The fact that it's even called "Super Mario RPG" just proves my point further though...Torrasque said:
Jimquisition: The Definition of Art Games
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The Paper Mario series IS awesome, I'm not denying thatTorrasque said:
Heck I recently tracked down a copy of Thousand Year Door, the only one I haven't played yet.
Because those are spin-off games.Torrasque said:Then why is it in your list of non-RPG's =|SoulSalmon said:The Paper Mario series IS awesome, I'm not denying thatTorrasque said:
Heck I recently tracked down a copy of Thousand Year Door, the only one I haven't played yet.
Saying Mario is an RPG series based off of the "Mario RPG" games is like saying Pokemon is a realtime action series based on the Rumble games...
Ohhhhhh, you were talking about the series as a whole. My bad.SoulSalmon said:Because those are spin-off games.Torrasque said:Then why is it in your list of non-RPG's =|SoulSalmon said:The Paper Mario series IS awesome, I'm not denying thatTorrasque said:
Heck I recently tracked down a copy of Thousand Year Door, the only one I haven't played yet.
Saying Mario is an RPG series based off of the "Mario RPG" games is like saying Pokemon is a realtime action series based on the Rumble games...
I detract my earliest statement
Just because everyone knows what a term means, doesn't mean they can't disagree with use of the term. Otherwise, you could use that argument to defend using any offensive slur or prejudice categorization.
Ultimately these arguments about genre terminology have more to do with emotion than logical. Groups associate certain terms as being used by other groups that are misrepresenting something cherished that those others could never understand. You can rationalize logic behind these arguments, but its easy to poke holes at it.
That doesn't mean the people arguing against terms are wrong, or that you should ignore their complaints. A little bit of empathy and understanding goes a long way toward civility. But at the same time there is nothing wrong with using a myriad of common terms when defining a game to someone that not played it before. Getting on a soap box whenever someone uses a term you don't like is an exhaustive waste of time.
It would be great if these debates would give us a unified terminology for games that would provide maximum clarity and minimum backlash. But until some amazing entity succeeds at that, we should all just give other people the benefit of the doubt and accept the imperfections in evolution of jargon.
Ultimately these arguments about genre terminology have more to do with emotion than logical. Groups associate certain terms as being used by other groups that are misrepresenting something cherished that those others could never understand. You can rationalize logic behind these arguments, but its easy to poke holes at it.
That doesn't mean the people arguing against terms are wrong, or that you should ignore their complaints. A little bit of empathy and understanding goes a long way toward civility. But at the same time there is nothing wrong with using a myriad of common terms when defining a game to someone that not played it before. Getting on a soap box whenever someone uses a term you don't like is an exhaustive waste of time.
It would be great if these debates would give us a unified terminology for games that would provide maximum clarity and minimum backlash. But until some amazing entity succeeds at that, we should all just give other people the benefit of the doubt and accept the imperfections in evolution of jargon.
Thanks Jim for reminding people that words are separate and distinct from their contextual meaning. For example, if I 'strike a chord' I've neither hit anything nor played any instruments, and I'm not diluting people's ability to discuss the actual playing of musical chords by using that statement.
That being said, an alternative name for these types of games is 'avant-garde'
Check this page out as well. It describes the logical fallacy being used by Jonathan Holmes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_four_terms
That being said, an alternative name for these types of games is 'avant-garde'
Check this page out as well. It describes the logical fallacy being used by Jonathan Holmes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_four_terms
I love Jim and Holmes (and Podtoid), but during that episode where Jim and Holmes debated this very topic, I felt that Holmes was just being stubborn about the term to be stubborn. I liken it to a scenario where an American is wanting other Americans to refer to soccer as football since it is "proper." Yeah, it may be proper. But it's not going to happen. The term (soccer, or art game) works, and it's going to keep being used. Telling people they're wrong isn't going to work (when does it ever?).
The first argument Jim "tries" to dismental:
First premiss :all games are art
Second premiss: all art games are games
Third premiss: not all games are art games
Conclusion: all art games are art
Now that might not be impressiv because, well, it isn't and that is the whole point. We besicly are saying games are games. Which is the point of the argument by pointing out the tautology.
Jim argues the reasoning of the logic is flawed. Here is a suprise: it isn't. It is a not only valid but perfectly sound argument to make. All what is set out to accomplish got accomplished. Pointing out the tautology the term art game implies aka the redundancy of the term, the reason why it is a mute term. By the way Jim only points out one premiss which shows how little of a understanding of formal logic he has. It will bite him in the ass right about now:
Jim's twisting of the argument
First premiss: all games are art
Assumption: only art games are art
Conclusion: not only art games are art
Here we see how Jim does not know the basic 101 of formal logic. He takes our first premiss as the only premiss there is shows how it contradicts the assumtion and concludes rightfully that the assumption is wrong but does not bother not having devalidated our argument above. But he assumes he has and goes on with talking not recognizing his failure.
