Playing to win?
Recently, I've been giving some thought to the David Sirlin article series, 'Playing To Win'. Sirlin makes a number of points in the articles- I'll summarize them here, for ease of discussion (heh, as though anyone reads this thing...). The links to the full articles- including the third, which makes the same point I make- are included at the bottom of this post. I write this as a way of generating some (maybe?) interesting or insightful discussion on the topics mentioned (or at least getting some insight into a psyche not my own), and as a way of introducing the articles to new people.
Part 1
1) The Scrub. The Scrub is anyone who does NOT play to win. As defined, 99% of all players of all games are scrubs. However, the Scrub as described in the Sirlin article is a little different. One who merely does not play to win is not a capital S Scrub. That honour appears to be reserved for those who think they are playing to win, or are playing well, but are bound by an internal set of rules and restrictions so that they only play a subset of the game that others are playing. An example might be a fighting game player who never throws (guilty as charged...) or anyone who decries a winning strategy or plan being repeated as 'cheap'. Discussion- are you a scrub? Does the idea offend you even if you are not? Related note: is turning items off in Smash Brothers competitive play Scrubby behaviour? (I've spoken at length with a friend on this, playing Devil's Advocate. I happen to think it is.)
2) Doing It Wrong vs Lack of Depth: There are two reasons one might not enjoy a game at high level play (according to Mr. Sirlin. I imagine there might be more, but they could probably all be categorized under one of the following in his eyes). The first reason is due to the Scrubbitude of the player- you can't handle the play, so it ain't no fun. The second reason is that of lack of depth- if a game lacks competitive depth, then it won't be fun at top level for anyone. Unfortunately, the two are similar, and it takes some practice to figure out which is which.
3) There are Boundaries: This is an odd one. Basically, if a bug exists in the game that gives an advantage to those that use it, do so. Combos in Street Fighter were a bug, as were many other systems now known and loved. Wavedashing in Smash Brothers is a controversial example. Basically, the idea here is to see them as 'unintended features' that are there to be enjoyed. However, if one of these completely (and he does mean completely) breaks the game, then don't do it. If something would make an otherwise balanced and deep game shallow and unbalanced, it's probably not a good idea. Akuma, a secret character in Super Street Fighter Turbo, was unbeatable by virtually every character, and thus ban-worthy. The matter of ban-worthiness is a bit of a grey area, and I would welcome discussion on this point in the comments- how good does a character have to be before they need a ban? On an only marginally related note, how bad does a character have to be before one would be OK with a patch increasing their power?
Part 2- Mr. Sirlin responds to some of the complaints with respect to the first article.
1) Stay within the confines of the game. No kicking your opponent in the shins to win a race, no using illegal drugs to win at the Olympics, and no hacking the game or using cheat codes to win at video games. Some grey area points of interest occur here, mostly to do with Magic. For example (discussion time...), what level of 'playing the player' is acceptable? Is acting oddly (perching on your chair, chattering during a match) to put your opponent off his A game permissible, or even a good idea? What about turning all your cards upside down to disorient him? (I will use the male pronoun in this post because most competitive events of anything I've been to (save Reach For The Top) were male dominated.) Discussion would be interesting.
2) What deserves a ban or should be banned? In some competitive games, a ban is easy. In Magic, for example, plays are made with discrete elements like cards, and thus individual cards judged to harm the game can be removed. In fighting games (the basis the article was written on), it's not so easy. Strategies are not discrete (what constitutes abuse? Throwing 4 times in a row? 5? etc.) and thus nigh-impossible to ban and difficult to enforce.
