What I Look for in a Great Game

Everyone has their favorite games. They can give you a million reasons why they love their games, but rarely do I hear about what people actually expect from games in general. With so many genres and play styles out there, it’s difficult to figure out what makes an individual game “great” in the midst of so many constants and variables. So I’m going to attempt to explain what I personally look for in a game that will make me stop and say “yeah, that game was pretty freaking sweet.” This will be a list of three things that make a game great for me, but it will not be in an order of importance. I’m just going to consider what goes into a game and say what I look for with each individual piece, as well as how it should fit into the whole package. I won’t be talking about graphics, art style, sound design, etc., as those are just basic yet important accessories to any game, and each game is too different for me to talk about these features at length. With that said, let’s get started.

1- The gameplay must work to fit the tone and feel of the game

I don’t know how often I hear about how some games don’t have “excellent” gameplay. There are those who think the best games are those that handle smooth like butter, have a deep system of mechanics, and must be “fun”. Now, I love a game that can deliver on all of those, but it’s gotten to the point where I started asking myself: does gameplay really need to be fluid, complex, and specifically for fun?

I then recalled my first experience with two games: Silent Hill and Shadow of the Colossus. Neither of these games handle in a particularly good way. Silent Hill has you playing a writer who gets tired easily and can’t shoot straight, and must fight through a town filled with nightmarish creatures in order to find and save his daughter. Shadow of the Colossus has you playing a kid who is clumsy and a poor swordsman, and is tasked with taking down gigantic beasts by climbing on their bodies and killing them with an ancient sword. And yet, somehow, these games still managed to engage me through their mechanics, because they did serve their purpose for the game they were in. Both characters aren’t the most powerful, and yet their triumphs felt even more like such because of their limitations, both in character and in the gameplay.

Many other great games do the same thing, but these two were the most obvious examples I could think of. Sure, the games that control like heaven are incredible to play every now and again, but for me, a truly great game is one which takes its mechanics and uses them to enhance the environments, characters, and world in which you’re playing in. Speaking of which…

2- The world must be engaging to play in

In the aforementioned games, their worlds play a big role in how I view them today. Silent Hill’s bleak, abandoned, and depressing town; and Shadow of the Colossus’s peaceful, quiet ruins made me feel as though I wasn’t just playing a game, but I was the narrator of each scenario. However, there are some games that go one step further in atmosphere.

For example, BioShock has Rapture, a dystopian paradise squandered greed, vanity, and ego. What was once a paradise for the unrestrained became a shambled war zone for crazed mutants and stubborn fools. The broken and eerie lighting from the ocean, the psychotic ramblings of splicers in the distance, and the creepy little sisters roaming with their hulking guardians sucked me in from the get-go, and did not let go until I decided to stop the game for that one session, and even then, I couldn’t get the place out of my head.

The Last of Us is another example of a game with a thick and engaging atmosphere. Staring at the crumbling buildings succumbing to nature while you travel through a familiar world ruined by a raging infection that’s slowly wiping humanity out, coupled with encounters with humanity at its most desperate and depraved makes for an flat out terrifying look at what the apocalypse holds for us, and you have to endure it for the entire journey the game takes you on. Never have I felt so excited to be a part of the apocalypse, only to be physically and emotionally exhausted by the true nature of humanity’s most primal instincts.

Its games like BioShock and The Last of Us that engage not only through their narratives, but also the environments by which you travel through. To have a world is simply not enough anymore for me. There has to be a reason for it to be the way it is, and there must be narrative reasons for them to be there. With that said…

3- The story must be well-written and must work in tandem with the gameplay

That statement may seem odd, given my mention of The Last of Us, a game that tells a story in part with cutscenes. Now, I’m not opposed to cutscenes and scripted sequences as long as they do not show things that go against the game’s rules. The Last of Us follows that philosophy well, but this is more than just about cutscenes. When I mention a video game story, I look for one thing, and one thing only: do my actions mean something in any part of the game’s narrative? With The Last of Us, my actions dictate how much development Joel and Ellie go through with optional dialogue moments that you can choose to partake in, as well as how I flesh them out in their combat styles. Is Joel a risk-taker, taking aim and aggressively taking enemies out regardless of the odds, or is he the cautious type, taking foes down one by one with a chokehold or a lethal hostage negotiation? These are things that only the gameplay can tell you. Storytelling is just as much about the actions characters take as it is world-building, lore, and dialogue.

