My thoughts on playing to win

[RCIX]

So I'm sure most of you have read Playing to Win. If not, do read it now. It'll change the way you think of competitive gaming.

Now, I have a couple beefs with it. Posting those objections in the comment section there merely gets me a fairly curt/rude "shut up you have no idea what you're talking about" from Sirlin (), I figured I'd slap them up somewhere where people were more intelligent+willing to debate calmly


The Akuma example.

Sirlin defends the competitive Akuma ban over and over in the comments, but unfortunately his defense comes down to "ur wrong it isn't just a matter of scale". If you don't have a signed written statement from the original Super Turbo Street Fighters stating that Akuma Is Not An Intended Part Of The Game, it is a matter of scale.

Akuma is a boss character, never meant to be played on even ground with the other characters.

I'm sorry, how do you know that? Maybe the developers weren't too bright and left it in anyway. Maybe the devs left it in for the lulz. Maybe it never was intended to be used. You can't know this though, and if you can then kindly present written proof of this. As he argues, one should do everything possible that doesn't explicitly violate competition rules. The only reason you can't pull out Akuma is, guess what, people banned it because it's too cheap.

In the mailbag article though, he seems to argue that bans are fine when warranted (i.e. reduces gameplay depth), he just does a really horrible job getting past his talking-down-to-"scrubs" tirade.


General tone:
He talks down to anyone who isn't doing everything they can to win, and the impression I get is that somehow he thinks that winning at all costs is a "purer fun" of some kind. Oh no wait, that's not an impression, he flat out said that:

magine a majestic mountain nirvana of gaming. At its peak are fulfillment, "fun", and even transcendence. Most people could care less about this mountain peak, because they have other life issues that are more important to them, and other peaks to pursue. There are few, though, who are not at this peak, but who would be very happy there. These are the people I'm talking to. Some of them don't need any help; they're on the journey. Most, though, only believe they are on that journey but actually are not. They got stuck in a chasm at the mountain's base, a land of scrubdom. Here they are imprisoned in their own mental constructs of made up game rules. If they could only cross this chasm, they would discover either a very boring plateau (for a degenerate game) or the heavenly enchanted mountain peak (for a "deep" game). In the former case, crossing the chasm would teach them to find a different mountain with more fulfilling rewards. In the latter case, well, they'd just be happier. All "playing to win" was supposed to be is the process of shedding the mental constructs that trap players in the chasm who would be happier at the mountain peak.

You could be up there. I don't think there's any internet connections up there, though.

This brings us to point 3 from way back ("there are more things to life than winning"). A lot of people get rubbed the wrong way by this stuff because they think I want to apply "playing to win" to everyone. I don't. It's not that I think everyone should or would want to be on that peak. There are other peaks in life, probably better ones. But those who are stuck in the chasm really should know their positions and how to reach a happier place.

Thanks for all the responses.

If that isn't one huge contradiction, I don't know what. Rambling on about how all the true competitors are on their way to a majestic sparkling peak of pure fun-ness and everyone else is stuck in a dark chasm of scrubdom at the base of the mountain in one paragraph and trying to bail out of it by saying "it's okay if you don't want to climb out of your dark pit your poor scrub" in the next just makes you look more like a jerk. =/

[Mánagarmr]

It's his PoV, not much you can do about it. It's like this in any game that generally the competitive community looks down on "pubbies" that just play for fun. Me I'm something of both. I'm pubbing with my friends and having fun doing it, but I'm also playing PuGs (pick-up games) with competitive players and trying to get into a team, and when I'm in THOSE games, I don't hold back, I don't pass up on "op" weapons. I play to win and I walk over corpses to do so.

There's a difference of environment that I don't think this guy can even see. Also, just because you're murdering your opposition when you play to win doesn't mean you have to be a jerk IRL. That's the one thing I really disagree with him about.

[Wingflier]

Personally, I agree with Sirlin.  I think most professional gamers would agree with Sirlin.

This brings us to point 3 from way back ("there are more things to life than winning"). A lot of people get rubbed the wrong way by this stuff because they think I want to apply "playing to win" to everyone. I don't. It's not that I think everyone should or would want to be on that peak. There are other peaks in life, probably better ones. But those who are stuck in the chasm really should know their positions and how to reach a happier place.

Thanks for all the responses.

If that isn't one huge contradiction, I don't know what. Rambling on about how all the true competitors are on their way to a majestic sparkling peak of pure fun-ness and everyone else is stuck in a dark chasm of scrubdom at the base of the mountain in one paragraph and trying to bail out of it by saying "it's okay if you don't want to climb out of your dark pit your poor scrub" in the next just makes you look more like a jerk. =/

I don't think you understand what he's trying to say.

At face value, this article is simply a meditation on "playing to win", and why you should do it too.  However, if you read between the lines, you'll realize that what this article is really talking about is being passionate about something.  He's saying that you won't truly be getting enjoyment out of your video games unless you are passionate about them.  Video games aren't the only kind of passion.  You can be passionate about many different things:  Music, Art, Love, Mountain Climbing, or whatever else.  Sirlin is passionate about video games.  In his mind, to reach the pinnacle of your own ability in a competitive game is nirvana, and those stuck in the "primitive" casual mindset simply don't understand that.

