"Competitive" gamers who impede development of a game...
by Pitchblack » Sat Aug 01, 2009 5:23 am
*They stand in my road
.....The mad, ancient nasty things
.......... tell them MOVE! or else!*
.....The mad, ancient nasty things
.......... tell them MOVE! or else!*
-
Pitchblack - Posts: 73
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:59 am
by JoesCrabShack » Sat Aug 01, 2009 5:16 pm
- JoesCrabShack
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 3:01 am
by Stormcaller3801 » Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:25 pm
I had a long, involved post waiting for me to finish an episode of Sanctuary. But I suppose I need to revise it.
First, there's my previous statements, which seem to be flying overhead. So allow me to offer them up in a more allegorical form.
Let's say that there is a group of people. This group of people are within the room of a house. They are aware there are other people in the house, but they do not know how many, and cannot see or communicate with anyone not in the room. People may freely enter and leave the house, as well as the room, at will. How many people are in the house?
It is impossible to determine. At best you can reduce it down to a single variable, X plus the number of people in the room. The same way you cannot say that there are 'few' better players, or no better players, or a thousand better players, than the ones who take part in tournaments. Nor can you say what their motives are. This is one of the basic ideas of science, as well as a wonderful basic element of philosophy- we can only evaluate what we are aware of, and even then we must be aware of the possibility of error in our perception. Anything else is guesswork.
For our second bit, let's make this a bit more in line with the questions at hand. There is a group of people who play a game. This group of people play this game regularly. Almost religiously. If someone paid them it would count as a full time job. Now, this group of people, after a great deal of play, decide a particular trick is unbalanced. So they agree to avoid using it. Then along comes another person who joins this group and uses this trick. They go after this guy for it.
Is this group a bunch of scrubs, or are they a bunch of tournament players? It's impossible to tell- because there's no difference. The only difference offered up is the idea that scrubs limit gameplay based on what they think is cheap- but that's no different than declaring Akuma's off-limits because in this particular group, his air fireball can't be beaten. It doesn't matter what the element is- a character, a maneuver, whatever. There's no appreciable difference unless you decide to create an arbitrary one- such as declaring that tournament play is the best.
I'll give a freebie here- you could then argue that the difference is that the scrubs create a more restrictive gameplay situation than the tournament players. But this creates another problem, because we go back to Akuma again. People who use Akuma, by extension, are restricting gameplay less than the tournament players. Which in turn would suggest that they are the superior ones, and should be listened to. Except that's obviously not acceptable either.
Ultimately there's a simple truth to the whole matter, one I alluded to at the beginning. There are social contracts that exist. These social contracts exist within a given circle of people who play a given game. They have very basic structures in common- not all that different than economics, really- in that you have the masses who play, and those who are in charge- service providers (more specifically, server hosts and game developers). Supply and demand. Each of these groups has to develop their own rules, with the arbiters being those who are offering up the supply. They create the rules. Everyone else has two capabilities: offer comment, and decide whether or not to take part. The specific dynamics are entirely separate from group to group, including how much the suppliers rely upon the input of the demanders. Ultimately a compromise has to be reached, or else either there will be no supply, or there will be no demand. But that will vary from group to group, and game to game. There is no inherent right for any group or any game to say how any other group or game should operate. These social contracts should exist independently of one another, and an individual who disagrees with a given contract should find another one more to their interest, or become part of the supply and determine how much demand is in line with the social contract they desire.
In other words, the idea of one group (tournament players) being superior to another group (scrubs) is false. It is not supportable, and it is not realistic. It is a meaningless attempt to elevate one group above another by arbitrarily imposed judgments by the self-declared superior group about how they are better. It's also not uncommon in general human behavior- such as racism, sexism, religious persecution, or jingoism (No, no, thank you Godwin- we won't need you today, go back to your coffee). It's something to be acknowledged and avoided, not held up as some sort of inherent truth or inevitable conclusion. In regards to games, it's simply a relatively small and relatively meaningless cousin to the same problems on the larger stage of human existence.
And with regards to the more recent post, about doing what's right versus winning- well, that gets right back down to that whole ethics thing I mentioned back at the start. Because again, 'I'll use this loophole until it's closed' suggests a certain level of ethical dilemma, which honestly isn't all that terribly different than the same problems I discussed in my ethics courses: the idea that something is acceptable so long as you can get away with it, or foregoing the intent and spirit in favor of winning at all costs. Which is not an easy matter, if for no other reason than the fact that intent and spirit are ephemeral ideas which may not even be well detailed in the minds of the creators, but then again, that's ethics for you.
Ultimately the point remains the same: every group should have their own ideas for what is and is not acceptable, and should not attempt to force those ideas upon any other group that has no wish to take part in them. Furthermore, people in those groups should behave with a modicum of ethics, particularly an ethical code that has been agreed upon by the group at large- i.e., morals.