And I go to yet another set of games that showcase the awesome power of gaming’s narrative capabilities: Metroid Prime and Mass Effect. Yes, Metroid Prime has a story, and it’s told through everything the game gives you. You play as a skilled and dangerous bounty hunter searching for a dark power that’s killing a planet. You discover narrative bits while you scan environments and read logs, all while you maintain full control of your character as the environment and enemies tell you of what’s been tainting this once peaceful and secluded planet. And you even control how strong Samus gets while obtaining upgrades as the story goes on.

With Mass Effect, the narrative can go many different ways depending on actions you take within an important element in the game: dialogue sequences. While the gameplay serves to show how you and your squad are especially skilled for defending the galaxy, it’s through the many interactions with the galaxy’s many aliens that truly show how much the story can change with a single sentence. Show compassion and mercy to an enemy, and they may reconsider hunting you down in next game. However, be the ruthless badass, and you will suffer the consequences if you think it’s worth the trouble. These come in many shapes and forms, and seeing the story change so dramatically with different choices shows just why video game storytelling is powerful: it gives the player choice in how they form the story.

I know I’ve gone on long enough, but those are the three main things I look for in a great game. I love seeing a game that wants to tell a story, but allows the player to build the story themselves and dictate how it turns out. This can be either by changing the written plot altogether or by showing a different side of the action, or maybe bypassing the action altogether to make your character a bit more complex than a madman hunting and killing everyone in sight. And with gameplay, this can be achieved well, but only if the developers see that the game doesn’t have to adhere to the rule of fun, but adhere to what the story and world are like. I know this is all my opinion, but this is how I see things. There will be games for those who disagree with me, and you have every right to disagree. However, I will always seek out the games which do the things I’ve mentioned and I will enjoy them if they’re done well. Thanks for reading, and I hope I gave you some insight into my gaming choices.

P.S. - all games mentioned are what I consider to be great. Obviously, the opinions I express about each game are simply that: an opinion. If you disagree, that's fine, but please try to keep any and all debate about their quality as civil as possible.

I enjoyed your very well thought out post. If I could give you a recommendation, it would be to play Dark Souls. I think it would be a game you enjoy immensely after the learning curve.

Just a few little addendum. Nice strong article. Very well thought out.

Yeah I figure for story not only should it be in tandem w/ gameplay but in direct service of. Because you can have great emotional identification with characters, when they've been thrown a dramatic curve ball, but when you get out by the skin of your teeth battling an enemy like FF7's Ruby Weapon, there's sweat and perspiration. This type of drama must intersect more often. The tone atmosphere and narrative must always support and influence what you are doing in the game. Instead the other way around. I.E. No more Battlefield 3 quality in stories.

Level design is paramount. Especially in single player. Less focus on nigh impenetrable avatar strength, protections and patronizing mechanics, but instead balance that stuff out.

and more focus on the level being the evolution of that avatar and the player. Tricks, scavenging, critical thinking, situational weapons and devices, and secrets etc. Otherwise we might not feel threatened, challenged, or intimidated. Can't have houses w/o foundations.


Oh yeah, and less menial stuff, like big upgrade grids for twitchy action games with already able-bodied characters, and lukewarm difficulty, or rescuing your friends from narrative doom by mining empty planets for minutes on end. XP upgrade systems should feel like shopping nervously on a shoestring budget, what to save, who to upgrade in what way and what to buy (with IN GAME MONEY) without dying.

sorry bout all that. Carry on.

@Minishdriveby: I actually have played Dark Souls and enjoy it immensely. Only reason I didn't mention it is because I've yet to finish the whole thing. Too busy grinding and and dying, and trying to become better at certain sections so I don't die as often.

And you say I make up my own definitions....

Have you ever actually looked into what "play" and "game" actually means, where they originated and how they differ from other systems and activities ?

Totally understandable then. I'm glad you're enjoying it. Papers, Please serves a certain itch in atmosphere, story telling, and mechanics reflecting narrative as well.

@Lulu_Lulu: This isn't a list of definitions. It's more a list of guidelines as to what I prefer to see in a game. Obviously, not every game will fit these guidelines, but after analyzing my favorite games list, this is the conclusion I've come up with for myself.

