How we play.
I think it is interesting to watch people with different game philosophies interract.
Back when I played Diablo II much more than I do now I had a friend who refused to play with me. This was because I was "an asshole about it". Her words. Were she to indicate that she wanted to play an Amazon I would explain what the best type of Amazon was, why, and how to build such a character. When we quested I knew where to go and how to quickly progress through the game so that we could reach the end and grind bosses. To me this was the only sensible way to play the game. To her this was entirely not fun.
Magic: The Gathering exhibited the same problem with regard to attitudes towards gameplay. Differences in budgets, attitudes, goals, and playstyles eventually eroded our playgroups and gameplay stopped. When some players want to spend $12 on a deck and others want to spend $800 gameplay will not long survive.
Now that I'm playing WoW again (and ceaselessly talking about it) I've found another instance of gamer philosophies conflicting. Where some embrace a hard-line approach to character design and mandate that characters have certain stats, skills and gear before attempting instance X other players will embrace a wider range of possibilities and argue that there are multiple paths to any given goal.
What I would like to know is who is "correct".
I think that "correct" is found by observing the consequences of one's playstyle with regard to gameplay. Does the player's playstyle allow them to meet their objectives? Is the playstyle realistic? Is the playstyle needlessly restrictive?
If a player wants to play casually and not pursue higher quality gear or cards or units then certainly a player has this option. But would it be sensible for such a person to complain about hardships which result from that style of gameplay? Can a person reasonably maintain the view that they do not need better equipment if they constantly die? Is it nonsense for a person to state that they do not need to buy better cards if they constantly lose?
On the other side, if a player maintains the view that only class X with gear Y can do task Z is this an accurate assessment of the situation? Does a player who spends hundreds of dollars on cards or figurines somehow miss an aspect of the game? How can we tell?
How do we determine "correct"?
I tend to side with the hard-liners in these debates, if only in voice. While I may not be willing to invest the time, effort, and funds required to maximize my character, deck, or whatever I will certainly acknowledge that those who do so are persuing the game "correctly", placing their own objectives in line with the objectives displayed by the rules and structure of the game.
With regard to the "multiple paths" argument I tend to view the situation in terms of efficiency. Whose character build results in faster kills and less deaths? Whose deck building philosophy leads to the greatest number of wins? While there may be multiple paths to any given end there is certainly, within a context, a "best" path; a path which will more perfectly allow for an actualization of the desired end.
While we can always dismiss this argument by saying "It's only a game; do what you want." I think it is important to note the end of that idea: "do what you want." To do one must have a means. What we must primarily explore in this debate is how one's attitude and playstyle affects one's means.
Which playstyle allows for the best means by which one may reach a desired end?
Once we answer that we'll know who is right.
26 comments:
The way I see it, these are merely games. Nothing is truly won or lost besides pride in these affairs.
The end goal of any game is entertainment, of which the basis is gratification.
In Magic, I loved to make efficient machines of death with cards noone else wanted to use, to me this was gratifying. Others enjoy building needlessly large and complicated combos if only to get a chance to have it go off that one time. To them this is gratification, to watch their combo come to life. For people such as you gratification comes from bland soulless decks specifically designed to win by turn X. Each person works purely for gratification purposes.
For me in wow, gratification comes from working with a small group of people to overcome difficult challenges that 5 random uncommunicative people could never overcome. The gratification for me comes from teamwork, everyone doing their job to help the group overcome some boss or group of mobs that could never have been done with each person acting individually. For others, the gratification comes from getting better gear, from winning pvp matches (I too find this gratifying), amassing wealth, exploring new areas, leveling, etc. WoW has built a world in which people can find many ways to entertain themselves, and I find that impressive and beautiful.
In the end everyone simply wants gratification, and will find their own way to do so.
For me, part of the fun of a game is the learning curve. I enjoy the first encounters with the game as a sort of test to see what can be done in the world and what the world can do for me. In the case of Diablo, that meant seeing what I'd get for finishing quests, what the movie sequences were going to be, discovering better equipment, that sort of thing.
