|
|
Forum Overview
::
Gamerasutra
|
|
|
by Zseni 02/25/2003, 5:28pm PST |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Monty Cantsin wrote:
Zseni wrote:
...The real question under it all though is where is the game? Because it ain't in the same place for mindless Koreans as it is for mindless Americans; it's not in the same place for Kasparov or Sampras as it is for the piker. I want to suggest that not only are the games in different places, they are different games entirely, played for different goals. All the whiny whiteys want to play their particular game and know who is the best at it, but those yellow bastards have taken the gameboard and started doing something completely different and actively destructive to their game. It's not merely a question of high-level and low-level play.
Yeah, I think that a serious game played at a high level is "fun" of a particular kind, if you can even still call it fun at all. It's more like the higher-stakes and less immediately satisfying work-pleasure of a long-term creative, engineering, or theoretical project. High level players are sort of competing with each other to "solve" the game in a way (have I hedged that statement enough?) so it's not surprising that what they do can look like "breaking" the game to a casual player. Sometimes the game needs to be adjusted to compensate for imbalances (between strategies) that threaten to monopolize the gamespace. So, for example, the size and material of allowable tennis rackets and baseball bats, the legality of zone defense in basketball, the material and build-time cost of units in an rts, etc. Nonetheless, I can't imagine complaining about Boris Becker's serve or Babe Ruth's swing. I can't imagine wanting them to hold back for the good of the game, or being contemptuous of them for reducing the set of viable strategies. If you are serious player of game X it's your job to reduce that set, every match is a hypothesis about reducing that set, and your opponent's job is to test that hypothesis to the best of his or her abilities. You can think of that process as a destructive breaking down, or you can think of it as a collaborative carving away that is progressively revealing essential properties of the system.
....but I want to argue that there is more than one system, and that the decision as to which system is the "essential" one is a little arbitrary.
I read the Play To Win articles linked and found them interesting and informative, but at the same time I wondered what would happen if the scrubs had their way and the self-imposed rules because The Rules. I have a particular interest in this because, as you'll recall, I have a vision of a scrub government - purposefully wasteful, existing in the most aesthetically pleasing fashion possible. The self-imposed limitations of video games are different in what way from self-imposed limitations in, for example, language? Write a book without the letter e, restrain yourself to the heroic sextet when writing poetry, that kind of thing. I wonder if it is entirely pat that the best "high-level" player is better than the best scrub player if they are playing by the scrub's rules.
Furthermore the articles fail to mention another kind of play besides scrub and high-end - a type of player more or less covered in your winners-losers dichotomy: the person who plays to win but just isn't very good. That person wants the deeper satisfaction of the high-end player but they just don't have the moves no matter how much they practice or whatever. Shouldn't there be a place in gaming for those people? They might even be playing better than the scrubs, for that matter; why shuck them into the corner? Are their ludic impulses to be forever delimited by their inability?
I guess what I mean by all this is that I don't agree that there is necessarily a system with essential properties etc. at all. That's only one way of looking at it, and I'd like to postulate the langauge-model as another one. Also just as Ray was talking about metagames, what about the metagame of determining the scrub rules? It just seems unnecessarily limiting to talk about it as though Street Fighter can only ever be Street Fighter, even though I see how sensible and workable and practical it is. |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Why I hate RTS and how to make the greatest one EVAR by Tom-Foolery Constructor 02/21/2003, 2:29pm PST 
Re: Why I hate RTS and how to make the greatest one EVAR by FABIO 02/21/2003, 7:23pm PST 
What's wrong with rock/paper/scissors? by FoK 02/23/2003, 9:37pm PST 