I don't like to lump gameplay into one specific category. That's kind of what I talked about in my post in the first place. To me, as long as the game's mechanics serve their intended purpose to the experience, I'm fine. If it feels awkward or wrong in context, then it did something wrong. That's all there is to it for me. I'm not gonna turn video games into an exact science in order to get enjoyment out of them. If I enjoy them, great. And now I've figured out why I enjoy my favorite games in the first place.

@mastermetal777

1st of all gameplay IS a specific Category.... Usually you wouldn't have to consider what any of these things actually mean because thats the developers job, but seems like even they don't understand how gameplay differs from other interactions. Or maybe they do, they just figured gameplay just doesn't sell as much. So yeah its good to have preferences but you have to consider you maybe referrering to them using the wrong terms and definitions. What you consider to an evolution is merely things getting lost in translation.

@Lulu_Lulu: Is it wrong to try and see em in a different light? Or maybe the "translation" you're bringing up is merely an interpretation. There is no rigid criteria for what gameplay is supposed to be like, not when there are dozens of genres proving that different styles work for different things.

And also, when did I mention an evolution in gameplay? Yes, I said not all games have to have fluid and complex systems, but that has been known for quite some time. I'm not looking exclusively for innovation unlike some people. As long as the game plays well within the criteria set by the developers out of intent, then I'm happy.

@mastermetal777

Its wrong to call something its not, but if something becomes wrong enough to to the right amount of people then I guess it can become right. Its all relative.

Anyway there actually is a rigid criteria of what a game and gameplay is suppose to be, there is however an issue about the actual definition of these things, but there are stirct criteria. Google it.... No reseach coinsides with what you think games are. Some developers might but those who actually looked at it from a practical stand point don't.

@Lulu_Lulu: It's all so subjective though. And this wasn't an article done out of research. It's a personal one that goes towards my own feelings about video games in general. I'm not claiming to have some groundbreaking thesis as to what I think games should be. I'm just talking about what I consider to be the elements in games that draw me in the most.

And no, I have to disagree with you on this "rigid criteria" you keep talking about. It's all dependent on what different developers feel a good gaming experience is supposed to be. I don't know if you can read a .pdf format on your computer, but here's a game design paper that really stuck with me in thinking about games.

http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf

@mastermetal777

Seriously ! You're giving me homework ? :(

dude I'm exhausted !

@Lulu_Lulu: It's just a little reading. If I can get through 3 full novels in one day, that should be nothing for you.

@mastermetal777

Reading a novel is easy. A story flows naturally so theres no reason to stop and think about stuff.... Reading a research paper is a whole other animal.

Fine... I'l study it... But when I get back.... Best be prepared ! Probably won't be done until tomorrow.

@Lulu_Lulu: I read research papers a lot. I've even written quite a few in college. And besides, I'm not looking to even fight with you on this. This was just a personal blog I posted so everyone can see what I liked. I wasn't trying to start a debate or anything.

@mastermetal777

I'm sure the guy who proclaimed the earth was round wasn't trying to debate anything either, he was just voicing his oppinion.

Didn't go too well for him did it ?

@Lulu_Lulu: That was scientific research being done in order to find out how the world works. This isn't scientific research. It's called a personal opinion. Comparing this to the discovering of the Earth being round is like comparing the discovery of fire to someone saying "yeah, I really like eating fire-cooked chicken. Here's why I like it." That's what it feels like you're doing: trying to bring science and research into a personal opinion that has nothing to do with the science of things.

@mastermetal777

You're saying theres no science in gaming ?

@Lulu_Lulu: I didn't say that at all. Of course there's science in video games. The difference is that my post has NOTHING to do with the science of video games, and more to do with my personal opinion of video games. There's no science involved in that, nor did I ask for science to get involved in the first place. That research paper I posted is more a guideline than anything about why I like games. It's not meant to show what I think a game should be, but it does help. I'm not doing research here, I'm just stating my love for certain aspects of games and where they're included in my favorites. Where's the science in a subjective emotional response aside from the chemicals your brain produces? None. That answer is none, because everybody's experience with things is different. You may need to know the science behind why jumping is considered engaging, but all I need to know is "sweet, I stuck the landing!" for me to enjoy it.

@mastermetal777

Which would be fine if your oppinion wasn't based on your misunderstanding of the subject.