When he talks about there being "better peaks" out there, he simply means that there are probably better things in life to be passionate about.  Personally, I agree with him.  My passion is a beautiful woman who I think about constantly, and who, when I'm with, all my problems melt away and I enter into a blissful state of nirvana.  Nothing else can replicate this feeling that she gives me.

If you don't understand why he defends "playing to win" so vehemently, then you don't understand a human's capacity for passion.  Let's change the topic:  Pretend we're talking about music.  Somebody who loves music raves about Beethoven and Mozart, and all the skilled musicians and composers that have come before, then you seriously compare them to a Justin Bieber song you heard on the radio.  Okay, you've got to understand the sacrilege you've just committed here.  You've compared Justin Bieber to Mozart or Chopin.  You've compared a shitty casual artist to one of the greatest musicians of all time.  Can you not understand why that person would be upset?

Or what if, when speaking with an artist, you compared an amateur painting to the Mona Lisa?  Can you not understand why that person would be upset?

You can say that Sirlin or the people in my examples are elitists, but we are ALL elitists when it comes to things we really love; we all put things we're passionate about on a pedestal.  Can you find any man who says that his wife is just as pretty or wonderful as any other wife?  That she's not superior or better at all, just average and regular like the rest, maybe special in her own way?  No loving husband thinks like this.

Can you get a religious person to agree that HIS God is equal to the Gods of all the other religions?  No, his God is the best God, all the other ones are false or inferior.

Sirlin is saying:  People who complain about something being "cheap" in a video game, or who are not playing to their full potential, simply do not understand the beauty of gaming.  If you don't understand what he's saying, then you are simply not passionate enough about games (i.e. casual gamer) to grasp his message.  And like he says, that's okay!  There are probably things in your life that you're passionate about that most people wouldn't understand either.

I'm not as passionate about video games as I am about the one I love, but when somebody compares League of Legends to DotA, it makes me cringe.  To me, it's like the aforementioned blasphemies of comparing an amateur painting to the Mona Lisa, or Justin Bieber to Mozart.  In your untrained and inexperienced mind, you may not be able to see the small but important distinctions; but I can, and the comparison itself is insulting.

[keith.lamothe]

Mainly what the articles make me think of is the difference between total war and limited war.

Fighting to win?  Firebomb the civilians.  Gas the enemy troops.  Take prisoners only when there is sufficient probability of intelligence gains.  Use as much torture as necessary.  Probably, depends on the PR situation.

Don't want to do those things?  Well, it might be a PR ploy, or it could be that winning is not your primary motivator.  That some ways of winning would be worse than losing.


Of course, the "it's just a game" distinction is pretty decisive; I'm not saying the guy would advocate that kind of approach in real life, it's just what came to mind.

[LaughingThesaurus]

Wingflier, an objection that I have to that is just that I only aspire to get better over time. I prefer winning, but if it's not fun to climb that mountain, I'm certainly not going to even bother doing that. If I don't like something, I'm not likely to end up using it, even if it is the "dominant" way to play. Does that mean I'm a scrub? I'm pretty good at games, I just don't like being pigeonholed into specific rules and most efficient ways to dominate. At that point, nothing is fun anymore to me. At no point, for anything I love and am passionate about, would I let competitive spirit control my style. I live for who I am, and if I don't have to wavedash, I don't have to wavedash. If I want to play an overpowered character one day, I certainly will.
I don't try to dominate the leaderboards, if I'm top 100 or something I'll be happy. You can have just a little competitive spirit, can't you?
It's like keith said, but if gassing the enemy troops fits in with what I feel like doing, I'll do it. Otherwise I'll experiment with other toys to find fun, efficient ways to do what I need to do (metaphorically). But, just because the 'fighting to win' list is all the best things to do, doesn't mean I will be doing all of em. Winning is not my primary motivator and I wouldn't have it any other way.

[madcow]

Since Arcen's games are all mostly co-op style, I'm sure the responses here will be different from ultracompetitive game boards (like a moba's forum). It's kind of a bizarre "if Ayn Rand wrote how to play video games" article.

Personally, I play games for fun not to win. Sometimes playing to win can be fun, but not always. I'll never be able to stick to a single game to hone it to champion edge, and I'm okay with that.

[keith.lamothe]

It's kind of a bizarre "if Ayn Rand wrote how to play video games" article.

There is that vibe, yea

[Hearteater]

Amusingly like philosophy, when reading stuff like this, it is important to separate the writings and concepts from the author.  The author may be flawed (and being human, actually always is), but that doesn't mean they can't bring your attention to interesting and insightful ideas.  So take what he, or Rand , has written as something to consider and enrich your understanding of the topic, and don't worry over much about the person themselves.  Because no one is perfect.  Sirlin/Rand absolute has made incorrect statements, even defending concepts in their own writing without realizing it.  If you focus on this too much you end up mentally invalidating all their work because they make a mistake elsewhere.

