/lit/ - Literature

Continuing from >>1679661

>a) WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT 'TEXT' WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A TEXT. TEXT CANNOT FORm THE PRINCIPAL ELEmENT OF A GAmE IN THE SAmE WAY THAT THE COLOR GREY CANNOT FORm THE PRICIPAL ELEmENT OF A FUCKING ROCK, YOU mORON.
And the simple assertion once again, coupled with yet another analogy.

>B) NO SHIT, I'VE LImITED GAmES TO WHAT THEY'RE ABOUT, WOW. I GUESS mAYBE IF I "LImITED" CARPENTRY TO WOOD YOU'D BUST mY FUCKING BALLS AS WELL DIPSHIT. THAT IS HOW DEFINITIONS ARE CONSTRUCTED, YOU ASSHOLE, LImITATIONS THAT ARE EITHER CONTRACTED OR EXTENDED.
To what you think they're about. There's a difference between definitional limitation and ideological rigidity. For example, a Christian cannot worship Bishamonten and disbelieve in Yahweh/Jesus by definition, but some Christians don't believe Catholics belong to the group denoted by "Christians" at all. In your case, the separation between game mechanics/game and text are the latter rather than the former. If you can show how the meaning of the word "game" precludes text from being a "game mechanic" then that would certainly be evidence in your favor.

>Where "essentially" means "according my retarded reading which cannot directly quote because I have to make up strawmen positions to argue against".
So what part with the summation do you disagree with? It's easier to argue when I know what specific point you're arguing against. I'll write it again so you don't even have to scroll: "Games are purely reducible to X. Y is not X. Therefore Y has no relation to X." Less ambiguously stated: "Games are purely reducible to game mechanics. Text is not a game mechanic. Therefore the text has no relation to the game proper." From that, the bad argument would conclude that improving text doesn't make a game better since the game is reducible only to game mechanics of which text is not one.