@Lulu_Lulu: I'm not misunderstanding anything. The only reason you think I am is because you have way too rigid a criteria for how games "should" work to have any other opinion. I don't just think of gameplay like you apparently do as the only reason a video game is engaging. And with regards to gameplay, here's the definition of it:

Gameplay is the specific way in which players interact with a game, and in particular with video games.Gameplay is the pattern defined through the game rules, connection between player and the game, challenges and overcoming them,plotand player's connection with it. Video game gameplay is distinct from graphics, and audio elements.

Now tell me, what about those words gives you the impression that gameplay is some sort of rigid set of mechanics that every game must adhere to? There are also many different types of gameplay, such as asymmetric, emergent, cooperative, nonlinear, leveled, micromanagement, hack and slash, etc. And guess what? They don't always follow the same rules, and every game has its own set of rules as established by the developers and designers. To try and lump everything together and saying "this is what every game must follow or else it either sucks or isn't a game at all" is, in my opinion, missing the point of making different types of video games to begin with.

Based on this blog, I'd recommend playing throughout Legacy of Kain - specifically Soul Reaver 1, 2 and Defiance, or all if you don't mind the age. You can't really dictate how the story unfolds and interferes with gameplay alot - but the quality of the writing and the voice acting is more than enough to carry them. It's written by Amy Hennig, the main writer for The Last of Us as well; the dark, poetic storyline told by both the narration and the environment is one of a kind, at least in gaming

@SovietsUnited: I keep hearing a lot about the Legacy of Kain series. It just keeps going over my head on my purchase list though. Will definitely give it a shot one of these days. And I like Amy Hennig's writing as well (she wrote the Uncharted stories, not The Last of Us. Same company though, so it's all good lol)

@mastermetal777

Its not my criteria... Its "THE" criteria and your using your "oppinion" to work your way around it.

More importantly:

"this is what every game must follow or else it either sucks or isn't a game at all"

I never said anything like that... Besides if you weren't so quick to jump to conclusions you would realise all those types of gameplay do still fall under the criteria of what constitutes a game. What doesn't fall under it have their own subcategory called non-games, this is where those mechanics are repurposed towards a few of the things described in your OP.

@Lulu_Lulu: And what you fail to realize is that there really is no true criteria for games, unless you blatantly misinterpreted the definition of gameplay set out by many sources. You're so set in your thinking when it comes to gameplay, I've noticed. And I see absolutely no sources from you to back yourself up, whereas I've given a research paper and a textbook definition of gameplay that you can look up on many sources and see that they all agree. If you're trying to pass off your own opinion, don't say it as though everybody has already agreed with you, because that's far from the truth. And if somebody disagrees with you, your knee-jerk reaction shouldn't be to call them wrong because it doesn't fall under your way of thinking. I've listened to you, I've given you the benefit of the doubt, but with this I don't feel as though your argument is compelling enough for me to consider.

@mastermetal777

There is.... You just don't accept it... I'm assuming its because you want to be a gamer so bad but don't actually get into gaming all that well so you alter what gaming .... Don't hate... Its just a theory.

As for Sources... I don't play the sources game because on the internet you can find anything and everything to back up whatever wild eyed cockamamy idea anybody has, both phony and credible. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm trying to reason with you, which is hard to do if you misconstrue my points or downright ignore them.

If you want to play the sources game, you'l be playing it alone, and then I'l just try again some other time.

@Lulu_Lulu: First off, there is nothing to accept. You see things one way, I see them another. If you're going to continue making these claims, I again must ask that you back yourself up, but since you're so adamant on not doing so, it is pointless to even ask.

Second, you know nothing about me or my gaming tastes. I don't alter what gaming is. I interpret it from what I've experienced. That experience spans 16 years (began gaming when I was 5, and am currently 21 years old), 5 gaming generations, and hundreds of games in many different sub-genres, both on consoles and PC. I aspire to be a game designer/writer, and I've always found that following formulas and rigid criteria when it comes to any form of media spells disaster almost immediately, so I try to find games that don't necessarily fit the mold of "traditional" gaming or even that people have a hard-on for hating with no reason. Don't presume to know what my gaming life is like as you've never once seen me play a game or even bother to ask me what my favorite games are to get a sense of what kind of games I'm actually into.

Third, if you're trying to reason with me, then again, stop making presumptions about me and my gaming tastes, and stop trying to push your agenda on me. I'm trying to reason with you as well, but the difference is that while you push to try and make me see things your way, I'm only asking that you respect my opinions and allow me to have them, which so far, you have failed to do with each and every one of your posts.

