Disable GC entirely

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:52:58 -0400
Jeff Nowakowski <jeff at dilacero.org> wrote:

> On 04/10/2013 05:22 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >
> > For many (admittedly, not all) of them, I really don't believe
> > "games" is an accurate term (Don't misinterpret that into a
> > statement of "Only true 'games' are legitimate" because I never
> > said such a thing.)
> 
> But that's essentially what you *are* saying by downplaying the
> gameplay that lies at the heart of the "interactive movies" you've
> used as examples.

That's because the heart of such games *isn't* the gameplay, it's the
storytelling. I'm not downplaying anything that the developers
themselves aren't already downplaying.

> It's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

No, you're just very persistent in trying to turn it into the "No True
Scotsman" fallacy. I'm merely using terminology to distinguish between
story-driven titles and gameplay-driven tiles. *YOU'RE* the one who's
falsely insisting that what I meant was "Only the one type is
legitimate", despite my numerous statements to the contrary. How many
times to I have to tell you in various wordings, "I'm *not* using
'interactive movie' pejoratively" before you'll stop trying to tell me
what I meant?

> Let's take a
> statement from your original post:
> 
> "Modern  AAA/big-budget titles are interactive movies, not
> videogames, because their focus is story, dialog and cinematics, not
> gameplay."
> 
> Which is untrue when it comes to games like BioShock or GTA. At the
> end of the day both games are mostly shooters along with other
> gameplay elements (like driving in GTA), and you will spend most of
> your time playing the game and not watching cinematics.

So we disagree on the categorization of a few titles. Big freaking deal.

> I gave you a
> canonical example of what would be an interactive movie, and you
> tried to wave it away because it really was an interactive movie.
> 

That's a complete mischaracterization, and I find it interesting
that you've claimed that while *completely* ignoring my very clear
statement of:

"Keep in mind, I'm using "interactive movie" largely for lack of a
better term."

Yes, obviously Heavy Rain is a canonical example of "interactive
movie", and for goodness sake, I *AGREED* with you and yet you're still
complaining.

> > It might be a bad thing if the industry focused too heavily on them,
> > but that would be a completely different complaint.
> 
> Which has been the essence of your complaint,

Now you're just flat-out quoting me out-of-context. Here it is with the
proper context re-added:

>>Keep in mind, even sandbox titles, which are definitely not
>>remotely "interactive movie" or cinematic at all (at least any
>>of the ones I've seen), have long been debated as to whether or
>>not they are "games". And note that nobody ever said that was a
>>bad thing. It might be a bad thing if the industry focused too
>>heavily on them, but that would be a completely different complaint.

What that means when it's *not* deliberately twisted around is:

>> The following are two completely *different* claims:
>>
>> A. Not being a "game" is an inherently bad thing.
>>
>> B. Too much indusrtry-wide focus on XXXX (for whatever XXXX) is a
>> bad thing.
>>
>> I am claiming B and *NOT* A. Stop trying to tell me I'm claiming A.

See?

> based on how games used
> to be and your particular tastes, sounding a lot like a grumpy old
> man who thinks the industry is suffering because they don't make them
> like they used to:
> 
> "Maybe I'm just projecting my own tastes into this, or maybe this is 
> just because I don't have sales/profits/etc charts for the last 10-20 
> years to examine, but lately I'm finding it difficult to believe that 
> "AAA" games aren't becoming (or already) a mere niche, much like 
> high-performance sports cars. (Ie, big money, but small market.)
> 
> Part of this is because, as I see it, the "big/AAA games" *as they
> used to exist* up until around the early 2000's don't seem to be
> around much anymore."
> 

Oh for crap's sake. Yes, newer AAA/big-business games, on average, *do*
direct significantly more of their emphasis on story/dialog/cinematic
feel/etc than older ones. I was being diplomatic before, but that's
really undeniable. Do you think all that comes at no cost in
development resources? (Rhetorical, of course. I'm pointing out it's
rhetorical so I don't get accused of hyperbole or of actually
suggesting that you did think it didn't cost extra resources.) So that
requires more sales for sustainability, and then I went on with my
reasoning about diminishing audience - clearly marked with disclaimers
about my lack of certainly (which you've conveniently quoted for me
and also conveniently ignored).

And now you come along, slap the big generic "grumpy old man" "don't
make them like they used to" labels over the whole thing, and now I'm
supposed to believe not only that your "poisoning the well" tactics
somehow *aren't* a logical fallacy, but also that I'm the one being
categorically dismissive?


> > And really, is it so damn horrible to have and voice a negative
> > opinion on something?
> 
> Not at all, but when the constant refrain is grumpy-old-man ranting,
> it is pretty horrible.

Convenient then how the negative opinions just happen to be of your
horrible grumpy-old-man variety rather then types you would accept as
the "not at all horrible" negative opinions. Next time I'll make sure
anything I dislike isn't something you'll decide to imagine a grumpy
old man might agree with. True, I admitted to some grumpy-old-man-ness,
but I'm not the one abusing it for ad hominem ammunition.