Jumping into a game like Diablo with someone who is going to surgically remove those early experiences and direct you straight to the triggers that move the game along and get you the best shit right away is not something I enjoy. I played WoW for a free trial period and really didn't care for it because I was partied with a veteran who would lead me around all the time. Whatever fun of discovery was to be had was stripped away almost completely, and instead of playing the game, it felt more like following a recipe.
I don't know. Even if every kid wanted to play baseball in the major leagues, that doesn't mean there's no room for t-ball and a gradual progression upwards. And if some guy was yelling at kids for being fucking noobs because they can't even hit a thrown ball and they're not on steroids, and where the hell is their contract? They're fucking playing the game wrong! That guy should probably just shut up.
I powered Jay through a bunch of Disgaea and I kind of regret doing that. I realize Jay and I don't play the same way, and he might not care, but I wish I hadn't saved.
I agree whole heartedly Adam. Some of my best WoW experiences were the intial leveling periods. Seeing new and neat stuff that I hadn't seen before. I'm glad that I started playing the game alone with no one to screw me over and skip all of those cool new learning experiences.
We have a new guy playing with us this time around, and I'm trying to get him to level what I consider the proper way. We are doing the quests as a group, the honest way, no high levels to power us through it, and I think it is getting the intended result because he doesn't hate the game yet.
It takes progression to get to any goal. But the path one takes to reach that goal can be assessed and critiqued. And while we oughtn't yell at someone because they are unable to hit a ball I think there is justification for yelling at someone who refuses to try or argues that hitting the ball is somehow irrelevant.
"Whatever fun of discovery was to be had was stripped away almost completely, and instead of playing the game, it felt more like following a recipe."
That's what many of these games fundamentally are, though. Diablo II and WoW really are graphical interfaces over a loot table. So while we can enbrace the graphical interface and focus on Deckard Cane and the memories of starting characters and Mike Mikeing seals what's really going on is we're engaging in the interface to obtain loot.
So when people try to get away from the view that Magic or WoW or Disgaea or other similar games are simply very elaborate Excel Spreadsheets I am confused.
Because they really are just Excel Spreadsheets and loot tables and point assigning systems.
And if we're going to ignore the Spreadsheet and instead focus on the social aspect or some other dimension of the game we have to recognize that the foundation is that code or system or ruleset.
"We are doing the quests as a group, the honest way, no high levels to power us through it, and I think it is getting the intended result because he doesn't hate the game yet."
He has yet to recognize that the game is a graphical interface over a very elaborate loot table.
It will be interesting to see what happens when he has that realization.
Last night I said "The game doesn't start till you're 70" and he replied "It starts when I say it starts."
He may have been being a smartass. But it made me think about how differently we view the game. It almost made me regret saying it. But then I remembered that eventually he'll have the realization of what the game is.
And he'll either hate it or lovingly embrace the grind. The sweet, sweet grind.
I felt like an ass one time last night during that instance. Once we pulled too many mobs in a fight and the healer was hitting them rather than focusing on healing the tank we had. I said, "You're not the DPS, Mark. You're the healer."
To me that revealed how I view the game as being very cubby holed. How player in X position ought to act in a certain way. And while I felt the way I imagine a parent does when they smack a child for a belief in unicorns I couldn't see what I had reasonably done wrong which made me feel bad.
Healer is not DPS. Healer is healer.
Yet somehow when I said it I felt bad.
I also jokingly mocked him for being a potion maker but not having his potion making supplies with him so that he could make a Mana potion that he needed. I didn't feel like an ass that time, though.
So when people try to get away from the view that Magic or WoW or Disgaea or other similar games are simply very elaborate Excel Spreadsheets I am confused.
I may have already said this before, or I might inadvertently be quoting someone, but I'm of the mind that games (and maybe even life in general) goes from Magical to Interesting to Boring.
Recognizing that Diablo is a spreadsheet with a neat UI and using your time to accumulate numbers and words is part of the "interesting" stage. Before you figure that out is the "magical" stage, and after you stop caring is the "boring" stage.
