Voidoid

Whoa. I guess in that sentence I mean anything covered by the ludo-prefix? People have argued that the ludo- is important to specify that it is the the game and the narrative that are dissonant, but consider this conversation:

A: I think Uncharted suffers from narrative dissonance.

B: Well, what is the narrative dissonant with?

A: The game.

A does not actually provide any clarification with its second line. It is quite clear from its first statement that it is the game Uncharted, or some aspect thereof, which is the other party of the alleged dissonance. Given that ludo- means game (and maybe that is the part you disagree with?) ludo- is similarly not needed for clarification. Ergo, it is superflous. That's the easiest way I can think to put it. I am totally open to the possibility that you guys have understood me from the start and that I'm the one who doesn't understand you counter-arguments at this point. Hope it's clear what I mean at least.

@theht: I think the randomization is a consequence of permadeath, it is needed to make repeated attempts interesting. If you think there are no problems with these terms then of course we can only agree to disagree.

@slag: You are a real optimist if you think metroidvania will change after all these years, and I'm probably as big of an optimist for thinking ludonarrative dissonance can change. You never know though.

@hailinel: I think it's irrelevant because by the only discussions ludonarrative dissonance could conceivably be brought up in are discussions about games, and as such it should always be clear from the context that the thing the narrative is dissonant with is some aspect of the game. Superfluous would have been a better word than irrelevant I guess. I believe you have already addressed this opinion though, so no need to make this into a circle argument; I hear you. You have made many good points and the volume of defensive voices for these two terms have definitely shaken my faith that my ideas were better.

I actually thought about this when I wrote the OP. I'm sure we can all agree it is difficult to define ludonarrative dissonance without using the word gameplay. A lot of smart people don't like that word. Personally I resort to using it a lot, it seems irreplaceable, but deep inside I suspect it might be one of those words that are only useful because they mean everything.

@mosespippy: I want to remove ludo primarily because I think it's irrelevant. I feel that ludo only makes it sound more academic, it doesn't actually make it more academic, that would be a different question. If I call a football a pedosphere it does not facilitate academic discussion about it. Instead it makes me sound like I vastly overestimate the complexity of the thing I am discussing; as though I am perplexed by an ordinary household object. Likewise, ludonarrative dissoance is simple and easy to understand and the word should reflect that. Simpler is smarter.

@hailinel: I think you and I agree on what ludonarrative dissonance is. I was saying that the ludo-part indicates that the narrative clashes with the game as a whole, which I don't think always is the case. The problem with ludonarrative dissonance that you bring up, breaking the suspension of disbelief, is probably the biggest problem it causes for most people. It is probably where the word is most useful, when describing your personal playing experiences, and this is part of the reason why I think a fancy scientific-sounding word is not called for; ludonarrative dissonance is an everyday occurrence, it doesn't take a scholarly mind to notice it.

EDIT: And yes, of course when I use a word like unappealing I am making a subjective value judgement. In this case I know for a fact that there are others who agree with me, which is why it is worth mentioning at all. Of course no matter how many people agree on it it is still subjective, but if a lot of people dislike a word and most people don't care at all, which is my impression, maybe it's worth considering changing. Turns out there are a lot of people who like it though. I did not know that.

I have said everything I have against the word roguelike-like, if you still think it is good I think I must accept I was unable to convert you.

Oh my, this did not occur to me at all. Fire Emblem is a game that is designed around permadeath without being designed around extensive replay. I have no real defence against that, except possibly that permadeath is optional in the latest game as I understand it, and from that you could argue that it is not central to the game design, even though it kind of is. I guess this is harder than I thought.

In the case of ludonarrative dissonance I agree, the problem is not that it is inaccurate, just profoundly unappealing. You seem confident that people disregard it out of prejudice for intellectual discourse, but I am convinced they simply disregard it out of prejudice for the term itself. It may be accurate but it sounds so childish. Every time I use it I feel like a seven year old wearing fake glasses his father's oversized lab coat. (Whoa that's pretty specific, maybe I have issues.)

In the case of rougelike-like: really? You really think that's accurate? If you think Spelunky hits close to the bullseye that is Rogue you must have a pretty big dartboard. Or you are just drunk, in which case you should not be playing darts in the first place. (The last sentence was just to add flavour to the allegory.)

@zevvion: People are annoyed by different things, though. You're right that a coherent full picture matters more than the little details, but sometimes it's the details that stick in our mind.

A lot of people feel like you so I guess it's a valid issue even if I don't see it. The narrative to me is a part of the game, and ludonarrative dissonance is rarely so complete that it dissonates with every part of the game as a whole. There could be dissonance between the narrative and the voice acting, the narrative and the level of gore or even between one part of the narrative and another. The fact that the thing the narrative is dissonant with is another aspect of the game seems self-evident to me, what else would it dissonate with?

Well, puzzle games have changed a lot over the years - Portal has very little in common with Tetris - but at least they still have puzzles. If Portal 3 comes out and is a straight FPS I don't think we should say "Fuck it, this is what 'puzzle game' means now." Puzzle games is a good example of a genre that I think is very generous and allows for a great variety of game types while still excluding games that lack its defining characteristics. To me permadeath games is has the same combination of generosity and specificity, whereas roguelike is very specific. I think we should avoid using the noun roguelike about games we would not describe with the adjective roguelike, precisely for the reason you state, if we do it will catch on.

Procedurally generated stuff I see as a design choice that grows out of permadeath, it is a way to make repeated replay bearable. By loot collection, do you just mean item/powerup collection like in Spelunky or specifically the type of dynamically generated loot you find in Diablo or Borderlands? If it's the latter I guess that does make this genre pretty similar to Rogue, I hadn't noticed this as a trend.

Many interesting points here! Thank you for writing so much.

Really? I love it, personally. It sounds like a badass future Clockwork Orange word.

@clonedzero: Yeah, maybe the bigger problem is that ludonarrative dissonance has become a catch-all term to use about game narratives you just can't seem to relate too.

I think I adressed that question in the text, although it's obviously fine if I did not convince you. Perhaps the fact that you have to specify what it is that dissonates with the narrative is a good thing? It prevents you from just slapping the ludonarrative dissonance sticker on a game without further discussion. I am unsure how you concluded that removing the ludo- is dumbing it down. In my experience, when you can't describe something with an existing word 90% of the time it is because you have not finished thinking about it.