3) Case study: roll canceling. Roll Canceling in Capcom vs. SNK 2 was one of those delightful 'unintended features' that allowed one to cancel a ground roll (which, similar to the Smash Brothers series, will make you invincible for the duration of the roll and move you around) during the first 1/12 of a second of the roll. If one used the cancel to turn the roll into a special move (like a fireball) or a super move (like one of those big flashy combos) then one could retain the roll's invincibility properties into the execution of the move. Before a major tournament, there was considerable discussion in the high level play community about what would happen with respect to this discovery. Some believed that if one could beat an opponent before they could roll cancel, one could beat them after. Some believed that the roll canceling mirror match would still be a game (here and afterwards, 'the game' or 'a game', when unclear, is used to refer to 'the deep and skill-rewarding competitive game). Some believed roll-canceling would make the game explode. At a tournament, the roll-canceling players curbstomped those who did not roll-cancel, including better players. Yet, those who continued to play the game afterwards claimed that 'the game' did still exist in a worthy form, merely a different one. Discussion: Is it worth continuing to play the game after such a huge paradigm shift? Would you continue, given the above circumstances (assuming the remaining tourney players are correct)? When will Vinay stop writing this as though it were a Lit class assignment?
4)'Playing Down': Let us say you are playing a game of skill with your girlfriend, and you are far better than her. Should you play down to (or at least closer to) her level? Sirlin seems to equate this with being stuck on a desert island with only one game to play with only one opponent, doomed never to improve. (At the very least, it seems insulting to think one's girlfriend will never improve.) Mr. Sirlin then brings up an (apocryphal, apparently) story of a Street Fighter tournament calibre player who, in the story, gave his all against every opponent, irrespective of skill level. If a 9 year old girl sat down at the opposite cabinet, he would proceed to 'stutter step, throw' (presumably a high level tactic, I am unclear on this point) her into oblivion. Mr. Sirlin postulates that this player was a particularly inspiring one, setting a bar of excellence for people to aspire to, and allowing everyone to experience brilliant play all the time instead of just at tournaments. He further speculates that perhaps the 9-year-old had no business on the machine at all, and by wrecking her, the apocryphal player made room for the opponents he should have been facing. He forstalls the avalanche of hate mail by pointing out and accepting some flaws in this idea- that 1)playing like this eliminates people from your (non-infinite) list of opponents, which may leave you playing against the computer eventually, and 2) If everyone played games this way, no-one would ever be able to learn them.
I feel that Mr. Sirlin's emphasis on playing to win, as in admiring the hypothetical tourney player going all out against a 9-year-old girl, may be counterproductive. If one is playing to learn, then this achieves nothing. The technically perfect play that one has mastered will not gain one any insight in its application against a trivial opponent. That would be the time to try something new, and learn new facets of the game, as they may come in handy one day. Mr. Sirlin himself addresses this point in the third part of the series, which might be much more important reading than the first. In it, he covers why 'playing to win' may not always be the best idea- it robs one of the possibility of trying new things and learning more about the game. It seems, then, that 'playing to win' may not always be the right idea, but 'playing to learn' certainly is. In situations where a win would be otherwise certain, one can gamble it to help one learn more about the game one is playing as a whole (and what gambles might be useful in the future). In games where the outcome is uncertain, the way to learn is to try one's level best to win, as that will teach you what will and will not work in any situation you are in. Every failure in such a situation is a lesson to be learned, and every success a lesson successfully learned. This view was espoused in every article, but is sadly only the focus in one.
The first two articles of this series (linked below) rub a number of people the wrong way. Part of this may be the tone of the articles themselves, which talked down to scrubs and non-competitive types pretty hard. If this summary is your first exposure to the articles, they may make you angry, too. However, the final notes of the first two articles and the third article in its entirety present a more palatable (to my eye) alternative-the prospect of playing to learn. I don't know if this last point could be emphasized enough- winning is simply a means of keeping score. The enjoyment in the game is in getting better. I see fighting games, at least, as a sort of endless game to see how to improve one's play, to continue to keep the game fun. You beat them with a certain tactic, then they beat that, then you beat that, and so on, like a revolving game of rock-paper scissors.
