4 ms·

The point of a game isn't to win, its to have fun. A certain character may disrupt the mechanics of the game that are the most fun to a subgroup of players. To

The point of a game isn't to win, its to have fun. A certain character may disrupt the mechanics of the game that are the most fun to a subgroup of players. To take it to an extreme, let's say a character is introduced to a fighting game and this character will win as soon as the "A" button is pressed. Now whatever fun people were doing to win in the game before is gone. In order to win, you just have to pick this super-character and hit the A button. Doesn't sound very fun to me. At a deeper level, that people won't "exploit the brokenness for their own gain" is key to a functioning society. Just as the promise of laying out rules in detail (expert systems) failed to capture the complexity required to get high-functioning AI, societies can not function by formal rules (laws and regulations) alone. There are sorts of complexities about norms, mores, and moral codes that are important to keep societies and organizations running. What is expected behavior when everyone is queued up to buy tickets at an event, but there is no formal sign saying "please queue here"? I mean you could audiciously walk up, stand next to the person in front of the line, and then walk up to the windows when they say "next please" and not be breaking any written rule, but everyone sure would be angry, and if everyone did it you'd have near total anarachy where the pushiest or strongest always got to the front of the line first. One of the biggest problems with internet scale is that its pretty easy to start running into individuals who ARE ok with exploiting the rules, or just ignoring them. This can be because they are from societies with different norms than the one they are encountering online, or just because they are in the small minority of people who just don't care. This effect is aided and abetted by the relative anonymity online. If you cut in line, people who you can see and here are going to yell at you right now. Break the social norm (or actual policy) of not paying for reviews and you'll most likely just get a strongly worded letter and possible ban on selling (which is easy enough to get around). In short though, not exploiting a broken rule or system just because its broken isn't silly. Its the a huge part of having a functioning society.

ineedasername 6y ago
Well, with game you have to be careful to distinguish between behavior unintended by developers and intentional design. The Street Fighter series has had any number of opportunities to "fix" behavior that some players consider "cheap" or an exploit. Developers have kept them in. If using those moves deprives another player of fun, that doesn't mean it shod be removed. There is always a winner and a loser, and someone who loses repeatedly to the same technique isn't any more entitled to the fun of winning. Winning is not meant to be a resource evenly divided among all players. Winning is predicated on skill, which is also not evenly divided among all players. Given effective counters, which always exist, calling other players cheap for having developed a novel play style amounts to a sense of winning as entitlement rather than earned. Again, the above presupposes intentional design, or judgement that emergent behavior nonetheless keeps gameplay in balance..
- gowld 6y ago
  That why it's not fun to play a game using a third party's rules. Fun games have rules approved by the players.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    I'm confused-- It's not a 3rd party when it's the creator of the game. Unless you're saying no games created by someone else are fun? I don't think you're saying that-- it's just the implication I'm getting because I'm not sure what you mean. Because any game you don't create has rules established by someone else.
    - topkai22 6y ago
      Of course the original creator sets the baseline, but there absolutely can be rules created past the original creation of the game. For example, my friends and I generally disallowed playing as Oddjob in Goldeneye back in the day. Totally valid within the context of the game programming, totally disallowed by social convention.
      - ineedasername 6y ago
        Ah yes, Oddjob. I take that as an example of accidental imbalance though, not deliberate game design. I seem to recall the developers even saying something like "yeah, we realized it was broken, but thought it was funny" (not a direct quote. I guess my viewpoint assumes that gameplay is legitimately & deliberately balanced. I suppose this is much harder in videogames with game characters having different skill sets. It's much harder to evaluate whether or not there is balance between them than, say, Monopoly: Everyone starts the same there-- the dog isn't any better off than the thimble. (Though I usually play as the dog, and pretend the thimble is a fire hydrant as I pass it by & do what dogs do... I may not be very mature for my age. It makes my kids laugh though)
- topkai22 6y ago
  I think you are taking an overly rigid view of what a game can be. Games exist in an environment and social context. Competitively playing street fighter online is one context, and the way you are suggesting play should happen is probably correct given the established norms of that community. Playing Smash Bros with my kids though? A complaint that I'm simply "winning too much" is absolutely valid. If my kids never beat me, they won't want to play anymore. They can go ahead and change rules to make it easier to win. What's more, changing a rule can make a game fundamentally different experience that appeals to a new audience. Simple rules (no sniper in counter strike for example) lead to a different game that a subset of the addressable audience finds more enjoyable. I'll finish with taking a quibble with the statement that "winning is not meant to be equally divided among players." That is true to a degree, but it also should not be overly concentrated among just a few. It is not fun to be consistently dominated and a game where a feeling of success or enjoyment is only accessible to a select few is unlikely to attract much of an audience.
lmm 6y ago
The most bitter arguments happen when people disagree about what the unwritten rules are; this naturally happens a lot when people from different cultures have to interact with each other.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> At a deeper level, that people won't "exploit the brokenness for their own gain" is key to a functioning society. In the long term, someone will exploit that brokenness. The key to a functioning society is repairing those broken places imo.

ineedasername 6y ago

Well, with game you have to be careful to distinguish between behavior unintended by developers and intentional design. The Street Fighter series has had any number of opportunities to "fix" behavior that some players consider "cheap" or an exploit. Developers have kept them in. If using those moves deprives another player of fun, that doesn't mean it shod be removed. There is always a winner and a loser, and someone who loses repeatedly to the same technique isn't any more entitled to the fun of winning. Winning is not meant to be a resource evenly divided among all players. Winning is predicated on skill, which is also not evenly divided among all players. Given effective counters, which always exist, calling other players cheap for having developed a novel play style amounts to a sense of winning as entitlement rather than earned. Again, the above presupposes intentional design, or judgement that emergent behavior nonetheless keeps gameplay in balance..

gowld 6y ago
That why it's not fun to play a game using a third party's rules. Fun games have rules approved by the players.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  I'm confused-- It's not a 3rd party when it's the creator of the game. Unless you're saying no games created by someone else are fun? I don't think you're saying that-- it's just the implication I'm getting because I'm not sure what you mean. Because any game you don't create has rules established by someone else.
  - topkai22 6y ago
    Of course the original creator sets the baseline, but there absolutely can be rules created past the original creation of the game. For example, my friends and I generally disallowed playing as Oddjob in Goldeneye back in the day. Totally valid within the context of the game programming, totally disallowed by social convention.
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      Ah yes, Oddjob. I take that as an example of accidental imbalance though, not deliberate game design. I seem to recall the developers even saying something like "yeah, we realized it was broken, but thought it was funny" (not a direct quote. I guess my viewpoint assumes that gameplay is legitimately & deliberately balanced. I suppose this is much harder in videogames with game characters having different skill sets. It's much harder to evaluate whether or not there is balance between them than, say, Monopoly: Everyone starts the same there-- the dog isn't any better off than the thimble. (Though I usually play as the dog, and pretend the thimble is a fire hydrant as I pass it by & do what dogs do... I may not be very mature for my age. It makes my kids laugh though)
topkai22 6y ago
I think you are taking an overly rigid view of what a game can be. Games exist in an environment and social context. Competitively playing street fighter online is one context, and the way you are suggesting play should happen is probably correct given the established norms of that community. Playing Smash Bros with my kids though? A complaint that I'm simply "winning too much" is absolutely valid. If my kids never beat me, they won't want to play anymore. They can go ahead and change rules to make it easier to win. What's more, changing a rule can make a game fundamentally different experience that appeals to a new audience. Simple rules (no sniper in counter strike for example) lead to a different game that a subset of the addressable audience finds more enjoyable. I'll finish with taking a quibble with the statement that "winning is not meant to be equally divided among players." That is true to a degree, but it also should not be overly concentrated among just a few. It is not fun to be consistently dominated and a game where a feeling of success or enjoyment is only accessible to a select few is unlikely to attract much of an audience.

lmm 6y ago

The most bitter arguments happen when people disagree about what the unwritten rules are; this naturally happens a lot when people from different cultures have to interact with each other.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> At a deeper level, that people won't "exploit the brokenness for their own gain" is key to a functioning society. In the long term, someone will exploit that brokenness. The key to a functioning society is repairing those broken places imo.