So far you have learned only obvious and mundane things. I know that taking the first step can be the hardest part of the journey, so I wanted to coddle you a little just to get you going. The coddling stops here. You must now understand the cold, hard truth of competition. This is the difficult par
NO YOU CAN'T WIELD POWER THAT'S CHEATING WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE IMAGINARY RULES I MADE UP!
I was thinking about that. I think, in some senses, winning is what separates play from a game. Though to the authors credit, they do discuss the joys of losing, but losing in a context where you understand why you lost and can use that understanding to improve. Thesis... antithesis... victory?
There's no wrong way to play a video game.
I've been thinking about this a lot, too, specifically in regards to PvE games. I've encountered a number of gamers using the "Play how you like" and "there's not wrong way to play" to justify bringing a set of equipment that is not effective at higher difficulties.
I believe it breaks down quickly in challenging cooperative PvE games. One rarely need to chase the meta to win, at least in games I've played, but to be successful One does need to have game knowledge and bring the tools to perform their role effectively. Not optimally, but effectively. If one is screwing around too much, or using a build that mechanically can't keep up, or one is not skilled enough with the build or tools they chose to pull their weight they're harming the team. they're creating a situation where other players have to do their job as well as their own job. That's fine if it's previously agreed to. In games where it's not discussed one is being unfair and unsporting to the other players; They expect to have their third or fourth or sixth using a kit they are competent with and that can fulfill their role effectively. Again, not optimally, but effectively.
And I've seen people arguing against this. Arguing that they should be able to bring whatever kit they like, ignore their coop partners, and essentially play a single player game that happens to have other people in it. Obviously this doesn't work in challenging games that demand close teamwork. In this case, what got me on this thread is Helldivers 2. And it got me thinking about, specifically, the Medic and Heavy in Team Fortress 2, and the Ubercharge mechanic. The Medic charges up their medgun, then follows
Okay actually my brain just ran out of steam sorry. : p
I think people just need to be realistic about their goals. Are you trying to beat the game eventually on Normal? Are you trying to beat it eventually on Trial of Iron? Are you trying to get a server first? region first? world first? Soul level 1? No hit?
For cooperative pve games it's frankly disrespectful if you are screwing around in a top raiding guild, for example. And you'll get booted and deserve it. For single player games who cares if your SL1 run never works out because you can't be arsed to use an effective build?
Agreed. You can do whatever you want on single player games, with the caveat of a lot of people don't actually know what they want and get frustrated trying to beat the game in to a shape it can't be, like with Dark Souls.
I was thinking about that. I think, in some senses, winning is what separates play from a game. Though to the authors credit, they do discuss the joys of losing, but losing in a context where you understand why you lost and can use that understanding to improve. Thesis... antithesis... victory?
there's a somewhat baffling aspect to games studies (not to be confused with game theory, the math thing) where they think walking to the park to play cricket is part of the game of cricket, not just the rules part with battsmen and knocking down the wicket or whatever.
i find this old article by mark rosewater a more sensible framework, although he's definitely not an academic and i don't know if he's read CLR James. also fuck him for being a company man
I've always been extremely skeptical of game theorists because they keep getting mad when compassion turns out to be more optimal than the "optimal play".
The article was a good read, thanks for sharing. One of the things I love about trying to define "game" or "comedy" or "love" is you never arrive at a definition, but you usually kick up a couple of new questions that will help you gain new insights when you explore them.
I was thinking about that. I think, in some senses, winning is what separates play from a game. Though to the authors credit, they do discuss the joys of losing, but losing in a context where you understand why you lost and can use that understanding to improve. Thesis... antithesis... victory?
I've been thinking about this a lot, too, specifically in regards to PvE games. I've encountered a number of
gamers using the "Play how you like" and "there's not wrong way to play" to justify bringing a set of equipment that is not effective at higher difficulties.
I believe it breaks down quickly in challenging cooperative PvE games. One rarely need to chase the meta to win, at least in games I've played, but to be successful One does need to have game knowledge and bring the tools to perform their role effectively. Not optimally, but effectively. If one is screwing around too much, or using a build that mechanically can't keep up, or one is not skilled enough with the build or tools they chose to pull their weight they're harming the team. they're creating a situation where other players have to do their job as well as their own job. That's fine if it's previously agreed to. In games where it's not discussed one is being unfair and unsporting to the other players; They expect to have their third or fourth or sixth using a kit they are competent with and that can fulfill their role effectively. Again, not optimally, but effectively.
And I've seen people arguing against this. Arguing that they should be able to bring whatever kit they like, ignore their coop partners, and essentially play a single player game that happens to have other people in it. Obviously this doesn't work in challenging games that demand close teamwork. In this case, what got me on this thread is Helldivers 2. And it got me thinking about, specifically, the Medic and Heavy in Team Fortress 2, and the Ubercharge mechanic. The Medic charges up their medgun, then follows
Okay actually my brain just ran out of steam sorry. : p
I think people just need to be realistic about their goals. Are you trying to beat the game eventually on Normal? Are you trying to beat it eventually on Trial of Iron? Are you trying to get a server first? region first? world first? Soul level 1? No hit?
For cooperative pve games it's frankly disrespectful if you are screwing around in a top raiding guild, for example. And you'll get booted and deserve it. For single player games who cares if your SL1 run never works out because you can't be arsed to use an effective build?
Agreed. You can do whatever you want on single player games, with the caveat of a lot of people don't actually know what they want and get frustrated trying to beat the game in to a shape it can't be, like with Dark Souls.
there's a somewhat baffling aspect to games studies (not to be confused with game theory, the math thing) where they think walking to the park to play cricket is part of the game of cricket, not just the rules part with battsmen and knocking down the wicket or whatever.
i find this old article by mark rosewater a more sensible framework, although he's definitely not an academic and i don't know if he's read CLR James.
also fuck him for being a company manI've always been extremely skeptical of game theorists because they keep getting mad when compassion turns out to be more optimal than the "optimal play".
The article was a good read, thanks for sharing. One of the things I love about trying to define "game" or "comedy" or "love" is you never arrive at a definition, but you usually kick up a couple of new questions that will help you gain new insights when you explore them.
yeah that's completely different from Ludology. they mostly come from media studies or (i forget the name) child sociology