Do you see why I "misconstrue" what you're saying? You don't make an easy person to debate with if all you do is claim, very subtly mind you, that everybody but you and your peers is wrong. I've not once said that you were wrong. All I've been saying is that I disagree with you, which isn't the same thing. You're opinion is valid, as is mine, but nothing about what you and I are saying is a straight fact, like you're claiming your opinions are. I study games and see them and their potential differently than how many different people see them, including you.

tl;dr, I've only been stating my opinions since the beginning of this post, and all you wanna do is argue that I'm wrong on every level based on non-facts and erroneous assumptions about me and my gaming style.

@mastermetal777:

Oh crap, Matermetal777 you went down the rabbit hole. I'm sorry I wasn't on to prevent you from engaging in this. Lulu_lulu like's to tell people they don't know what words mean without providing his definition. When you try to argue with him the meaning, it's a no win argument because he's never provided a definition as an initial arguing point. He just states you're wrong or other absolutes.

I'm uncertain as to why he is trying to be argumentative with you because you did nothing but highlight the other aspects of games that enhance gameplay. Atmosphere, level design, and mechanics in order to establish a world do in fact set up more elaborate systems and laws in the world in which the player must incorporate these systems and laws/rules to function, essentially game play. Gameplay can only be so fun as the playground you're allowed to play in, which is why level design, atmospheres, and rules are established; those are not gameplay, which I'm certain neither of us were stating those were, but I would say are just as important.

I'm also not certain why he's calling you out as a "pseudo-gamer" because the games you listed, The Last of Us, Shadow of the Colossus, and BioShock are all excellent video games. If they are not, then so what you enjoy them. I enjoyed your post. I also agree with you that high-concept definitions are not easily defined, and so I feel Lulu_Lulu is in the wrong in his absolutism.

@Minishdriveby: Yeah, I kinda dug myself into this without realizing how far it would go lol. Thanks for the tip on Lulu_Lulu though. Now I know how to handle him better next time something like this happens. And I'm glad you enjoyed (and actually read) what I posted. Hopefully this is the end of the argument? Because my fingers hurt from typing so much lol.

@mastermetal777

1stly I see things many ways.... I understand your view... I just disagree with it. Thats not the same thing as seeing things my only. Wheres you disagree with me before I even make my point.... Maranade on that for a moment.

2ndly, I see why you would want to define games so badly, 16 years can build quite the attachment to certain ideals. As I suspected you've coloured games with your personal experience, its so strong theres no room for other oppinions or even alil logic.

As for me, gaming is not about me. ;)

Thirdly. Aren't I entitled to an oppinion about you ? Perhaps I'm doing to you what you do to gaming. Ironic isn't it ?

4th. I see the potential you are talking about, I encourage and want to see it evolve, but I don't call it what it isn't, not everything interactive can be called a "game". Call it an oppinion, call it a fact, call it whatever you want. It doesn't change anything.

Tl;dr, You have the right to an oppinion and encourahed to voice it to as many people as you want, but its not a bullet proof shield you can use to escape critism. Can you handle critism ?

@Lulu_Lulu: I have many viewpoints on many different aspects of games, and so does everyone else. Nobody is unbiased against anything. Are you unbiased? Nope.

And besides, criticism I can handle. And to criticize someone without much info to go on is like saying you hate Chinese food without actually having tasted it in the first place and only hearing about it from a secondary source. I don't presume to know what your gaming style is further than what you give me on here. I don't know how you play games, but I do know that you have an abnormal standard for them. My standard for games is this: if I enjoyed just about everything in it without a hint of frustration or boredom, it's a good game to me. That's it. Nothing to it.

@mastermetal777

You've given me plenty of info.

As for my gaming style its not a factor. Like I said, this isn't about me. I have no need to voice my oppinions, other than CO-OP is the best thing ever.

@Lulu_Lulu: What info have I given you besides what I like in my games and a few examples of games I like and dislike? My opinions are simply that: opinions about a small fraction of what I like in my life. To assume everything about me through that is merely laughable, because I'm not exclusively a gamer in my life. I do have a life outside of my games, but that's as far as I'll go.

Everything you say is an opinion, whether you want to admit it or not. You're human, not the god of gaming, so everything you say can only be stated as an opinion unless you prove that what you say is somehow true, which you so far have refused to do. So whatever you're trying to do isn't gonna work unless I see something substantial other than your very vocal opinion.

