Sumez wrote:
Randorama wrote:but I generally tend to think that rules involve consequences if you infringe them, e.g. rules in sports.
I think you countered your own argument there.
I mean I get your point, and I'm willing to go with it, since it's only semantics anyway.
Just not to lose track of ourselves: I didn't want to really propose an argument but rather I was asking if I was missing some finer point of semantics along the way, hence the half-baked point.
But I think it also bears mentioning that no one is forcing you to follow the rule in a sport either. If you want to kick the ball in a basketball match, go right ahead. Like people who are arguing against 1cc's being the way to go: "Don't tell me how to play the game". If you think it's more fun to play that way, it's all in your power to do it, even if it's not the way the game was designed.
Sure, if you're in an official basketball match, kicking the ball would have penalty. But if you're playing an arcade game in some kind of scoring contest, continuing the game would also get you disqualified.
Well, I am losing your point, probably. Let me try to be clear about my (half-baked turning to completely baked..) ideas, and see if I am understanding your point, too.
As someone who has played lots of sports, whenever I broke the rules I had to engage with a ref who would sanction me according to an official rule book. I played rugby, so there have been many times in which I simply said "yes, sir, sorry sir", because the sport involves a rulebook that borders on the arcane, and usually players do not know all the rules. Thus, if the ref blowed the whistle, half of the time I would simply follow the ref's orders and be done with it.
However, when it comes to video games in general,
outside official tournaments, I would talk about the "1-coin approach", myself, to underline that some people play videogames in a certain way to better experience the original design behind the game. I am not even proposing a specific term, to be fair.
We can then have a tournament in which this becomes a rule, and a ref will probably drag a player away from the cabinet if the player tries to continue and argue "wtf I am not cheating by continuining".
It is purely semantics shmemantics, but I admit that I am (probably) getting confused about...well, how people are trying to define notions such as "bad design", "cheating" "gate-keeping", "rules", in relation to action gaming and 1-CC'ing games, I guess.
Have you ever had the feeling of walking into a conversation more than halfway and feeling *completely* at loss on how people are debating an apparently familiar topic? The last few days I had the clear impression that I was not following the discussion in this thread (duh!).
Then again, I am spending my days handling red tape at work, even on holiday days...
Chomsky, Buckminster Fuller, Yunus and Glass would have played Battle Garegga, for sure.