Read the following blog post:
http://jchensor.blogspot.com/2007/10/evolution-2007-season-wrap-up.html
James Chen is a Street Fighter community veteran and one of the organizers for the Evolution tournament series. In this blog, he recaps EVO 2K7, the first year that Smash was a featured game in the tournament.
(There are some references to specific players and game details which you may not be familiar with, but that's ok. Focus on the more general points that he is trying to make.)
--------------------------------------
Respond to the following questions:
James makes a point that certain communities are "watered down" from excess players. Should communities strive to get better if it comes at the cost of alienating newer players?
Also, do you agree with James's viewpoint of a strong community making a strong game or do you feel that it is the other way around?
I really loved James' article. He gave fair treatment to each game community, and I believe he accurately told what there is to tell. In response to the first question, I didn't pick up too much in the area of supporting arguments for his claim. Of course, if everyone in the world played a game, that could hurt it, but at the same time, having just 6 pros will also be bad.
In response to the second question, I take the same stance that we should just not go to extreme conclusions. The reality is that it's a balance of both. A strong game won't stand without a strong community. GG is a great example of this. GG is incredibly deep, but it just doesn't get as much of the light because of its community (or lack thereof). At the same time, a strong community won't sustain a weak game. True, MvC2 has its issues, but J does not emphasize enough that MvC2 is quite intricate. Imbalance issues aside, it's still a great game, which helps it have a great community. If you really want to argue that a weak game just needs a strong community to thrive, then I want to know where the Pong tournaments are. How about Tic Tac Toe? Etcetera. Basically, don't go to extremes. Strong game, strong community, you need both.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Week 4
Read the following from Sirlin's Playing to Win:
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/more-on-losing.html
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/how-far-should-you-go-to-win.html
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-should-be-banned.html
How do you feel about "soft bans"? Do you feel that this contradicts "playing to win"? Also, how do you feel about the Street Fighter community's decision to outright ban Akuma from Super Turbo? Is this hypocritical? Do you feel that bans are ever warranted?
---
Soft bans, in the most technical sense, contradict "playing to win." However, it is completely understandable to have a tradeoff between playing to win and making the game interesting. For instance, the government exists to protect the people. The more control the government has, however, the less freedom the people have. Which is more important, security or freedom? Both are important. Thus, you must find a balance between the two. The same is true for soft bans. If something like Akuma makes the game far too ridiculous and not fun, and eliminating the element could still keep the game competitive and interesting, then a soft ban is permissible. One not need enforce "play to win" to such extremes that practical adjustments should never be made.
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/more-on-losing.html
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/how-far-should-you-go-to-win.html
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-should-be-banned.html
How do you feel about "soft bans"? Do you feel that this contradicts "playing to win"? Also, how do you feel about the Street Fighter community's decision to outright ban Akuma from Super Turbo? Is this hypocritical? Do you feel that bans are ever warranted?
---
Soft bans, in the most technical sense, contradict "playing to win." However, it is completely understandable to have a tradeoff between playing to win and making the game interesting. For instance, the government exists to protect the people. The more control the government has, however, the less freedom the people have. Which is more important, security or freedom? Both are important. Thus, you must find a balance between the two. The same is true for soft bans. If something like Akuma makes the game far too ridiculous and not fun, and eliminating the element could still keep the game competitive and interesting, then a soft ban is permissible. One not need enforce "play to win" to such extremes that practical adjustments should never be made.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Week 3
Watch "I Got Next", a documentary on the Street Fighter 4 community
After watching, please respond to the following questions on your own blog:
“Gootecks” (Ryan Gutierrez) and “Long Island Joe” (Joe Ciaramelli) have very different opinions on how far they should pursue Street Fighter. Whose position would you take and why? Also, how do you feel about the rivalry between the East and West coast? Do you think it is beneficial or detrimental to the community?
----------
----------
I think Ryan is living with his head in the clouds because supporting yourself in the present is not the same as supporting yourself plus investing for the future. Joe is more reasonable about life and shouldn't go for a career in SF.
The rivalry draws more attention to the sport, just like with rapping, tennis, basketball, anything else. Rivalries make things more popular and fun to follow. It's good for the community.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Week 2
Read the following article from Playing to Win:
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-example-richard-hatch-on-survivor.html
How do you feel about Richard's use of alliances to vote people off? If Richard already knew that most of the other contestants were "scrubs", do you still think it was a good idea for him to try to get votes during the final 2 by insisting that the purpose of the game is to win?
---
That article was hilariously entertaining. Richard sounds like a cool guy. I think giving the kind of speech he gave is quite a gambit, but at the same time it's probably the best thing he could have said. I'll have to watch it some time.
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-example-richard-hatch-on-survivor.html
How do you feel about Richard's use of alliances to vote people off? If Richard already knew that most of the other contestants were "scrubs", do you still think it was a good idea for him to try to get votes during the final 2 by insisting that the purpose of the game is to win?
---
That article was hilariously entertaining. Richard sounds like a cool guy. I think giving the kind of speech he gave is quite a gambit, but at the same time it's probably the best thing he could have said. I'll have to watch it some time.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Week 1
Read the following from Playing to Win:
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/prologue.html
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/beginners-guide.html
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/getting-started.html
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/intermediates-guide.html
What is your opinion on how the concept of "playing to win" fits in with the notion that you should have fun while playing games? Do you think it's compatible? Have you encountered a "scrub" at any time in your life? (Scrub mentality is not just limited to games!)
---
I believe playing to win and having fun can go hand in hand. Sirlin's makes this point well with his debate analogy. To have a good debate, you don't want to just say random sentences back and forth (the gamer's equivalent to button mashing). You also don't want to just say the same things over and over at each other (the gamer's equivalent to a shallow game). You also don't want to say one thing and end the debate (the gamer's equivalent to an imbalanced game). You also don't want to be so much better at debate that no one can refute you (the gamer's equivalent to playing without competition). Like Sirlin said, a great game is like a great debate. Both players use their intellectual, psychological, and experiential resources to exchange "statements" with their opponents in an elegant manner. Therefore I think a very competitive round of game could potentially offer even more than a non-competitive round of a game. That is not to say, of course, that fun can ONLY be had in competition.
I have encountered scrubs in my life, in various disciplines. One standout characteristic of scrubs is that they make judgments assuming that they alone are the authority on something and that whatever rules they make up are the true rules. For example, I was reading the course evaluations for a Biology course, and lots of students were complaining that the course required too much memorization. This is a classic example of scrub mentality because these students are calling "cheap" on memorization, when memorization is a core component of Biology classes. Memorization is sort of like a "rule," and students who complain about it are scrubs for calling the rule cheap just because it doesn't conform to their make-believe rules.
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/prologue.html
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/beginners-guide.html
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/getting-started.html
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/intermediates-guide.html
What is your opinion on how the concept of "playing to win" fits in with the notion that you should have fun while playing games? Do you think it's compatible? Have you encountered a "scrub" at any time in your life? (Scrub mentality is not just limited to games!)
---
I believe playing to win and having fun can go hand in hand. Sirlin's makes this point well with his debate analogy. To have a good debate, you don't want to just say random sentences back and forth (the gamer's equivalent to button mashing). You also don't want to just say the same things over and over at each other (the gamer's equivalent to a shallow game). You also don't want to say one thing and end the debate (the gamer's equivalent to an imbalanced game). You also don't want to be so much better at debate that no one can refute you (the gamer's equivalent to playing without competition). Like Sirlin said, a great game is like a great debate. Both players use their intellectual, psychological, and experiential resources to exchange "statements" with their opponents in an elegant manner. Therefore I think a very competitive round of game could potentially offer even more than a non-competitive round of a game. That is not to say, of course, that fun can ONLY be had in competition.
I have encountered scrubs in my life, in various disciplines. One standout characteristic of scrubs is that they make judgments assuming that they alone are the authority on something and that whatever rules they make up are the true rules. For example, I was reading the course evaluations for a Biology course, and lots of students were complaining that the course required too much memorization. This is a classic example of scrub mentality because these students are calling "cheap" on memorization, when memorization is a core component of Biology classes. Memorization is sort of like a "rule," and students who complain about it are scrubs for calling the rule cheap just because it doesn't conform to their make-believe rules.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)