@mastermetal777

They maybe oppinions, but they are not my own. My oppinion is co-op.... The rest is just a collection of analyses taken from examining the medium and how people of different types interact with it.

@Lulu_Lulu: so an educated opinion based on a handful of examples. I've seen your side of the spectrum dozens of times on the internet. I've also seen the opposite, the sideways, the backwards, and the innovators. It all boils down to one thing: nobody agrees or even knows how the medium should move forward until it happens from within and reveals itself. To claim you have the ultimate answer is egotistical at best, as you're just one person, whereas this is a medium where there are teams of forward thinkers and games pushing their own genres further in different ways. And from what I hear, you want all video games to have the same basic function, and to me, that's ludicrous.

@mastermetal777

We do agree about how it should move foward we just disagree about the terminology. as I've said many times before, the word "game" should be retired, don't try to redifine it just use a more apropriate, it clear your forcing ideas into it that don't fit. So why not use a different term ? I mean thats literally at the centre of every angle I've been coming at you from.... Why that word specifically ?

@Lulu_Lulu: Because there are still too many games that fall under the rigid definition of what a "game" is to warrant a change. They're made by the same companies half the time, and frankly, they still fit the challenge and skill aspects of what makes games...well, games. Just because they're trying to do something to further the medium doesn't mean that they shouldn't be called any different if, at some core level, they're still games we play and interact with.

@mastermetal777

So its quantity ? How many games will it take to reach this threshold ?

How many more Heavy Rains, Lonlinesses, Gone Homes until we say "okay... Time for a new name"..... 5.... 10.... 2000 "games"?

@Lulu_Lulu: There have always been those kinds of games. They just fell under different names. Point and click adventures. Now we actually stopped clicking and started actually playing them, mimicking the movements you're supposed to do, walking around and exploring, all of that is still there, just with a crapton of input added instead of just clicking and occasionally dragging.

@mastermetal777

Some of them are missing those criteria we talked about earlier.

You haven't provided a clear definition as to what a game should be. It doesn't have to be your definition, but we need a definition you agree with to continue this argument.

Your post is great and has a clear definition. Me i'm looking for a game who has a low specs to try. I can give you some recommendations here it is, RO, KO, Rohan (i heard they has a new server) and Cabal.

@Minishdriveby

Thats because I don't have one. After looking into subject. I came to the conclusion that those who didn't have a clear definition for games are on the right track. I know... it sounds silly.

@Lulu_Lulu: It's inconsistent is what it is. You claim games follow a rigid criteria as to what they're supposed to be, and now you claim that those who say there is no clear definition are right? Wow. And to clarify, I never tried to define games in general. I just know what I want to see. Those aren't definitions, but more like ingredients of a whole. But if I had to say something, it's this. A game--and be ready--is whatever you want it to be.

I skimmed, but yeah he's wrong and kinda stopped reading after 4th paragraph cheers! If he isn't example sure is blah blah blah blah

Well now we're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and that is not extremely productive. I understand talking through concepts can help you formulate your own ideas and opinions, but you need to have some clarity before you begin a discussion with someone. Define your stance at the beginning, don't let it reach 50 posts of skirting the issue before we come to some understanding.

@Minishdriveby

My point is actually quite simple... The interactive medium as grown far too large and evolved too much for just one really really old term term to accomodate it all. Not everything can be a game. But Interactive Entertainment/Experiences is general enough to accomodate just about everything we've come to know as "games". Now its merely a matter of forming proper sub categories within this term. Games being one of them, Visual Novels, Ineractive Dramas, simulations, and so forth.

@mastermetal777

You're intelligent enough to know theres a difference between Criteria and an Actuall definition.

Lead with this instead of, "And you say I make up my own definitions.... Have you ever actually looked into what "play" and "game" actually means, where they originated and how they differ from other systems and activities ?" because what you just said was a good topic statement. Your original post is ambiguous, could be perceived to be slightly hostile, and doesn't address your stance; it just states you don't think people understand what a word means without enlightening others on the meaning. The confusion on both party's side could have ended with your most recent post.

@Minishdriveby

I have history with Master Metal on this subject, I can afford to skip over things we've covered befored.

It becomes a problem when Mastermetal cannot even understand your incoherent ramblings on a subject that wasn't part of the original post.