Non-competitive types may disagree on this point, and investigating that is part of the reason I'm writing all this crap down. I'd like to know what drives people that play competitive games in a non-competitive way vs. those who play them in a competitive way. Some people I've talked to simply say that they're not interested in winning or improving, which is fair, I guess. If one doesn't intend to play the game frequently, then there's no reason to do so. However, I don't understand that viewpoint from those who would play a game regularly. I'd like to hear your input on this matter and on the other points of discussion above. I apologize for the incoherence (this was written in a single pass with minimal editing), and thanks for reading and hopefully commenting.
www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html
www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-2-mailbag.html
www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-3-not-playing-to-win.html
Part 1
1) The Scrub. The Scrub is anyone who does NOT play to win. As defined, 99% of all players of all games are scrubs. However, the Scrub as described in the Sirlin article is a little different. One who merely does not play to win is not a capital S Scrub. That honour appears to be reserved for those who think they are playing to win, or are playing well, but are bound by an internal set of rules and restrictions so that they only play a subset of the game that others are playing. An example might be a fighting game player who never throws (guilty as charged...) or anyone who decries a winning strategy or plan being repeated as 'cheap'. Discussion- are you a scrub? Does the idea offend you even if you are not? Related note: is turning items off in Smash Brothers competitive play Scrubby behaviour? (I've spoken at length with a friend on this, playing Devil's Advocate. I happen to think it is.)
2) Doing It Wrong vs Lack of Depth: There are two reasons one might not enjoy a game at high level play (according to Mr. Sirlin. I imagine there might be more, but they could probably all be categorized under one of the following in his eyes). The first reason is due to the Scrubbitude of the player- you can't handle the play, so it ain't no fun. The second reason is that of lack of depth- if a game lacks competitive depth, then it won't be fun at top level for anyone. Unfortunately, the two are similar, and it takes some practice to figure out which is which.
3) There are Boundaries: This is an odd one. Basically, if a bug exists in the game that gives an advantage to those that use it, do so. Combos in Street Fighter were a bug, as were many other systems now known and loved. Wavedashing in Smash Brothers is a controversial example. Basically, the idea here is to see them as 'unintended features' that are there to be enjoyed. However, if one of these completely (and he does mean completely) breaks the game, then don't do it. If something would make an otherwise balanced and deep game shallow and unbalanced, it's probably not a good idea. Akuma, a secret character in Super Street Fighter Turbo, was unbeatable by virtually every character, and thus ban-worthy. The matter of ban-worthiness is a bit of a grey area, and I would welcome discussion on this point in the comments- how good does a character have to be before they need a ban? On an only marginally related note, how bad does a character have to be before one would be OK with a patch increasing their power?
Part 2- Mr. Sirlin responds to some of the complaints with respect to the first article.
1) Stay within the confines of the game. No kicking your opponent in the shins to win a race, no using illegal drugs to win at the Olympics, and no hacking the game or using cheat codes to win at video games. Some grey area points of interest occur here, mostly to do with Magic. For example (discussion time...), what level of 'playing the player' is acceptable? Is acting oddly (perching on your chair, chattering during a match) to put your opponent off his A game permissible, or even a good idea? What about turning all your cards upside down to disorient him? (I will use the male pronoun in this post because most competitive events of anything I've been to (save Reach For The Top) were male dominated.) Discussion would be interesting.
2) What deserves a ban or should be banned? In some competitive games, a ban is easy. In Magic, for example, plays are made with discrete elements like cards, and thus individual cards judged to harm the game can be removed. In fighting games (the basis the article was written on), it's not so easy. Strategies are not discrete (what constitutes abuse? Throwing 4 times in a row? 5? etc.) and thus nigh-impossible to ban and difficult to enforce.
3) Case study: roll canceling. Roll Canceling in Capcom vs. SNK 2 was one of those delightful 'unintended features' that allowed one to cancel a ground roll (which, similar to the Smash Brothers series, will make you invincible for the duration of the roll and move you around) during the first 1/12 of a second of the roll. If one used the cancel to turn the roll into a special move (like a fireball) or a super move (like one of those big flashy combos) then one could retain the roll's invincibility properties into the execution of the move. Before a major tournament, there was considerable discussion in the high level play community about what would happen with respect to this discovery. Some believed that if one could beat an opponent before they could roll cancel, one could beat them after. Some believed that the roll canceling mirror match would still be a game (here and afterwards, 'the game' or 'a game', when unclear, is used to refer to 'the deep and skill-rewarding competitive game). Some believed roll-canceling would make the game explode. At a tournament, the roll-canceling players curbstomped those who did not roll-cancel, including better players. Yet, those who continued to play the game afterwards claimed that 'the game' did still exist in a worthy form, merely a different one. Discussion: Is it worth continuing to play the game after such a huge paradigm shift? Would you continue, given the above circumstances (assuming the remaining tourney players are correct)? When will Vinay stop writing this as though it were a Lit class assignment?
