NO YOU CAN'T WIELD POWER THAT'S CHEATING WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE IMAGINARY RULES I MADE UP!
that's true, it does describe the liberal approach to governance.
but in terms of dynamic art, "you are only meant to win" is itself an arbitrary limitation for how you can interact with a game. it's the difference between TF2 and Overwatch, or LoL when it released and LoL today.
Even in fighting games, if you win every round, is it still a game? Loosing to a skilled opponent can be just as satisfying as winning. Challenging yourself with personal limitations is just fun. Maybe you loose more, so what? Maybe you loose every time - maybe you do it just to see how long you survive. There's no wrong way to play a video game.
...maybe you do it just to watch a pompous dork fill up column space about how you're playing the game wrong.
There's no wrong way to play a game, sure, but you also can't get upset when a game is tailored to a specific audience that won't cater to the way you play the game. So there is effectively one way of enjoying the game.
Even in fighting games, if you win every round, is it still a game? Loosing to a skilled opponent can be just as satisfying as winning. Challenging yourself with personal limitations is just fun. Maybe you loose more, so what? Maybe you loose every time - maybe you do it just to see how long you survive.
The first game that comes to mind is From Software games. Notoriously hard, but there are vocal minorities that decry its difficulty, and subsequently all difficult games, as "unfair" and desire an easy mode. Maybe it is unfair, but the people who play it are sadistic enough to keep buying it. I say this as someone who despises their games and have never finished one. I'll stick to my map games.
With that being said
...maybe you do it just to watch a pompous dork fill up column space about how you're playing the game wrong.
Whenever I think of Overwatch, I think of every nerd getting angry in the voice chat because you want to play as a big monkey instead of forming the most lethal, efficient team composition to fight the other team. Some of the most frustrating yet funny moments in TF2 were when every asshole was a sniper or a spy and lost the match. Like, sorry man. I just want to blast some guys off the cliff. You worry about the cart
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
There's no wrong way to play a video game.
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 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
but in terms of dynamic art, "you are only meant to win" is itself an arbitrary limitation
Sirlin is explicitly and directly writing for people trying to get better at whatever street fighter was being played at the time of writing and it applies slightly less directly to people trying to win at any contest.
I agree that libs are playing with an imaginary set of rules that they made up themselves, but there’s things like gerrymandering that are actually illegal that conservatives still do. I’m more of a competitive card gamer, so let me put my analogy I those terms - if a card was vague on its use case and an official clarification was sent re: the specific use case, but a player kept playing the illegal use case. You should call in a ref and complain.
However, there are other things that aren’t specifically written in the rules that they should do but don’t for “morality” sake like attacking their opponents directly in speeches.
The problem with these sorts of analogies is that they break down when applied to politics. If the card's rules are vague and a player is trying to cheat on them, it also turns out that player is one of the refs, and also was the one who designed the card in the first place. And when you try to bring this up with the other ref, they just shrug and say "well I don't want to give an unfair ruling, what if I was in that situation and they ruled that my move was illegal? Better to just let them do what they want."
Following the law when you don't have to and it's counter productive to victory is one of the made up rules Libs follow for no sensible reason. The law is a weapon for hurting your enemies, not some kind of moral code you're obligated to adhere to.
I've been curling in the winter for the last few years, and I guess you could call me a "scrub" in that I'm not "playing to win" so to speak. Recently people have started using stopwatches to measure the precise speed of the rock, which sort of puts a pressure on everyone else to play that way because it gives you an advantage. I don't care about losing but sometimes my team does. Personally, the reason I do curling and no other sports is precisely because it's so un-tryhard and no one is trying to prove anything. If you want to play that way with others who also want to play that way, then have at it, but where does that leave me? Not wanting to make this feel like a job is just as valid. I'm not trying to invalidate your wins but the more pressure you put on to win the stuffier and more unfun the game becomes for me.
This is particularly raw for me since I was playing a tournament this weekend where I teamed up with a couple out-of-towners who clearly looked down their noses at our dinky curling club. I never advertised myself as a professional curler, yet I found myself getting a dressing down from this smug sanctimonious asshole about how it's bad etiquette to move when someone is trying to throw, and that I should never set up the opponent's rock for them because I could be tampering with it. No, how about fuck that. I've been curling at this club for 5 years. How about I tell you what the etiquette is here? You aren't some authority or better than us because you hale from a fancier curling club. Then after said dressing down he had a temper tantrum and stormed off, because the other team's skip.. leaned over while he was throwing the rock. I don't know, that's not any etiquette I'd like to emulate.
My point is that an event I look forward to all year was ruined for me by a tryhard asshole telling me my way of playing is wrong, so I guess I'm a "scrub" or whatever I don't care. Where's the sport I'm allowed to participate in without getting browbeaten for not properly researching optimal this or new technique that? It wasn't hockey, it wasn't bowling, it clearly won't be curling for much longer. I've given plenty of space for "tryhards" to do their thing but when do the "scrubs" get to stand their ground and have a silly little game to ourselves?
I'm not a competitive person. I don't get it. I don't want to be forced to get it. I came here to play a silly friendly game with zero stakes, and stay active??
Who knows what objective the scrub has, but we know his objective is not truly to win. Yours is. Your objective is good and right and true, and let no one tell you otherwise. You have the power to dispatch those who would tell you otherwise, anyway. Simply beat them.
I won therefore my opinion is more valid than yours
I've read that Playing to Win manual a while back. Its main flaw is that it's too myoptic. If you apply "playing to win" to your standing within the FGC and not just winning a particular tournament or even winrate, then suddenly you can't just (ab)use a character that the community widely considers to be cheap or braindead without suffering some loss in legitimacy. You can't just farm W's by purposely avoiding tournaments where all the good pros go. W's are not all equal. And if you use a cheap/braindead/easymode character, then you would have to take the initiative to make the case before the community that the character isn't actually so cheap/braindead/easymode in order to fight off people attempting to delegitimize your W's.
With gaming this imaginary rules stuff makes no sense. For example, those people that demand everyone play Call of duty or Battlefield infantry game modes with only guns. The reason explosives like grenade launchers exist in these shooter games is to root out campers and strongholds and balance the game that way! They have a purpose even in infantry only gameplay. The developers are not stupid. Sure it can be used in a "noob tube" fashion, but that's why the ammunition for these explosive weapons is very limited.
