote:Holes as in "places that you fall into".

Quote:You take less damage in WW, but the enemies are much smarter and require you do do more than just stand and block like you do in OoT.

Quote:Try playing through OoT again and watch how you don't die. I've played through OoT several times now and the only time I ever die is during some boss fights, and even that is rare now.

Quote:No, I was just trying to show that even your prized definition supports my case as well... of course I still think the second definition is better in this case, but the first one works too.

Because, as I said, I do think that text images count too.

See... you aren't just changing the picture in your mind. You are changing it WHEN THE TEXT CHANGES! As in, you are responding to changing visual input, like changing pictures but requiring more imagination.

Oh yeah, and the text of course also describes your character, inventory, stats, enemies, etc -- all the things you can interact with in the environment, just like in a graphical one. So its not like you are dealing with static text that doesn't change based on user input...

Quote:Fall? Often they're on floor level, not below it... and in both games they are fairly frequent, but in those different forms I described.

Quote:You mean like circle left and right and jump a few more times, probably? Then yes. Its not dramatically deeper, but it is deeper, I admitted that...

Oh yeah, and WW has a longer Z-Targeting range, I believe.

Quote:But I just said that last time I played I died (for the first time, admittedy - I didn't die in the first dungeon) in Dodongo's Cavern... maybe on more repeated playthoughs I'd do even better, but it'd take a LOT of plays to get through that game with no deaths. A lot. Because its just not anywhere NEAR as easy as WW!

Quote:*sigh*

This is going nowhere. I know what the truth is, I have facts and logic to back me up, but you choose to ignore them. Fine. Believe whatever you want to believe.

Quote:What on earth are you talking about?

Quote:OoT had a good but extremely simplistic fighting system. WW's fighting system built upon the OoT one and added counters, flipping over enemies, and faster, smoother, moving and jumping.

Quote:WW was easy for me because of two things: 1) I had already played through OoT and MM a dozen times so I became very good at 3D Zelda games, and 2) enemies delt very little damage. I played through OoT right before WW came out, and only died once or twice throughout the entire game. Then I played through WW and died once (kind of by accident). If WW had been my first 3D Zelda experience then I probably would have died several times, but it wasn't. That is most likely the case with you. Nintendo made a sequel to OoT that was a bit easier than it, which was a mistake.

Quote:No, you just can't keep arguing with such badly flawed "facts" as your only support...

Quote:Must I describe the same thing for a FIFTH time?

Quote:OoT has jumping... the rest of those are usually true though (flipping over enemies? Is that that 'dodge' thing or something? I don't think I've ever used it...). But the enemies don't hit you as often as they did in OoT and do substantially less damage.

Quote:I'd beaten OoT one and a half times (then I stopped, and some time later my cart was erased... which is why I had to start over when I wanted to play it again early this summer...), and gotten 2/3rds of the way through MM. So sure, you'd played it a lot more which explains a lot of it... but still I think I'm okay at OoT/MM combat, since I've played quite a few hours of both games, and still find it more challenging and dangeous than WW combat, for sure...

Oh yeah, and I'd hardly say that MM is easier than OoT.

Quote:Oh yes, proof from the dictionary and my game design text books are just so flawed compared to your conjecture.

Quote:They do less damage, but they attack you like mad, which is the complete opposite of OoT's crappy enemy AI. There are jumps in OoT but they are small and you really don't need to jump while fighting.

Quote:Who the hell said that MM was easier than OoT? MM is definitely a lot harder than OoT.

Quote:As I clearly showed the dictionary supports me just as well as it does you.

Quote:But OoT is still harder. Less moves while in combat? Yes. But its harder.

Quote:MM is harder because of the timelimit, not the combat... I don't think the combat difficulty is very different, except for the fact that there are sometimes more enemies around (due to the expansion pack).

Quote:No, you took the word "image" from the first definition of "video games" and then used the definition of a completely different kind of image and twisted it around as far as you could. You're really reaching, man.

Quote:Overall the game is harder, but the combat is not unless you really suck at fighting in OoT.

Quote:Again, what the hell are you talking about? Where did I say that the combat in MM was tougher than the combat in OoT?? You are seriously confused.

Quote:WW was easy for me because of two things: 1) I had already played through OoT and MM a dozen times so I became very good at 3D Zelda games, and 2) enemies delt very little damage. I played through OoT right before WW came out, and only died once or twice throughout the entire game. Then I played through WW and died once (kind of by accident). If WW had been my first 3D Zelda experience then I probably would have died several times, but it wasn't. That is most likely the case with you. Nintendo made a sequel to OoT that was a bit easier than it, which was a mistake.

Quote:Trying to restrict it to just "games with pictures that aren't shown in word form" is reaching just as far, and probably farther, from every measure I can see.

Quote:Because of the higher damage, OoT combat is unquestionably harder.

Quote:I was confused by the end of that one... I guess by 'a sequel to OoT' you mean WW, but that wasn't clear. I wasn't sure if you were referring to MM as well, since its the sequel to OoT...

