| lestatdark said: You're doing a wrong assumption and you'll continue to do so, even if I taught you the fundamentals of taxonomy beyond the levels of what you know. The fallacies in your reasoning are so blatant that there was actually no need to debate them, I indulged in this debate, hoping to shed some light on the flaws of your reasoning, but I see that you are so held on onto them, it makes no difference to you if you're right or if you're wrong. Then I just ask you this, as I asked you in the earlier posts I made. You consider Turn Based RPG's to be strategy games due to the micromanagement. Seeing that nowadays FPS games have a heavily based level up system that takes up for most of it's gameplay, which involves skill micromanagement, character development and customization, do you consider FPS to be strategy games too? This question will prove the fallacies of your reasoning, as you have tried to avoid it for the duration of this thread, since i'm going with your same categorization and using your reasoning skills as well. Oh, and one more thing, you probably learned taxonomy on school. A shame that you're using basic knowledge to categorize something that it's clearly out of your scope. If you're interested to learn more about taxonomy I can indulge you even further, not in this thread since it will take longer than a measly post since i've done a 10 page essay on biological and microbiological categorization in my last year. |
From my experience, the FPS' games that do have micromanagement are limited, and even then the micromanagement isn't a core aspect of the gameplay. In any Final Fantasy game you definately wouldn't be able to progress without adding equipement or leveling. In a FPS you will do find without it. Even then, you still didn't answer my question. What is the basis of Strategy games then?
Despite my knowledge of Taxonomy, my classification system still stands. Please argue toward or against the system and not it's relevance with taxonomy. Let's just drop that term for now. I didn't really mention it at all in the OP, and said I use a method similar to it in a later post. Then it just sprouted to me trying to justify it as being exclusively in common with Taxonomy. I would love for you, if you wish to, to explain it more in detail through a PM if you want. I hate having the wrong or not enough information, and would love to be educated past where I am currently. Also, you are correct. I have learned about it both in Middle School and now in both Biology and Chemistry classes.
@WereKitten Instead of 1 common ancestor they have multiple, which I noted in the macro-genres. Even then, you could argue that most Taxonomies that aren't relevant to Biology are not truly taxonomies. What about mathematical ones? They don't share a common ancestry. All you really need is a Macro and Micro structure.