On Akuma in specific, he isn't a matter of scale because he negates all other characters.  If you don't play Akuma and are facing Akuma, it doesn't matter who you pick.  You've got zero chance of winning.  Akuma's power effectively hits the ceiling.  You can't say Akuma is twice as powerful as another character, or any other number; he is infinitely more powerful.  This is assuming both players are pros of course.

[Wingflier]

@LT,  I'll have more time to respond to the rest of your post later, (on my phone currently), but I think you misinterpreted Sirlin's article. He's not calling every casual gamer a scrub, he's calling casual gamers who complain about "stupid", "broken",  and cheap tactics in competitive games scrubs.

The second part is about the pure nirvana of challenging yourself as a gamer, and how casual gamers are missing out in his opinion. He doesn't mean to say all casual gamers are stupid.

In the Buddhist Theology, finding Enlightenment is the only path to peace and happiness. But they don't look down on people who aren't seeking enlightenment, they probably just feel sorry for them. Now imagine if someone started down the long and arduous path of Enlightenment, suppressing their desires and unlearning everything they were taught about the world. What if they turned to their fellow Buddhist monks and said, "This Enlightenment thing sucks, I haven't had sex or alcohol in months and it's too freaking hard!"

That person would look like kind of an idiot wouldn't he? Enlightenment is completely voluntary. It's pretty much the same with casual gamers complaining about hardcore games. They sound like scrubs.

[zespri]

Sirilin is famous for antagonizing part of his player base. So although I have not read the article - no surprise here. This thread is no longer exist, but when it did I watched in awe how he tried to convinced everyone that this is correct to penalize players of his game who bought it from a distributor he signed a contract with as opposed to direct purchase from him! (I'm talking about Yomi).

As a sideline, I don't like card war-games with high influence of luck as a rule, but somehow, I fell in love with Yomi. I can't explain this. I have no idea why this game clicked with me so well, it has everything I normally do not like.

[keith.lamothe]

@LT,  I'll have more time to respond to the rest of your post later, (on my phone currently), but I think you misinterpreted Sirlin's article. He's not calling every casual gamer a scrub, he's calling casual gamers who complain about "stupid", "broken",  and cheap tactics in competitive games scrubs.

It's a bit more general than that:

The derogatory term “scrub” means several different things. One definition is someone (especially a game player) who is not good at something (especially a game). By this definition, we all start out as scrubs, and there is certainly no shame in that. I mean the term differently, though. A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win.

Now, everyone begins as a poor player—it takes time to learn a game to get to a point where you know what you’re doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to play or “learn” the game, one can become a top player. In reality, the “scrub” has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the game. The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He’s lost the game even before deciding which game to play. His problem? He does not play to win.

The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant.

He then goes on to give the example of people finding certain tactics "cheap" in SSF, but that's just an example of the general phenomenon.  There are also two sides: those additional rules one places on oneself ("I don't enjoy denying creeps in DotA") and those additional rules one expects other players (specifically, opponents) to follow too ("hey! you denied one of my creep kills!").  I agree that the latter, in an environment where those rules are not understood and agreed upon beforehand (thus just making it a different game), is... well, pretty rude.  Some good-natured ribbing is called for when someone fusses at someone else for playing a game as it was designed.  The former is just finding something more enjoyable than the game as it was designed.  But I think both fall under the above definition from the article.

[madcow]

@Hearteater - I've nothing against Rand personally and don't know anything about Sirilin. I've read the Fountainhead (though not atlas shrugged), my point was more that I found it very -weird- to see the same sort of points summarized in an article about video games

[zespri]

I've read the Fountainhead (though not atlas shrugged), my point was more that I found it very -weird- to see the same sort of points summarized in an article about video games

I have not read the above, I just played Bioshock =)

[zebramatt]

It's long been my philosophy to play to have a good time. Sometimes that might mean winning, other times it might mean losing. But it always means having fun. If "winning" at video games were simply "being able to derive the maximum possible amount of fun" from them, then I'm always winning, all the time.

Sometimes this philosophy will prove incompatible with certain varieties of gaming - or, more specifically, certain people with whom I might have to play. I'm a pluralist though, so I expect that sort of thing. Some people get off on being the best. If I can play with them and still have fun, great stuff. If, however, their drive to be the best clouds - in my eyes only, you understand - their ability to acknowledge that I am not so concerned with winning as I am with having fun, then inevitably we will reach a philosophical impasse. That's fine, I think. There are plenty of other games I can play; and plenty of other people to play them with!

[Wingflier]

I honestly don't think he's trying to insult people, he's just an aggressive writer like I am, and he comes off as an asshole.  His posts have a lot of shock value, and while you may or may not agree with his methods, you can't argue with his results.  As a gamer, I've seen that article posted dozens of times throughout many different forums.  It's definitely sparked a lot of controversy and debate over what makes a gamer, and I think that kind of critical thinking is good, especially in our hyper-sensitive, over formulaic game design society.

I feel the same way about Ayn Rand.  She insults the vast majority of the world by so easily dismissing faith and religion, but you can't argue with her results.  She's one of the most influential people of the 20th Century.

Sometimes the debate and controversy a message stirs is more important than the message itself.  I think Sirlin has a very important message, even if it's bound to piss off a lot of people.