Quote:Originally posted by Darunia
In any case, he never takes anything seriously, and thusly, if my calculations are correct...*holds up an abycus*...carry the 3, times pi...yes! He is a buffoon!

Quote:Originally posted by OB1
I think Darunia needs to take a nap.

Quote:Not if you don't die by regular baddies.

Quote:I'm looking at the definitions without trying to twist things around, which is what you are doing.

Quote:I think of MM as more of a side-story to OoT. Hell it was even originally called "Zelda Gaiden", which supposedly means "Zelda side-story".

Quote:Don't you talk about Nichole like that...

Quote:But as I said that's not exactly an easy task...

Quote:No, you are twisting the definitions beyond any hope of untangling them and then reacting badly when I try to show how your flawed analysis can be wrong you ignore it. Yes, the way you do it is one kind of definition, but mine is just as accurate. You'll never admit it, but mine has just as much dictionary backing as yours!

Quote:So? Its not the same game as OoT, is it?

Quote:For me it is.

Quote:Now I'm twisting around the definitions?? Wow ABF, you are seriously screwed up. I took the main definition and didn't change a thing, didn't try to find other definitions from other parts of the words and completely distort them to fit my claim like you did. Your ONLY defense is that when the definition states that you have to manipulate images on a video screen, it could mean other kinds of images, like [i]mental images, even though you completely ignored the part where you have to manipulate the images ON A VIDEO DISPLAY OR TV SCREEN! When you are playing a text-based game you are changing the images IN YOUR MIND, which, the last time I checked, ISN'Ta type video display.

Quote:I said SIDE STORY. Side Story does NOT equal THE SAME GAME.

Quote:Well then we are different. Amazing, isn't it?

Quote:Argh... you are just repeating yourself and not really responding to what I am saying! Yes, the mental images are changing in your head, but only when the on-screen text representation of them changes, obviously... so I completely fail to see why that matters here at all.

Quote:I'd say its a sequel. No better term for it I can think of...

Quote:Oh for Chr--

You know what? NEVER MIND. You obviously only want to listen to that stupid voice in your head, so I'm not going to say anything anymore. You refuse to listen to logic and reason, so go join your other inane buddies Darunia and nickdaddyg and have a big convention for stupid people.

I'll just be over here playing this imaginary video game inside my head, but it really is a video game since I'm manipulating my mental images!

Quote:It's too much of the same for me to call it a true sequel. It uses the same exact graphics engine, the same exact interface, the same exact controls, the same exact models (except for some new baddies), and was even originally titled "Zelda Side-story".

Quote:That wouldn't be a video game... it needs some kind of screen display, obviously, to be a VIDEO game. I never questioned THAT fact... I just said that text can be an image. That is it... you seem to think I said video games don't need any kind of graphical display at all. That is not true... I just said that words that describe images are images in enough of the sense of the word to count as the 'video images' in video games.

Yes, yes, they are in your mind... but the mind-picture is a image of what you read on the screen! How is that so dramatically different from seeing a drawn image in a game of a apple and then imagining what it looks like in full 3d?

As for a sound/input-only game, I don't think any exist, so I don't really think classifying them matters much.

Quote:MM is a sequel, unquestionably. It adds a bunch to the gameplay system (the whole timing thing) -- far more than many sequels, for sure! LOTS of sequels do very, very little innovation, yet they are definitely sequels. Now MM does feel quite similar to OoT, but it changes it a lot more than many sequels... so of course it counts as a full sequel!

Quote:It doesn't matter what you imagine while you're playing a game; there has to be an actual image on the screen that you manipulate. Words describing an image is a completely different thing, and it saddens me that can't see that.

Quote:You can't use the same standards of classifying a sequel for something like Tomb Raider with Zelda. Tomb Raider is the product of a complete lack of imagination, the complete opposite of Zelda. With each true Zelda sequel you'd get different graphics, sound, controls (even if only slightly so), interfaces, etc. MM does do a lot of original things, but that doesn't mean that it can't be considered a side-story to the franchise. It's the same thing with the Oracle games, which I also consider to be side-stories. They do a lot of new stuff but look and feel exactly like Link's Awaikening. Miyamoto even talked about Wind Waker as the true sequel to Ocarina of Time, implying that MM wasn't really a true sequel. There's nothing wrong with that, as it doesn't make them any less good than they are.

Quote:And it saddens me that several very good reasons why video games can be text based go completely ignored by you... both the fact that they have images, just in a text-description form, and that the phrase 'video games' is for all intents and purposes a synonym for 'computer game' should be more than enough for anyone who actually wants to look at the facts.

Quote:I can't? Why not? Why should a Zelda sequel, which does far, far more than a Tomb Raider sequel ever will in comparison to its predecessor, not be called a sequel? I don't get that... if its not an expansion pack its a sequel! There are no other kinds of follow-ups!

Quote:Text desribing images is not the same as images that you see on a video display, but that statement is obviously just so far above your comprehension that I won't even bother with it anymore.