As for his own argument it is also sound. If all games are art then art games can't be the only games that are art. He still did not show how that concerns us saying that the term art game is mute/redundant. The next bit is also a valid argument arguing meaning of words within context.
Now the bit about the definition: The definition you use is not valid. It is from wikipedia they credit Scott Sneidberg for it who is a nobody. He is not the authorative figure you can quote on the definition of art games. The next foot note is non existent as far as proper quoting is concerned. It is pulled out of the air with no authority to back it up. So don't act like this is the definition of the term art game.
The next bit is just stupid. Jim says that you are saying somehting valid by pointing out that the definition (which is not a valid definition) of the term art games is too broad to be of any use by showing how you can apply the term to all games. So in our argument we are again at the point of the term art game being redundant. But that does not stop Jim to make not sense.
He argues as follows:
First premise: all games are art
Second premise: art games are games that are designed to emphasize art or whose structure is intended to produce some kind of reaction in its audience
Assumption: Gears of War is a art game
Conlcusion: Gears of War is a art game
Jim's Conclusion: Yeah that is right but not thus it is not.
Having shown how Jim now has left the field of logic he himself wanted to argue with I can close my case. Everything he says at that point is beyond the realm of formal logic and can only be understood by people who already agree with his stance but cannot win over the people who are open minded but not unreasonable stupid.
So again he continiues talking without realizing how much of a failure he commits by disregarding his own goal. Well maybe his goal is not to win the argument with logic but to win the argument no matter what dirty tactic he has to use. So mission accompished in the mind of Jim Sterling.
So his final arguments are like "and if you do not agree with my usage of the term you are lying to yourself because I know you know I am right" *whine,whine* "I won! Thank god for me!"
and "Well the term does work, doesn't it?" Only one is valid but still does not adress the argument he set out to devalue.
First premiss :all games are art
Second premiss: all art games are games
Third premiss: not all games are art games
Conclusion: all art games are art
Now that might not be impressiv because, well, it isn't and that is the whole point. We besicly are saying games are games. Which is the point of the argument by pointing out the tautology.
Jim argues the reasoning of the logic is flawed. Here is a suprise: it isn't. It is a not only valid but perfectly sound argument to make. All what is set out to accomplish got accomplished. Pointing out the tautology the term art game implies aka the redundancy of the term, the reason why it is a mute term. By the way Jim only points out one premiss which shows how little of a understanding of formal logic he has. It will bite him in the ass right about now:
Jim's twisting of the argument
First premiss: all games are art
Assumption: only art games are art
Conclusion: not only art games are art
Here we see how Jim does not know the basic 101 of formal logic. He takes our first premiss as the only premiss there is shows how it contradicts the assumtion and concludes rightfully that the assumption is wrong but does not bother not having devalidated our argument above. But he assumes he has and goes on with talking not recognizing his failure.
As for his own argument it is also sound. If all games are art then art games can't be the only games that are art. He still did not show how that concerns us saying that the term art game is mute/redundant. The next bit is also a valid argument arguing meaning of words within context.
Now the bit about the definition: The definition you use is not valid. It is from wikipedia they credit Scott Sneidberg for it who is a nobody. He is not the authorative figure you can quote on the definition of art games. The next foot note is non existent as far as proper quoting is concerned. It is pulled out of the air with no authority to back it up. So don't act like this is the definition of the term art game.
The next bit is just stupid. Jim says that you are saying somehting valid by pointing out that the definition (which is not a valid definition) of the term art games is too broad to be of any use by showing how you can apply the term to all games. So in our argument we are again at the point of the term art game being redundant. But that does not stop Jim to make not sense.
He argues as follows:
First premise: all games are art
Second premise: art games are games that are designed to emphasize art or whose structure is intended to produce some kind of reaction in its audience
Assumption: Gears of War is a art game
Conlcusion: Gears of War is a art game
Jim's Conclusion: Yeah that is right but not thus it is not.
Having shown how Jim now has left the field of logic he himself wanted to argue with I can close my case. Everything he says at that point is beyond the realm of formal logic and can only be understood by people who already agree with his stance but cannot win over the people who are open minded but not unreasonable stupid.
So again he continiues talking without realizing how much of a failure he commits by disregarding his own goal. Well maybe his goal is not to win the argument with logic but to win the argument no matter what dirty tactic he has to use. So mission accompished in the mind of Jim Sterling.
So his final arguments are like "and if you do not agree with my usage of the term you are lying to yourself because I know you know I am right" *whine,whine* "I won! Thank god for me!"
and "Well the term does work, doesn't it?" Only one is valid but still does not adress the argument he set out to devalue.