Week 4: Bans

I must say that I am slightly amazed at the concept of a "soft ban"--well, perhaps not at the concept, but I'm amazed at the fact that it works.

I firmly believe in the philosophy that bans, once initiated, should be concrete and strictly enforced in tournament-level play. (Informal matches do not have any clear way to enforce bans, short of an agreement between the players, but that's another topic entirely.) Soft bans, while enforceable, seem to lack this "concreteness"--not in the way the game is played, but in the very enforcement of the ban itself. What should happen if a player breaks a soft ban? What if that player wins, possibly due to the fact that he or she used a soft-banned tactic? Does the player qualify for the title of champion, since he or she was simply playing to win? Did the use of the tactic prevent a marginally better player from winning, simply because the latter felt compelled to obey the soft ban? (If so, then the user of the soft-banned tactic gained an unfair advantage simply by taking advantage of the fact that his or her opponents held themselves back from using the same, or similar, tactics.)

That said, I don't have any qualms about "hard" bans whatsoever. As long as the game has an accepted set of rules available to all players, with clear consequences if those rules are broken, then it's a fair game. Take the hard ban on using Akuma in American tournaments of Super Street Fighter Turbo: if a player attempts to use Akuma, he or she is disqualified. Period. Whether the ban on Akuma was warranted or not is a separate question; but as long as it's made clear whether he is or is not banned, the tournament rules are clear and absolute. If the ban seems unwarranted or unfair, some other tournament will probably not have that ban. (If all tournaments do, it's probably for a very, very good reason.)

Week 3: "I Got Next"

It's hard for me to say whether I side more with Gootecks or Long Island Joe in terms of their philosophies toward gaming. I certainly do not share Gootecks's devotion; I don't think I could give up a lot of things in life to pursue a game like Street Fighter in the manner he did. In that sense, I guess I could say I side more with Joe.

I do think the rivalry going on between the East and West Coasts is beneficial to the community. Some might argue that it divides players and leads to unwarranted disputes--this certainly may have been the case, particularly earlier on. But where it divides players into one of two sides, it also unites players who fall on a common side of the border. In the grander scheme, the rivalry also fosters competition, and there can be nothing better to push players at the top to keep improving. In a sense, the rivalry keeps the game alive.

Week 2: Survivor Scrubs

Recognizing the "scrub" mentality in your opponents  during any sort of competitive situation and playing to this advantage can be a powerful asset, just as Richard Hatch demonstrated in Survivor. It definitely paid off in his case--but it was a very, very risky move.

Rich's original strategy to form a voting alliance was definitely the right course of action, at least by the Playing to Win mentality. Survivor had no rules outlawing such tactics, and a successful alliance would increase its members' defensive and offensive capabilities precisely where it mattered most. The only problem with the strategy: members on the alliance were bound to make quite a few enemies among the scrubs outside of the alliance.

If Survivor had been run in a pure "last-man-standing" fashion, this would not have mattered. But it wasn't purely last-man-standing; competitors who lost didn't disappear forever. It was the very people that were voted off who would ultimately decide the fate of the finalists. Rich played the game very well to make it to the final round, but his plan could easily have backfired in the end if the "scrubs" he took out with his "dirty" play held a bad-enough grudge against him. That said, he pretty much had no other choice but to try to convince them one last time that he did the right thing in doing everything possible to win. It was the only edge he had against Kelly, after all; she was the better candidate by every other criteria, especially from the scrub players' point of view. Fortunately for Rich, that single edge was ultimately all he needed...

Week 1: Playing to Win... So Where's the Fun?

In his online book, Sirlin claims that "playing to win" is not entirely incompatible with playing for fun. In fact, he argues that the effort and tactical gameplay exhibited by a player concentrating on defeating his or her opponent is every bit as fun and rewarding as playing the game for its amusement value alone.

Now, I have played many a game wherein winning was the last thing on my mind. Okay, maybe that's not entirely the case, but I have certainly had my fair share of games where my inexperience dictated that I play by button-mashing instinct just to try to survive for as long as possible, and maybe land a few hits on my opponent if I get lucky. Did I win? 99% of the time, no. Did I still manage to have fun? Naturally. Why else would I still be playing Super Smash Brothers to this day?

I would argue that there is fun to be had from just fooling around in even the most competitive of games. I may lack the skills and experience needed to claim victory at the end of the match, yet I still manage to find satisfaction from getting those few hits against my opponent.

That said, I don't disagree with the idea that experts fighting each other at high levels of gameplay still find fun in doing so. Why else would they go through so much trouble to reach such a high level of mastery and still keep improving? The sheer amount of dedication these players put into their game excludes any other ulterior motive as a possibility. Social recognition can be gained in much easier ways; trying to become regional champion at Street Fighter is far too much trouble if you are only in it for the glory. (Those who try are only likely to become scrubs unless they discover the fun of the game for themselves.)

The bottom line is that there is all kinds of fun for both beginners and pro gamers alike. They may not share the same definition of fun, but they each get their enjoyment out of the game, whether they've been to more tournaments than words in this post or if they're only picking up the controller for the fourth time in their lives.