And as I said ten dozen fucking times already, most computer games are video games, with the exception of a few.

That's it, you're off the list!

Quote:Because you're supposed to use higher standards with Zelda than you would with Tomb Raider. MM and the Oracle games are side-stories, not true sequels. Even Miyamoto said so.

It's kinda like the Mario Bros. Lost Levels. In Japan it was released as Mario 2 even though it was basically just additional levels to SMB 1. I don't consider that to be the sequel to SMB.

Quote:Oh no, how sad.

Also... I said myself, many times, that text isn't the same as pictures! Are you not reading what I am writing or something? Its not the same... its a very different form of the thing, for sure. I'd just say that its not so different that that text description wouldn't count as an image of where you are...

Quote:Yeah, if it was a PC game, Lost Levels well might be an expansion pack... but still, it was sold as a seperate game so I'm not sure.

Quote:Originally posted by Darunia

904 ~ The fact that 50 Cent cleaned out the 2003 VMAs when Avril, All American Rejects, and White Stripes should've taken their own share of it.

Quote:Yes I know what you wrote, and it's insane. Using mental images in this context.

Quote:Expansions on consoles aren't sold like PC expansions.

Quote:But they're not just mental images... they are text on the screen!

Quote:True, and I admit that that does make it a bit tricky... but I'd just tend to say that consoles don't have expansions.

Quote:Yes, text on the screen that forms mental images in your mind! /QUOTE]

But the image I refer to is the text representation of that image, not the one in your head... the one in your head is of course vitally important to the game, but its different from the text description on the screen that describes that place or item... and its that, not the picture in your head, that is displayed on the game screen...

[QUOTE]
What about Ghost Recon: Island Thunder for the X-Box? Bethesda is also going to release both expansions for Morrowind (including the original game in the package) pretty soon.

Quote:But the image I refer to is the text representation of that image, not the one in your head... the one in your head is of course vitally important to the game, but its different from the text description on the screen that describes that place or item... and its that, not the picture in your head, that is displayed on the game screen...

Quote:Okay, that isn't correct. There are a couple of expansions for consoles... Morrowind's, Ghost Recon (didn't know it was coming for X-Box, but if you say so...), and I remember that GTA (the first one, I think, or maybe GTA2...) had a London expansion that came out for PSX also... but very few.

Quote:video game
n.
An electronic or computerized game played by manipulating images on a video display or television screen.

Quote:It's POSSIBLE to say that a tex-based game is a videogame since you manipulate the words on the screen which ARE images projected onto the screen, BUT text-based game require you to IMAGINE what the text is describing to you as opposed to all other games that SHOWS you IMAGES of your enviroment.

Quote:It would be like having two DVDs, one showed you the movie and the other just described to you what was happening. Technically they are both movies since you watch them on your TV, BUT they are still very different.

Quote:Exactly. One would be a movie and the other would be a video book or something like that. An e-book, if you will.

Quote:Not exactly. Actually... no. Well, sort of. See, 2d games require you to IMAGINE the objects in 3d. 3d ones require you to IMAGINE the object as non-flat. So no, the fact that in text games there is one more level of imagining required isn't as big a deal as you think.

Quote:Of course they're different, but they are both still movies...

Quote:Well one other term for text-based adventures is 'Interactive Fiction' so that's not totally out there. Of course its quite different from any book because of how its fully interactive... so its not much more of a book than any other adventure game, really. As in it tells a story that a book could, but in a different form that makes it a game, not a book... I really hope you know the difference between games and books?


So that's that. But what about MUD's and text-based RPGs? Those are a totally different story, I'd say... and really can't be called 'books'. No way.

Quote:See, 2d games require you to IMAGINE the objects in 3d. 3d ones require you to IMAGINE the object as non-flat. So no, the fact that in text games there is one more level of imagining required isn't as big a deal as you think.

Quote:Of course they're different, but they are both still movies...

Quote:Ever read those "Choose Your Own Adventure" books? They were interactive, but still books. Of course they weren't anywhere near as interactive as text-based games, but you did choose the outcome of the story.

Quote:Now do you understand what I have to go through each and every time I debate him?

Quote:Ever read those "Choose Your Own Adventure" books? They were interactive, but still books. Of course they weren't anywhere near as interactive as text-based games, but you did choose the outcome of the story.

Quote:Wouldn't those be classified as "video games" by ABF's logic? You use mental images AND you control the outcome!! Videogames!

Quote:If it's all text then it isn't a movie. A movie is a motion picture, as in a drawing or a photograph, not text. We call bunches of text put together to form sentences books.

Quote:WHAT?! Are you insane?! 2D game do NOT by anyway stretch of the imagination require you to imagine that they are 3D! How can you possibly believe something so crazy as that?! When I play a 2D game I do not imagine the world as anything different from what it shows me.

Quote:No, because its not ON A COMPUTER...

Quote:Text-based games are so different from that that you can't really connect the two, though...