“averse”. And you don’t need people to look for nuance, you need to provide a fucking interpreter and possibly a fucking fortuneteller to translate whatever the fuck you are trying to say.
Let’s try it, having the two most relevant definitions of the word in mind:
“2: of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time : antiquated”
“4: surviving from an earlier period ; specifically : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage”
turn-based = archaic, via awful analogy.
I think when the word evolution is thrown around in that context they’re just saying the system isn’t up to date with what the RPG genre has become.
Thrown around in the boxy car context? Ok, anyway: turn-based = archaic, still. Introduction of “they”, soon to be implicated in more shitty thought crimes.
Anyone implying that the turn-based mechanic is archaic is ignoring several popular and current titles that are turn-based. Four out of the ten best-selling games listed on direct2drive right now are turn-based.
Logical fallacy. Actually, a couple of them. Turn-based NOT archaic as a result of these fallacies.
It’s not that it’s broken, it’s just that it’s not where RPGs are at right now. Get with the times gramps. Not that I’d mind a turn-based RPG, but I think it would feel old-school and that isn’t usually something you want for a big-budget title looking for a mainstream audience.
I could break this down some more, but even you get the idea. turn-based = archaic, again!
That gives us a post that is carefully straddling the divide between contradictory and insipid, even if we take your reasoning as is.
So, no, I don’t think nuance is the problem. For the record, I don’t particularly care about the subject at hand, I just wanted to point out what an idiot you are. You’re not deep, you’re inarticulate. Relay it to “they” for me, would you?