Re: What's wrong with rock/paper/scissors? by FABIO 02/23/2003, 11:01pm PST 
Re: What's wrong with rock/paper/scissors? by fok 02/23/2003, 11:11pm PST 
Did you even read the initial post? by Senor Barborito 02/23/2003, 11:10pm PST 
Yeah... by fok 02/24/2003, 12:57am PST 
you just rebuted yourself by FABIO 02/24/2003, 10:04am PST 
I think it was pretty obvious what I was saying, dumbass by Senor Barborito 02/24/2003, 10:17am PST 
Willful Misunderstanding by Mr. Palomar 02/24/2003, 12:39pm PST 
Re: I think it was pretty obvious what I was saying, dumbass by FABIO 02/24/2003, 2:24pm PST 
Re: I think it was pretty obvious what I was saying, dumbass by FABIO 02/24/2003, 2:26pm PST 
I did answer you, dumbass. Christ you're thick. by Senor Barborito 02/24/2003, 11:38pm PST 
Re: I did answer you, dumbass. Christ you're thick. by FABIO 02/25/2003, 10:56am PST 
Re: I did answer you, dumbass. Christ you're thick. by Senor Barborito 02/25/2003, 7:16pm PST 
Fixed quotes. And hopefully clarified for the final time here. by Senor Barborito 02/25/2003, 7:24pm PST 
JU-LIE! JU-LIE! JU-LIE! -nt- by Bill Dungsroman 02/26/2003, 5:21pm PST 
Re: JU-LIE! JU-LIE! JU-LIE! -nt- by FABIO 02/26/2003, 9:24pm PST 
Re: I think it was pretty obvious what I was saying, dumbass by Ice Cream Jonsey 02/24/2003, 3:25pm PST 
RE: I think it was pretty obvious what I was saying, dumbass by Alternate789 02/24/2003, 4:16pm PST 
Re: I think it was pretty obvious what I was saying, dumbass by curst 02/24/2003, 11:16pm PST 
Re: Did you even read the initial post? by Monty Cantsin 02/25/2003, 1:40am PST 
That was easily the stupidest thing you have ever written by Senor Barborito 02/25/2003, 2:16am PST 
Re: That was easily the stupidest thing you have ever written by Zseni 02/25/2003, 2:35am PST 
Koreans: fast index fingers? by Fussbett 02/25/2003, 4:17am PST 
No, fast min-max by Senor Barborito 02/25/2003, 7:22am PST 
Re: No, fast min-max by ValiumAddict 02/25/2003, 3:39pm PST 
Re: No, fast min-max by TehFieryBalrog 07/05/2007, 9:36pm PDT 
Re: That was easily the stupidest thing you have ever written by Monty Cantsin 02/25/2003, 4:44pm PST 
Re: Did you even read the initial post? by Zseni 02/25/2003, 2:26am PST 
Re: Did you even read the initial post? by Monty Cantsin 02/25/2003, 4:20pm PST 
Re: Did you even read the initial post? by Zseni 02/25/2003, 5:28pm PST 
Queneau plays Black and White by Mr. Palomar 02/25/2003, 5:59pm PST 
Re: Did you even read the initial post? by Monty Cantsin 02/25/2003, 7:35pm PST 
Re: Did you even read the initial post? by TehFieryBalrog 07/05/2007, 9:40pm PDT 
If you're going to respond to 2003 you could get the title right. NT by Soul Calibur 07/05/2007, 9:42pm PDT 
Re: Did you even read the initial post? by Ray, of Light 02/25/2003, 3:39am PST 
I used to win money playing Quake regularly by Senor Barborito 02/25/2003, 7:41am PST 
"See, I'm really good a video games!" by Irritating kid 02/25/2003, 9:20am PST 
Re: "See, I'm really good a video games!" by FABIO 02/25/2003, 11:55am PST 
Hey, that's my line. by Fussbett 02/25/2003, 4:06pm PST 
Video Games, Chess, and Laziness. by mrs. johnson 02/25/2003, 4:40pm PST 
Yes, exactly. by Senor Barborito 02/25/2003, 7:29pm PST 
Re: Yes, exactly. by mark 02/25/2003, 8:36pm PST 
This argument is pretty much over by now, right? by Bodybag 02/25/2003, 9:08pm PST 
There isn't one strategy for chess that will always win NT by Senor Barborito 02/25/2003, 11:49pm PST 
that's guy's a fucking crackpot by FABIO 02/25/2003, 6:35pm PST 
I don't know about suspense games, but much of his strategy talk is dead on-nt- by mark 02/25/2003, 6:51pm PST 
it's all DePalma's fault by jeep 02/25/2003, 7:45pm PST 
Re: it's all DePalma's fault by FABIO 02/25/2003, 10:44pm PST 
Re: "See, I'm really good a video games!" by TehFieryBalrog 07/05/2007, 9:43pm PDT 
This guy is new and already knows SB was crazy and Zseni is bad at everything by Flavilio 07/06/2007, 12:10am PDT 
Battlenet screenname is Balrog200 or soapie on USEast, channel scu NT by TehFieryBalrog 07/07/2007, 12:32am PDT 
alternatively aim screenname is balrog36 NT by TehFieryBalrog 07/07/2007, 12:47am PDT 
^^^ This guy loves balrogs. NT by Any and all balrogs. 07/07/2007, 2:57am PDT 
Re: Did you even read the initial post? by Monty Cantsin 02/25/2003, 5:03pm PST 
You CAN turtle in RA2+YR by Bodybag 02/25/2003, 6:57pm PST 
Re: You CAN turtle in RA2+YR by jeep 02/25/2003, 7:51pm PST 
Re: You CAN turtle in RA2+YR by Bodybag 02/25/2003, 8:17pm PST 
Re: Did you even read the initial post? by Ray, of Light 02/25/2003, 8:00pm PST 
StarScripts are tomorrow's Blueprints by Fussbett 10/30/2006, 11:30pm PST 
|
|
|
|
|