4)'Playing Down': Let us say you are playing a game of skill with your girlfriend, and you are far better than her. Should you play down to (or at least closer to) her level? Sirlin seems to equate this with being stuck on a desert island with only one game to play with only one opponent, doomed never to improve. (At the very least, it seems insulting to think one's girlfriend will never improve.) Mr. Sirlin then brings up an (apocryphal, apparently) story of a Street Fighter tournament calibre player who, in the story, gave his all against every opponent, irrespective of skill level. If a 9 year old girl sat down at the opposite cabinet, he would proceed to 'stutter step, throw' (presumably a high level tactic, I am unclear on this point) her into oblivion. Mr. Sirlin postulates that this player was a particularly inspiring one, setting a bar of excellence for people to aspire to, and allowing everyone to experience brilliant play all the time instead of just at tournaments. He further speculates that perhaps the 9-year-old had no business on the machine at all, and by wrecking her, the apocryphal player made room for the opponents he should have been facing. He forstalls the avalanche of hate mail by pointing out and accepting some flaws in this idea- that 1)playing like this eliminates people from your (non-infinite) list of opponents, which may leave you playing against the computer eventually, and 2) If everyone played games this way, no-one would ever be able to learn them.
I feel that Mr. Sirlin's emphasis on playing to win, as in admiring the hypothetical tourney player going all out against a 9-year-old girl, may be counterproductive. If one is playing to learn, then this achieves nothing. The technically perfect play that one has mastered will not gain one any insight in its application against a trivial opponent. That would be the time to try something new, and learn new facets of the game, as they may come in handy one day. Mr. Sirlin himself addresses this point in the third part of the series, which might be much more important reading than the first. In it, he covers why 'playing to win' may not always be the best idea- it robs one of the possibility of trying new things and learning more about the game. It seems, then, that 'playing to win' may not always be the right idea, but 'playing to learn' certainly is. In situations where a win would be otherwise certain, one can gamble it to help one learn more about the game one is playing as a whole (and what gambles might be useful in the future). In games where the outcome is uncertain, the way to learn is to try one's level best to win, as that will teach you what will and will not work in any situation you are in. Every failure in such a situation is a lesson to be learned, and every success a lesson successfully learned. This view was espoused in every article, but is sadly only the focus in one.
The first two articles of this series (linked below) rub a number of people the wrong way. Part of this may be the tone of the articles themselves, which talked down to scrubs and non-competitive types pretty hard. If this summary is your first exposure to the articles, they may make you angry, too. However, the final notes of the first two articles and the third article in its entirety present a more palatable (to my eye) alternative-the prospect of playing to learn. I don't know if this last point could be emphasized enough- winning is simply a means of keeping score. The enjoyment in the game is in getting better. I see fighting games, at least, as a sort of endless game to see how to improve one's play, to continue to keep the game fun. You beat them with a certain tactic, then they beat that, then you beat that, and so on, like a revolving game of rock-paper scissors.
Non-competitive types may disagree on this point, and investigating that is part of the reason I'm writing all this crap down. I'd like to know what drives people that play competitive games in a non-competitive way vs. those who play them in a competitive way. Some people I've talked to simply say that they're not interested in winning or improving, which is fair, I guess. If one doesn't intend to play the game frequently, then there's no reason to do so. However, I don't understand that viewpoint from those who would play a game regularly. I'd like to hear your input on this matter and on the other points of discussion above. I apologize for the incoherence (this was written in a single pass with minimal editing), and thanks for reading and hopefully commenting.
www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html
www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-2-mailbag.html
www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-3-not-playing-to-win.html