Or if you just want the short version: I think you're wrong, but you can play however you want. Just let me do the same.
First, there's my previous statements, which seem to be flying overhead. So allow me to offer them up in a more allegorical form.
Let's say that there is a group of people. This group of people are within the room of a house. They are aware there are other people in the house, but they do not know how many, and cannot see or communicate with anyone not in the room. People may freely enter and leave the house, as well as the room, at will. How many people are in the house?
It is impossible to determine. At best you can reduce it down to a single variable, X plus the number of people in the room. The same way you cannot say that there are 'few' better players, or no better players, or a thousand better players, than the ones who take part in tournaments. Nor can you say what their motives are. This is one of the basic ideas of science, as well as a wonderful basic element of philosophy- we can only evaluate what we are aware of, and even then we must be aware of the possibility of error in our perception. Anything else is guesswork.
For our second bit, let's make this a bit more in line with the questions at hand. There is a group of people who play a game. This group of people play this game regularly. Almost religiously. If someone paid them it would count as a full time job. Now, this group of people, after a great deal of play, decide a particular trick is unbalanced. So they agree to avoid using it. Then along comes another person who joins this group and uses this trick. They go after this guy for it.
Is this group a bunch of scrubs, or are they a bunch of tournament players? It's impossible to tell- because there's no difference. The only difference offered up is the idea that scrubs limit gameplay based on what they think is cheap- but that's no different than declaring Akuma's off-limits because in this particular group, his air fireball can't be beaten. It doesn't matter what the element is- a character, a maneuver, whatever. There's no appreciable difference unless you decide to create an arbitrary one- such as declaring that tournament play is the best.
I'll give a freebie here- you could then argue that the difference is that the scrubs create a more restrictive gameplay situation than the tournament players. But this creates another problem, because we go back to Akuma again. People who use Akuma, by extension, are restricting gameplay less than the tournament players. Which in turn would suggest that they are the superior ones, and should be listened to. Except that's obviously not acceptable either.
Ultimately there's a simple truth to the whole matter, one I alluded to at the beginning. There are social contracts that exist. These social contracts exist within a given circle of people who play a given game. They have very basic structures in common- not all that different than economics, really- in that you have the masses who play, and those who are in charge- service providers (more specifically, server hosts and game developers). Supply and demand. Each of these groups has to develop their own rules, with the arbiters being those who are offering up the supply. They create the rules. Everyone else has two capabilities: offer comment, and decide whether or not to take part. The specific dynamics are entirely separate from group to group, including how much the suppliers rely upon the input of the demanders. Ultimately a compromise has to be reached, or else either there will be no supply, or there will be no demand. But that will vary from group to group, and game to game. There is no inherent right for any group or any game to say how any other group or game should operate. These social contracts should exist independently of one another, and an individual who disagrees with a given contract should find another one more to their interest, or become part of the supply and determine how much demand is in line with the social contract they desire.
In other words, the idea of one group (tournament players) being superior to another group (scrubs) is false. It is not supportable, and it is not realistic. It is a meaningless attempt to elevate one group above another by arbitrarily imposed judgments by the self-declared superior group about how they are better. It's also not uncommon in general human behavior- such as racism, sexism, religious persecution, or jingoism (No, no, thank you Godwin- we won't need you today, go back to your coffee). It's something to be acknowledged and avoided, not held up as some sort of inherent truth or inevitable conclusion. In regards to games, it's simply a relatively small and relatively meaningless cousin to the same problems on the larger stage of human existence.
And with regards to the more recent post, about doing what's right versus winning- well, that gets right back down to that whole ethics thing I mentioned back at the start. Because again, 'I'll use this loophole until it's closed' suggests a certain level of ethical dilemma, which honestly isn't all that terribly different than the same problems I discussed in my ethics courses: the idea that something is acceptable so long as you can get away with it, or foregoing the intent and spirit in favor of winning at all costs. Which is not an easy matter, if for no other reason than the fact that intent and spirit are ephemeral ideas which may not even be well detailed in the minds of the creators, but then again, that's ethics for you.
Ultimately the point remains the same: every group should have their own ideas for what is and is not acceptable, and should not attempt to force those ideas upon any other group that has no wish to take part in them. Furthermore, people in those groups should behave with a modicum of ethics, particularly an ethical code that has been agreed upon by the group at large- i.e., morals.
Or if you just want the short version: I think you're wrong, but you can play however you want. Just let me do the same.
- Stormcaller3801
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:38 am
by Mr. Munchlax » Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:36 am
Should've posted this earlier but...
Who do you think you are? Bleeding Action Man?!
-
Mr. Munchlax - Posts: 736
- Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:02 am
- Location: Texas
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests