| Poll |
| What say ye? |
| I play for fun |
|
39% |
[ 126 ] |
| I play to win |
|
20% |
[ 65 ] |
| To me, Winning = Fun |
|
28% |
[ 92 ] |
| Plorg is on my blacklist |
|
7% |
[ 23 ] |
| None of the above (explain) |
|
4% |
[ 15 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 321 |
|
hotspurstu
Joined: Feb 14, 2007
|
 Posted:
Jul 13, 2008 - 09:56 |
 
|
| pac wrote: | | hotspurstu wrote: | | Some load of old rubbish.... |
Again, you need to bear in mind that in the top post you are just reading one extract. Elsewhere, he draws a clear distinction between in-game and out-of-game behaviour, and indeed recommends being friendly to opponents (outside the game) as being more beneficial than trying to intimidate them.
These people you hate do exist - but I don't think, if you read more, you would necessarily conclude that this guy was one of them.
(BTW, I do think that Plorg has deliberately selected and posted the most provocative, jolt-you-out-of-your-comfort-zone extract from the text.  ) |
WOW this thread's really taken off since I last saw it.
It seems that I was too quick to open my mouth when I posted and so ended putting my foot right in it. Having taken the time to actually read the article/book in question, I have to say It makes a lot of sense and is interesting.
Kudos to Plorg though for picking out a bit of the book that has allowed many others like me to jump into our own mouths feet first.  I wasn't aware of this guy or his site before and so I thank you for linking it.
I think where the excerpt in Plorg's original post has caught a few people out, is in it's choice of words. The tone of that bit of text and the way the word scrub is used seem totally derogatory (the author himself admits this). But in the context of what he's trying to get across, he has to use some word for this type of gamer and I don't think scrub is as bad as it could be. I definitely think I might have met one or two of these type of players here on FUMBBL though. 
As for myself. I think I play BB here in a casual way and by his definition of a scrub, I guess I am one (but hopefully not a scrub with lots of excuses). Sirlin himself recognises the difference between someone who is totally devoted to a particular game and one who just doesn't want to put that much time into it. |
_________________
"When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep, like my Grandfather did. -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car" |
|
Walks_in_the_Sun
Joined: Apr 16, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 13, 2008 - 10:36 |
|
| pac wrote: | | Finding the right group of opponents is always a problem for anyone wanting to play any game... I see finding the right environment in which to play a game as very much a separate issue. |
Fair enough. I see a connection, but whether the issues are separate or one is a facet of the other is a matter of opinion, and more or less moot.
| Quote: | I can see how this could potentially happen, but it's just not what I see when I look around me on FUMBBL.
I see lots of coaches who have different approaches to skilling players... In addition, many (most?) of the good coaches do experiment. |
Unfortunate that I do not play most of the good coaches. It may be perspective, but playing average teams and coaches, I don't see much variety, and the forum traffic is monolithic in its support of certain choices, which teaches new coaches (who make up a good deal of the people I play, existing mostly at sub-160 tr) to do everything the same.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | And I can expect 1 or 2 things to be relatively useless except in rare circumstances - but not several-to-dozens, to varying degrees. |
I don't think there are several dozen. Not even close. I don't think there are even half a dozen skills that can be written off that completely. |
You misread, and perhaps I was also unclear.
Several-to-dozens. Several = 5-7ish. Less than half a dozen = 5.
And several to dozens (depening on how strictly we define it) are -
not "absolutely worthless", not "should be considered worthless," not even "are considered worthless," but "are treated by the general population, by lack of use and through verbal exchange, as if worthless."
Now, you're closer to the subject than I; perhaps 95% of the skills are used frequently by a wide cross-section of coaches; I just haven't seen it.
| Quote: | | I disagree fundamentally. |
Dang. I hate to be a fundamentalist.
| Quote: | | It is not the job of the player to attempt to read the mind of the designer. |
You don't have to read their minds. Just work with the context clues you're given. If you got the game in a vacuum, do whatever you want with it. But from the manual, fluff text, online resources, whatever, you should be able at least to get the vaguest picture of what they expect from gameplay - you should at least be able to exclude anything that is clearly outside the bounds of that general mold. If the designer is even clearer (as with patches, communication with players, official 'tournament-ready' rules, etc), great. If there's no way to guess how they'd feel, no harm. But there's no reason not to stop and give it a thought. And of course, if your group is okay with it, no problem.
| Quote: | | Beliefs like this (that you shouldn't take advantage) cause endless problems within groups of players, because there's generally no way to prove what was intended and what was not. |
This shouldn't be too much trouble in person (you can always use GW's famous 'flip a coin' solution), but I could see problems erupting online.
| Quote: | | (Stalling and fouling anyone? Dauntless+Horns?) |
Fouling is a bad example. Fouling is very clearly laid out in the rules; how much you can do it, when, and the consequences of doing so. The leeway given to the player is clear. There is also fluff of very dirty and very clean teams. So it's simply a matter of personal preference if you want to or not. But don't complain if your opponent gets mad if you foul; it's his right to hate it as much as it's your right to do it.
Stalling is better, but not a whole lot. Stalling isn't covered in the official materials, but it's perfectly covered in the extent of the rules. It's legal. Maybe boring and un-fun, but legal. It's like the 'lite' version of the "Low Strong" playstyle (or that guy who hurts you a little to get the lead and then runs until time elapses - yeah, that's a better analogy.)
Dauntless+Horns is a better example. Two skills you're allowed to have each of, but the original rules might not be clear on which works first, or if they work together at all. In this situation, efforts should be taken to agree, and failing a true agreement, it should default to some sort of authority (homeowner, club leader, whatever) or a die roll. Ideally it gets brought up and the game's creator(s) clear it all up. But again, this is a question of HOW something works, not "it works, and I'm gonna use it, no matter who doesn't like it."
| Quote: | | The far simpler approach is just to play with what's there. That way there can be no disagreement. |
Simple is not always (often?) the best choice. And quashing all disagreements is not the same as not having them.
This makes me think of a friend of mine. It's not really the same thing, just got me thinking. We were playing bar shuffleboard tonight. I don't know the official rules, and none of my friends do, and we didn't have an official resource (and he might not have been bothered with it anyway). Anyway, I was trying to come to an agreement with him over how scoring worked, and what if anything happened if we didn't make it past the foul line. Well, it didn't take much of this before he became frustrated (I think he'd have been happier if I had just dictated some rules arbitrarily). Whereas I just wanted to spend a minute working it out beforehand so no arguments came up after the game had started in earnest.
Just different personalities, I guess. He maybe was thinking simple = best, and wanted to just get stuck in & start throwing things, whereas I was trying to get a clear & universal grasp on some kind (any kind) of ruleset so everything would be fair and no conflicts arose.
| Quote: | | Also note that (in terms of video games) there's a big problem at tournament level as to how you could detect certain exploits. If you can't detect it, you can't enforce it, and you should not make rulings you can't enforce. |
A fair point. The question then becomes (once an exploit is identified, but that can't be regulated) whether that game is still valid as a tournament vehicle. Also, reminds me of sports officiating - trying to enforce lots of things that are hard to do, and then failing to enforce some that are clear.
| Quote: | | As I mentioned some pages ago in reference to a game I wrote, I am delighted when someone manages to do something in a game I designed that I had never conceived of! Nor do I believe that anyone should want my opinion on how the game 'should' be played because I'm its author: it's not mine anymore. (I'm not saying it's easy to let go though. ) |
Do you think you are typical of game designers? How long did you work on the game? How involved is it? How many dozens of people helped you make it? How concerned were you with balance and fair play when you made it? What kind of audience (size & response) were you expecting?
Not that the answers to any of these questions are meant to reflect poorly on you or diminish your place of reference or invalidate your opinion. Just trying to get you thinking how other desingners might feel differently.
Maybe once they see their check they're happy to forget about it; maybe it's their 'baby' that they've worked on for decades and don't like what's happening to it.
Reminds me of playwrights or screenwrighters in conflict with directors; Most don't get any input once they've been paid, and many are disappointed with the results; others hold out and demand control, or just direct it themselves. Some playwrights (or their estates) regularly shut down performances that do not meet their specifications.
| Quote: | | Once a game, like a novel, goes out into the world, it does not belong to the author/designer anymore. It takes on a life of its own and those who play/read it can interpret it in new ways that the author had never expected. It's flown the nest. |
Here we disagree fundamentally again. By publishing time it may be far different than it was originally envisioned, but (assuming they kept the rights), it belongs to them in a legal and personal sense. All the different people who experience it do so in unique ways; unique to their perspective; they may remember it differently, enjoy different aspects of it, even add on to the story in their minds. But these experiences are different than the work itself.
I mean, once you've bought a book, there's nothing stopping you wiping your butt with it, but that's certainly not what the author has intended.
And there's a critical difference in the book metaphor; interactivity. Other than reading the book out of order, there's not much a reader can do to intake the work 'incorrectly.'
I don't know if there are a lot of instances where a game designer would be disappointed with the way his game was being played, but these people seem to enjoy finding them.
| Quote: | | Sure, fix things that are fundamentally broken, but don't keep dabbling! If you really think you didn't get it right, or put across what you really meant, or that those ingrate players just haven't understood or appreciated it fully, try again and design/write a new one. But maybe the audience will prefer that first 'flawed' creation to the one you think is new and improved … and if they do, perhaps they know better than you. |
Ok, that's true of Star Wars, at least.
But come on. "Low Strong?" Zerg Rushing? Are these REALLY better than the designers intended? Or will admitting to extreme cases somehow weaken your overall position?
| Quote: | As you say, this is not something the players can be blamed for. Many sports can be boring. Major football finals (soccer - but I'm sure American too!), which were meant to be showpiece events, have been dreadfully boring.
|
Ok, I pre-emptively protected myself from counter-arguments, but that doesn't mean everyone's off the hook completely!
There's a difference between standard "thrilling 0-0 tie" boring and "Hey, once we get the lead, let's pull the ball back to our half and just surround it with all our guys and keep them from playing for the next FORTY-FIVE MINUTES." boring.
I don't think too much pressure should be placed on people to make games exciting (though I tend to prefer excitement in my games, no matter the genre) but there are things done willfully that just take it too far. Important tournaments aside. |
Last edited by Walks_in_the_Sun on %b %13, %2008 - %11:%Jul; edited 3 times in total |
|
Walks_in_the_Sun
Joined: Apr 16, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 13, 2008 - 11:01 |
|
I will add that it is inherently better for a developer who doesn't like a certain quirk that has arisen to change the code to eliminate it as an option, where possible, or to make it less desirable, than to just state that they don't like it. |
|
|
drbunny
Joined: Sep 20, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 13, 2008 - 11:12 |
|
Is it alright to to score when you fail OFAB with no thralls around, so can you win the match? |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 13, 2008 - 11:31 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | I'll happily necromance the thread and give you my precise (and, obviously, correct) opinon on the matter and where I stand, possibly even where Purplegoo should stand. |
I'm all for labour saving devices!  |
|
|
vanGorn
Joined: Feb 24, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 13, 2008 - 11:36 |
|
| johan wrote: | Great original article.
Also, Pac is awesome in this thread. |
Yes, indeed, but that's how he is in quite any thread.
He's the forum's sage. |
_________________
Gimme a pint of fungus beer!
Then we will climb the ladder.
 |
|
Walks_in_the_Sun
Joined: Apr 16, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 13, 2008 - 11:40 |
|
| drbunny wrote: | | Is it alright to to score when you fail OFAB with no thralls around, so can you win the match? |
I'm no expert, but my understanding is no.
Though if I were making the house rule, I'd say yes, but only if you were closer to the end zone than the sideline. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 13, 2008 - 11:40 |
|
| Britnoth wrote: | | Hayuna Capac in particular is the only leader used for high score challenges, due to his overpowered unique unit and extremely strong mutually benefitial leader traits. |
Not to veer massively off-topic, but you mean the Warrior substitute? Unless you start next to the guy or are on a small map, it's hardly an insta-win button, is it?
Roman Swordsman substitutes are pretty nifty, and come at the time when you're generally up to 3 or 4 cities, a rush of those buggers is a real handful. I'd say they were the best. |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 13, 2008 - 12:40 |
|
| Walks_in_the_Sun wrote: | | You don't have to read their minds. Just work with the context clues you're given. If you got the game in a vacuum, do whatever you want with it. But from the manual, fluff text, online resources, whatever, you should be able at least to get the vaguest picture of what they expect from gameplay - you should at least be able to exclude anything that is clearly outside the bounds of that general mold. |
A designer who's asking their players to jump through all these hoops to figure out what the game was meant to be is an appallingly bad designer!
If you don't want people to do something, fix the rules so that they can't (preferably in advance). Otherwise, live with it. I know that this is a difficult thing to ask: but it's not meant to be an easy job!
| Quote: | | Fouling is a bad example. Fouling is very clearly laid out in the rules; how much you can do it, when, and the consequences of doing so. The leeway given to the player is clear. |
Clear to you. Clear to me. Not clear enough to some people, as we know from hundreds of threads.
These are people who are going through your same process of trying to figure out what the designer meant. They conclude that the designer didn't mean for fouling to be used as much as it is. Look at all the problems this conclusion causes!
Among those who accept the rules as they are, this does not arise.
| Quote: | | But again, this is a question of HOW something works, not "it works, and I'm gonna use it, no matter who doesn't like it." |
If there is a genuine consensus, if something really is broken, then people usually recognise it quickly and act on it. Dauntless+Horns is not. It's really good and, in my opinion, definitely not what the designers intended. But that does not matter. It does not break the game - so exploit away.
| Quote: | | Do you think you are typical of game designers? |
I think all good game designers expect and hope that those who play their game will think of things they can do in it which go beyond what they had ever expected. I would consider this to be part of the definition of a good designer. Someone who is trying to create something closed down where the possibilities are limited to what he can conceive … people aren't going to enjoy his games.
| Quote: | | How long did you work on the game? How involved is it? How many dozens of people helped you make it? How concerned were you with balance and fair play when you made it? What kind of audience (size & response) were you expecting? |
Well over two years. Define what you mean by involved: there is plenty of depth (enough that some are still playing it 10 years later) and it took me a lot of work. It was a small project: not much more than a dozen involved overall, I think. Certain areas of balance I tested over and over and over again, myself, during design (of course this could be sadly thrown by late engine changes); fair play did not apply (one player game). There was a large known audience as this was a sequel, so we knew there were expectations to be met: response was good and it did keep me in beer and chocolates for a while.
| Quote: | | Just trying to get you thinking how other desingners might feel differently. |
I know that other designers feel differently. I know that living authors feel differently: sometimes they show up in the media complaining that someone has read something into their book that they never put there. I don't care: once the author releases, the author is dead.
| Quote: | | Here we disagree fundamentally again. By publishing time it may be far different than it was originally envisioned, but (assuming they kept the rights), it belongs to them in a legal and personal sense. |
That's not the sense I'm talking about. I'm talking about the sense of what it is used for. I can pick up a book and just read and enjoy it for the action and sex scenes. The author says that there are all these deep levels there to it which must be appreciated. I don't care. I'll read it for whatever I like.
| Quote: | | I mean, once you've bought a book, there's nothing stopping you wiping your butt with it, but that's certainly not what the author has intended. |
Again - I do not care what he intended! If that's the most useful thing I can find to do with the book, then so be it!
Am I meant to turn through every page asking myself, 'Hmm, what did the author intend me to think here?'. 'Am I meant to like this character, or that character?' That really sounds like fun …
Consider Shakespeare. We know very little about Shakespeare, to the point that some even dispute that he was the one who wrote the plays at all. The result of this is that, when people read and criticise Shakespeare, their responses emerge from the interaction of their own thoughts, knowledge and experiences with the text - and as a result it is deep and varied. By contrast, a lot of academic work on more recent novelists is based on going through their diaries and correspondence and figuring out what they 'really meant'. This is trash.
Now take the gaming equivalent of Shakespeare: chess. Someone, somewhere, some time must have invented chess. However, we don't know who he was or what he intended, so no one wastes time worrying about it. Would he be horrified by the state of chess today? No one cares. They get on with their game. Chess rules have changed over time: castling, pawns being able to move two squares on their first move, converting an 8th rank pawn - these are all changes that were arbitrarily made to the game in certain places at certain times. What would the designer have thought!? We don't know, and don't care.
| Quote: | | But come on. "Low Strong?" Zerg Rushing? |
Low Strong. This comes from the example Sirlin gives where the only way he could find to win was to repetitively use this move. Now, he himself notes in his article, there were lots of other approaches his opponent could have taken! There were lots of other things they could have done. But they just kept banging their head against the wall, so he won.
This isn't remotely a game flaw. It's a failure by the opponent. The game gave them the tools to beat this tactic, but they failed to use them.
I don't know that much first-hand about the famous Zerg rush - I've never played that much Starcraft. In the end, it seems to have been judged to have been something so serious that it was worth fixing the game for. In the mean time, should people have been expected not to use it in a tournament? If the tournament organiser could find a way to prevent them, great. If not, Zerg away. |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 13, 2008 - 12:43 |
|
| drbunny wrote: | | Is it alright to to score when you fail OFAB with no thralls around, so can you win the match? |
By site rules: yes.
Feel free to restrict yourself if you disagree, and feel free to try and change site rules if you really disagree, but try not to complain too much about those who do it while that is the rule. |
|
|
Plorg
Joined: May 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 13, 2008 - 15:06 |
|
| pac wrote: | | (BTW, I do think that Plorg has deliberately selected and posted the most provocative, jolt-you-out-of-your-comfort-zone extract from the text. ) |
Yes. Yes indeed.
I also agree that pac has been excellent in this thread. |
|
|
Wraith
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 13, 2008 - 16:50 |
|
I guess, I'm strange or something, I took the context of <B>this thread</B> to be a discussion on the excerpt... not the author's entire body of work. Sure that excerpt can be taken out of context in the grand scheme of things, but within this thread, I don't think so. The topic of the thread is titled "playing to win" and offers no other guidelines for the posters. This means that, we as posters, have a free forum to discuss the topic (playing to win).
Other than that, there are rules that we must self-impose on ourselves every day. It's how a society/culture polices itself. Think of it this way, laws are the equivalent to rules. Although, there is also a stigmata behind certain actions, that aren't necessarily illegal. You're free to do these things, but there will be societal/cultural consequences for doing so. The same thing applies within pretty much any game. You can violate the things that are frowned upon, but there's consequences for doing so. Obviously, there's sub-cultures within the societies, where these things aren't frowned upon... but you don't likely see people of differing outlooks, hanging out very often. Freedom isn't as free as people think. Every action has a consequence. This doesn't mean that you cannot do as you please, it just means "don't do the crime, if you can't do the time". It's not a matter of rules allow it or not, it's a matter of accountability for your actions.
So basically, feel free to spit on your opponent if it helps you get the almighty win, but don't complain when he breaks your face in response. That general rule of life can be applied to Blood Bowl as well, feel free to foul to your heart's content, but don't whine when that person never plays you again. Like I said before, find your particular sub-culture and stick to it, this will alleviate many possible confrontations.
Before you throw out more of the author's body of work, I could really care less what he has to say. The topic, to me, has really nothing to do with it... it's now evolved into the opinions of the people who are posting here. Nothing makes the author any more special or his writings have any more weight, than anyone else posting here (except maybe shadow, but that's because he's just a troll). |
_________________
Insanity, is merely the lack of fear... to act on your deepest, darkest thoughts. |
|
Falesh
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 13, 2008 - 18:06 |
|
| Wraith wrote: | | This doesn't mean that you cannot do as you please, it just means "don't do the crime, if you can't do the time". It's not a matter of rules allow it or not, it's a matter of accountability for your actions. |
What is a crime though? Stalling, Fouling, Elf Magic? Could you be specific about what you deem a "crime" in the context of your post? |
_________________
 |
|
Wraith
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 13, 2008 - 18:34 |
|
| Falesh wrote: | | Wraith wrote: | | This doesn't mean that you cannot do as you please, it just means "don't do the crime, if you can't do the time". It's not a matter of rules allow it or not, it's a matter of accountability for your actions. |
What is a crime though? Stalling, Fouling, Elf Magic? Could you be specific about what you deem a "crime" in the context of your post? |
It's dependent on who you're playing (or in a more general sense, the community that you're part of). Some groups within this particular community are cool with playing "no holds barred", some aren't...
I'm not a big fan of fouling... so I stick to leagues that help create counter-measures, to what some consider, a rule that is easily exploited. I don't complain about people who foul excessively though. I personally think it's a cheap tactic (due to DP being slightly too powerful)... which I consider correct, because it has been adjusted in the newer rule-set.
I'm not here to try and take away people's right to play how they want to, merely trying to discuss the topic and offer my perspective. Just because it differs from others doesn't mean that I'm condemning them. Things don't necessarily have to be clearly laid out, because perspective changes everything. The trick is to find your niche and follow the written (and unwritten) rules of that community. |
_________________
Insanity, is merely the lack of fear... to act on your deepest, darkest thoughts. |
|
Walks_in_the_Sun
Joined: Apr 16, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 13, 2008 - 21:23 |
|
| pac wrote: | | A designer who's asking their players to jump through all these hoops to figure out what the game was meant to be is an appallingly bad designer! |
Are you being hyperbolic for the sake of the internet, or are you serious? You're either the laziest person in the world or I'm an appallingly bad writer, because I can't imagine you're reading the same things I'm writing. What hoops? I'm talking about playing the tutorial, reading the manual, and/or watching a demo! Anything that's unclear from these isn't important. And I refuse to believe that the people who do the most egregious of these things aren't aware that they are playing the game differently than was meant.
You people are like the person who put their baby's dirty diaper on a bookshelf in the store I used to clean. There wasn't a RULE against it, so that was our fault. We didn't stop them from doing it. (As opposed to the thieves, who broke a clearly established law, but it failed to be enforced on them.)
| Quote: | | If you don't want people to do something, fix the rules so that they can't (preferably in advance). Otherwise, live with it. I know that this is a difficult thing to ask: but it's not meant to be an easy job! |
See? Were the designers of Street Fighter and Starcraft "appallingly bad?" How do you stop someone from sitting in a corner pressing the same button over and over? Would nerfing Zergs so that they couldn't wipe out a new base have unbalanced the race and made it unplayable? How do you choose between the lesser of two evils? How do you "read the minds" of the gamers who will seek to bend it until it breaks? And how do you take all these opportunities away from them, without de-evolving the game all the way down to checkers?
| Quote: | These are people who are going through your same process of trying to figure out what the designer meant. They conclude that the designer didn't mean for fouling to be used as much as it is. Look at all the problems this conclusion causes!
