FACTPILE IS BACK!!!
CLICK HERE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF
Take a Tour of the Admin's Mancave

"That's a game mechanic."

Designated Debating Area! As Well As Expanded Mayhem!

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Authors

Re: "That's a game mechanic."

Postby Mea quidem sententia » Wed Mar 23, 2016 11:50 am

Riverlia wrote:You mean the question about how one has to prove something is just game-mechanic?


He who asserts must prove.

Riverlia wrote:That's like saying someone have to prove something from a manga is a manga.


The application isn't the same because mangas don't suffer from game mechanics.

Riverlia wrote:Game mechanics are constructs of rules or methods designed for interaction with the game state, thus providing gameplay.


I agree, and these rules, such as heart containers in The Legend of Zelda would represent life force, as it has been supported in different instances.

Riverlia wrote:Anything in a game that is not the main plot, scripted, cutscene, in-universe text, etc is game mechanic.


Why should anyone accept this definition?

Riverlia wrote:So, why is game mechanic often used as a dismissal despite it partially reflect how the world work?
Because there's are still several arbitrary things in it at the end of the day.


Such as?

Riverlia wrote:Out of such a mixed pool, If you want to use it to quantify something, you has to first prove it's one of those 'representing how things are' cases, a positive claim.


I offered a few examples. The point is, more often than not, someone is going to say, "That's a game mechanic", rather than, "That's a game mechanic because . . ."

Riverlia wrote:You cannot spin it around and ask someone 'prove that this part of the game is not (arbitrary) game mechanic'.


He who asserts must prove. The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Riverlia wrote:One does not have to prove heart container is a game mechanic, because it is. Whether it can be used to quantify something or not, however, is up to the one who want to use it to provide.


On the contrary, as supported by what I said in the OP.

Riverlia wrote:Saying someone having more heart containers mean having more vigor than someone with less is logical enough, and all the things you mentioned should qualify the fact that it represent vigor/stamina/health. Saying that having 4 of them mean 4 times a human's vigor/durability? Now that's not fine, because you have yet to prove that they are a 1-1 scaling and not some arbitrary number.


Actually, heart containers are things that can be collected and treated as actual things that exist in-universe. Considering one can have more endurance than another is not illogical. I could jog 2 miles without resting, whereas my twin brother tires out sooner because he has not built up that endurance.

Riverlia wrote:A good example of both usable and unusable game mechanic is Disgaea:

Several characters commented on level in story, which mean level is in fact an in-universe indication of power. Characters of the same class with higher level is stronger than someone with less, canonically. If you make a topic about a lv 9999 Maoh vs someone, you can scale off Maoh below his level and put him in the galactic level easily. Similarly, you can gauge character power by their default level. lv 1200 Laharl in scripted event destroyed a planet? That mean it's reasonable to say another Maoh who start out at default lv 1500 can do the same and more.


Levels may indicate rank, but in terms of numbers, they become problematic because another RPG will have a different set of units. Attack damage in one game may exceed 1,000, while another series may not reach any higher than 500 attack damage. However, that doesn't mean we cannot quantify what an actual attack would do.

Riverlia wrote:You cannot, however, prove that Laharl is lv 9999, even if he's at that level in your game, because it's not necessary for him to reach that level to clear the story, and his default appearance in latter game put him at 1200-1500 levels. You also cannot say that level 2400 Maoh mean someone can (only) destroy 2 planets, because you don't know the scale ratio of level in Disgaea.


See above.
Mea quidem sententia
Ready For Action
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: "That's a game mechanic."

Postby Riverlia » Wed Mar 23, 2016 12:41 pm

Mea quidem sententia wrote:
Riverlia wrote:You mean the question about how one has to prove something is just game-mechanic?


He who asserts must prove

Riverlia wrote:That's like saying someone have to prove something from a manga is a manga.


The application isn't the same because mangas don't suffer from game mechanics.


Because saying something in a manga beside the author note is a part of the manga is, going by the logic of 'having to prove they are game mechanic, even if they are not part of lore/design/otherstuff people normally consider canon in a game', asserting a positive.


Riverlia wrote:Game mechanics are constructs of rules or methods designed for interaction with the game state, thus providing gameplay.


I agree, and these rules, such as heart containers in The Legend of Zelda would represent life force, as it has been supported in different instances.

Riverlia wrote:Anything in a game that is not the main plot, scripted, cutscene, in-universe text, etc is game mechanic.


Why should anyone accept this definition?

Because they are construct of rule or method designed for interaction with the game state.
Get hit, check remaining hp, hp >0 ---> continue.
Jump command, check obstacle ---> fence ---> cannot jump over.
Take out all the lore/design/accepted as canon by default elements, and the rest is pretty much the rules of the game and how you can interact with it. Some of it represent official state of things, some of it arbitrary created to avoid the game being boring or broken.

Though I admit I might have missed some other lore elements when I was listing stuffs, like character design, so yeah.

Riverlia wrote:So, why is game mechanic often used as a dismissal despite it partially reflect how the world work?
Because there's are still several arbitrary things in it at the end of the day.


Such as?


The ability to jump from extreme height with no damage in certain game where character is explicitly not superhuman.
God wizard warrior that take on planetary threat failing to jump over fence or die upon contact with water.
Children being immortal in some game, or quest character being immortal.
And several hundreds other things.

Riverlia wrote:Out of such a mixed pool, If you want to use it to quantify something, you has to first prove it's one of those 'representing how things are' cases, a positive claim.


I offered a few examples. The point is, more often than not, someone is going to say, "That's a game mechanic", rather than, "That's a game mechanic because . . ."

The point is you have to provide why it's a trustworthy game mechanic rather than something arbitrary. Out of a pool of uncertainty, saying this part is ok to use is an assertion. Not trusting it is a negative. No one has to prove a negative.

Now if you have provided reason they should be trusted, and the other side keep holding their ear and repeat 'game mechanic', then that's them being illogical.

I've seen a fair share of people who do that, dissing even scripted event because 'it was in-game'...
Riverlia wrote:You cannot spin it around and ask someone 'prove that this part of the game is not (arbitrary) game mechanic'.


He who asserts must prove. The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

See above.
The point 'this part of game play is valid and ok to be trusted' is already a positive assertion.
Did you prove your assertion? If you did, then yes, it's his turn. If you didn't, then no, you have to do it first.

Riverlia wrote:One does not have to prove heart container is a game mechanic, because it is. Whether it can be used to quantify something or not, however, is up to the one who want to use it to provide.


On the contrary, as supported by what I said in the OP.

Heart container is not in the lore proper, and very much a rule constructed to reflect his vigor in game play, thus it's a game mechanic.
You provided reason why it does represent something, so it does. How to quantify it is an entirely different matter.

Riverlia wrote:Saying someone having more heart containers mean having more vigor than someone with less is logical enough, and all the things you mentioned should qualify the fact that it represent vigor/stamina/health. Saying that having 4 of them mean 4 times a human's vigor/durability? Now that's not fine, because you have yet to prove that they are a 1-1 scaling and not some arbitrary number.


Actually, heart containers are things that can be collected and treated as actual things that exist in-universe. Considering one can have more endurance than another is not illogical. I could jog 2 miles without resting, whereas my twin brother tires out sooner because he has not built up that endurance.

No, I agreed that they represent endurance. What I was saying is, how much endurance a difference in container represent? Can you quantify the level that, say, having 4 containers represent?

Riverlia wrote:A good example of both usable and unusable game mechanic is Disgaea:

Several characters commented on level in story, which mean level is in fact an in-universe indication of power. Characters of the same class with higher level is stronger than someone with less, canonically. If you make a topic about a lv 9999 Maoh vs someone, you can scale off Maoh below his level and put him in the galactic level easily. Similarly, you can gauge character power by their default level. lv 1200 Laharl in scripted event destroyed a planet? That mean it's reasonable to say another Maoh who start out at default lv 1500 can do the same and more.


Levels may indicate rank, but in terms of numbers, they become problematic because another RPG will have a different set of units. Attack damage in one game may exceed 1,000, while another series may not reach any higher than 500 attack damage. However, that doesn't mean we cannot quantify what an actual attack would do.

I think you are mistaking what I was saying.
Usually level as a measurement in-game is dismissed. A character can be of higher level in game but weaker in lore for some game (Ex: Skyrim Dragonborn can be construed to be stronger than Greybeards in narration, but in-game Greybeards usually have 100+ level, and most Dragonborn PC end the game at 50-80).
In Disgaea, it's a valid number canonically, and a character at level 1200 being able to burst planet mean a lv 1500 character of the same class can do better. This is internal scaling, and has nothing to do with other game.
Attack damage on the other hand, is not known to be a valid canon in Disgaea, and we don't have a reason to use it as measurement in vs debate.
Last edited by Riverlia on Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Riverlia
FactPiler
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 12:37 am

Re: "That's a game mechanic."

Postby Mea quidem sententia » Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:04 pm

I suppose as a stand alone mechanic, I'll leave it as is, but in an example of heart containers, there are other sources that support it as life force, since the way it is spoken of in the manuals and by the great fairies present it as such. I won't be able to quantify how much a heart container offers. There are other times where the heart containers are treated as armor like in Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask where Link receives "defensive strength" to take less damage. I understand that some characters who fall from great heights without damage in spite of being human could be something that can be dismissed, simply because the game is a platformer, but even the word "human" doesn't necessarily indicate that someone is not superhuman. I'm sure you and I agree with each other, but like I said, more often than not, people will say, "That's a game mechanic" and not explain why. You use "positive" and "negative" claims, but really, it's whoever asserts or accuses that such things must be proved. This is why in the court of law, people are innocent until proven guilty. (That's not actually the case, unfortunately, because the justice system is a joke.)
Mea quidem sententia
Ready For Action
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:36 pm

Previous

Return to FactPile Arena

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest