Competitive Games

[regisman]

A couple of recent conversations, games, and LJ entries have led me to think a bit about the way I play games. Basically, I always play to win. I'd rather have a game be intense, difficult, stressful, and time-consuming, with all players working hard to beat the others than be laid-back and amusing. That's not to say that the latter doesn't have

Comments

[willskyfall]

Count me among the competitive: I tend to appreciate games where one plays to win more than lightly paced games. I think that the vast potential of energy that can be applied towards Victory is one of the great gifts of the human race.

(Which is not to say that competition doesn't come with a price. But I consider the benefits of the competitive drive to outweight the risks.)

In my book, however, some actions taken in the pursuit of Victory have effects far outside the scope of the original contest. The drive to win must be balanced with an appreciation for the consequences of pursuing victory by any means necessary.

If I wanted to always win at Starcraft, for example, I'd install a map hack on my computer, and always know what my opponent was doing. It would be hard, given my current skill level (which is not Tristan-level, but is also not too shabby) to lose while doing this, and if I played with people on B.net who might never play me twice, I might actually get away with it. But it would have many side-effects:

• If it were discovered that I regularly used map hacks, my credibility would be utterly shot. That might not matter so much online, but if I were to routinely use a map-hack in dorm, for example, I would certainly feel the disgust of my opponents when they found me out.
  
• I would be robbing myself of any inherent challenge in the game: part of the thrill of competition is the real chance of losing, and when that thrill is not present all that really remains are the more sociopathic aspects of victory--dominance over another. I'd rather not play like that.
  

I'm not exactly sure how this turned into a defense of morality, but I guess my point is that to be Real, a win must be clean. That doesn't prohibit cutthroat playing . . . it just prohibits cheating and dishonorable conduct. I know these concepts are very much subjective, but even so I think them to be excruciatingly important.

Interestingly enough, I'd almost always rather play against someone better than worse, because it's a better challenge. Also, more is gained from beating a better player than can be lost by losing to them, where the opposite is true when playing someone worse than you.

So very true! Hell, I would rather lose a good game than win a mediocre one; a close game brings out levels of ability within myself that otherwise lie untapped, and there is no shame in losing once those levels have been reached.

And I will happily take you on, Dan, in any venue that you and I believe we could be evenly or near-evenly matched.

[willskyfall]

For the record, I'm not accusing you of anything, Dan. The above post was more erudite and thought-provoking in my head than on paper.

I guess it's a distinguishment between "cutthroat" and "out of line," and it really depends on the competition, the people involved, and a number of other psychological aspects. It's a subject that I've been struggling with for a while now (a universal excuse for ethics/morality), and it sorta happened to creep into the above.

Actually, I wonder if this place [Mudd] is extra-hard on people who play to win. Suddenly, winning just got a lot harder and a lot more subjective.

[regisman]

No worries; I found the comment interesting and didn't take offense in the least. I also agree with most, if not all, of your analysis there. Personally, I do draw a line past which I won't go to win (sometimes it stops only for direct cheating, sometimes sooner).

My general views on ethics, though, may get a post of their own at some point, but I'm not going to rant at length on them now. =o]

As for Mudd being hard on people who play to win, I think that's a double-edged sword. It may be harder on us, but the competition is generally better.