Among those who accept the rules as they are, this does not arise. |
It's ridiculous and unnecessary (and a sisyphusyian exercise in futility) to try to derive what the designer felt was the 'optimal' way of playing the game. In most cases, there probably isn't one, or after playing it that way, you'll want to re-play it another way. That's not what I'm talking about. There may not be a 'right' way, but there can easily be a 'wrong' way.
Personally, I feel any game that wasn't fun up until the minute you lose is 'wrong,' but that's me.
Do you think Blood Bowl's designers wanted both sides to do nothing for one half, then play out the second half to reduce casualties? Or put everyone on the LoS and select 'both down' and 'attacker down' all day? How would they prevent someone from doing that, if they felt it important?
| Quote: | | If there is a genuine consensus, if something really is broken, then people usually recognise it quickly and act on it. |
Like a 'soft ban'? What have you agreed not to use?
| Quote: | | Dauntless+Horns is not. It's really good and, in my opinion, definitely not what the designers intended. |
So now you are reading their minds? What context clue had you thinking this isn't what they intended?
| Quote: | | I think all good game designers expect and hope that those who play their game will think of things they can do in it which go beyond what they had ever expected. I would consider this to be part of the definition of a good designer. Someone who is trying to create something closed down where the possibilities are limited to what he can conceive … people aren't going to enjoy his games. |
People don't like Duck Hunt?
| Quote: | | Well over two years... fair play did not apply (one player game). |
So you didn't have to deal with the issue we're discussing. Missing one thing on year 2, week 10, day 3, opening up the possibility of one player forcing others to 'adapt or die' to his chosen exploit that wasn't intended to exist?
| Quote: | | That's not the sense I'm talking about. I'm talking about the sense of what it is used for. I can pick up a book and just read and enjoy it for the action and sex scenes. The author says that there are all these deep levels there to it which must be appreciated. I don't care. I'll read it for whatever I like. |
Nobody says you have to enjoy every part of a game - or even explore every part. That's not what we're talking about. If you want to play Cammy and only Cammy, more power to you.
I couldn't be bothered to learn all the moves in SF; so maybe I didn't get the 'full' experience, but I elevated my play a little above "button mashing" and I enjoyed the game without ruining it for anyone else. Maybe it's just because I'm a 'casual' gamer.
| Quote: | Again - I do not care what he intended! If that's the most useful thing I can find to do with the book, then so be it!
Am I meant to turn through every page asking myself, 'Hmm, what did the author intend me to think here?'. 'Am I meant to like this character, or that character?' That really sounds like fun … |
You're getting away from the point. (I may be a bit to blame for this as well).
Nobody cares if you like all of it, part of it, none of it. Nobody cares if you 'get it.' Heck, I HATE the way people dissect novels looking for 'hidden meaning.' I just want to read a story. And it goes with games - if you just want to play the first level, fine.
The point here is imposing yourself on others. If you were watching a movie, and kept rewinding and watching the same part over and over again, people would want to kill you.
And when it comes to games - played between people - and you're playing a particular way that forces your opponent to play a certain way as well, or otherwise bend over and take it, you're forcing your will on them.
Now, generally, this is a simple moral issue, do you want to be that guy? Because usually, if the behavior is legal in the game, the other guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. But when it's unclear if an action is legal, or even more, clearly illegal but unenforceable - just because you can get away with it doesn't mean you should.
And of course, here on FUMBBL you can't even agree with your opponent pre-game what kind of match you're going to play, and what sort of behavior you do and don't approve of.
Again, tournament play is going to be far more cut-throat, ugly, brutish, and short than regular play - we hope.
My main concern is that the tactics used in tournaments - to win at all cost, including at the expense of fun - 'bleed' into the general pool of players, and color the whole community of that game, making the whole thing to homogenous, and well, dirty. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Fumbbl and Android
Search