I wouldn't want to necessarily rush anyone who thinks the game is interesting into being bored, and I similarly wouldn't want to push anyone who thinks it's magical into being merely interested.
We're all pretty sophisticated people, and we all can see through systems well enough to be "interested" pretty quickly, and maybe jay goes right to interested and stays there until he's bored, but part of the reason why I don't read reviews or previews or really anything beyond a few screens and a barebones description of the game, is because that's what I need to do to squeeze any semblance of "magical" out of the game, which is what I enjoy the most (for the most part. I mean, a strategy game only needs to be interesting, but it's nice when an action game or an RPG can have a little magic).
"I'm of the mind that games (and maybe even life in general) goes from Magical to Interesting to Boring."
I agree entirely.
When I tried to play Harvest Moon I started by reading a guide of how to make the best farm ever. Once I had done that there was no reason to play because someone else knew how to do everything and my doing it was needless.
What keeps WoW interesting for me is the social component and the sense that what i'm doing matters insofar as the items I collect and skills I obtain can be utilized to help or overcome the characters of other people.
Life is boring. But there is the possibility of it being interesting again. So I've yet to jump in front of a train. Plus, I still need to complete my Tier 4 set.
So do you still think that there is a correct way to play, or do we all sort of agree that there are numerous reasons for playing and likewise numerous "correct" paths?
I think that there is a correct path for any given reason for play.
To be the best Tank in WoW one does ___.
To plant the most trees in Animal Crossing one does ___.
To do the least combat in Fallout one does ___.
Regardless of the gratification or enjoyment one seeks there will be a best manner in which it is sought.
And the "best" is always contextual. So if Kyle wants to make a wonky Magic deck there will be a Magic deck which will be the wonkyest. If one is seeking fun group play there will be one style which is the most fun.
I think that is just reality.
I'm not saying that if one installs Diablo II then what follows MUST BE X lest they die. I'm saying that if one has a goal for Diablo II there will be a best way to achieve that goal.
I don't see the games as excel sheets at all. I see them as puzzles. In diablo, it was always my goal to make a character that wasn't the common path, one that would not be easy to play. One whose purpose was decided by the masses to be inherently weak. These are what makes the game fun, to make it challenging.
In wow, I abhor playing with the cookie cutter groups, which is a big part of why I hate large raids.
I want to try to do instances with groups that weren't meant to do the instance, find ways to hide the glaring faults of the party make up for and focus on the positives to make what we have work.
The one instance I've done with our "awesome" guild have been the most boring runs I have done in a long long time...
Skipping bosses because they are hard and we don't like the loot they drop? For shame. This is no game to me, but a job, a pathetic one at that.
J, you fail to understand that there isn't some inherent goal to be the most anything. My goal in magic isn't to make the wonkiest decks.. my goal is to take cards no one else will use and make them something to be feared.
And seeking fun group play to me is to seek out diversity, rather than find a single way to do anything.
I think rather than numerous "correct paths", there is no correct path, there is just the ambiguous path that everyone takes unique to themselves. Some may enjoy the path they have taken, some may not, but there is never some specific path in which a person must take to enjoy a game. Frankly, presetting paths to enjoyment is exactly what sucks the enjoyment out of things.
I kinda want to be in on this discussion badly, but I don't have the time to read it right now.. grrr.
"I want to try to do instances with groups that weren't meant to do the instance, find ways to hide the glaring faults of the party make up for and focus on the positives to make what we have work."
What is the virtue of that?
I think it is neat that we do five person instances with four people. But I don't think four people is somehow more enjoyable than five.
I enjoy the group experience of WoW and working together to make it through an instance. But I don't see how the "boo cookie cutter" group is more enjoyable than the cookie cutter group.
Over Christmas break when it might have been the case that Ros started playing again we were talking about characters and he was trying to figure out what sort of character he could play in a new and unique way.
And I entirely don't understand the point of that.
Classifying certain characters or groups as "cookie cutter" and therefore "not fun" seems silly. Because it's a limitation one places on one's self. It's the pursuit of obscurity for obscurity's sake.
It's like how Adam really liked Heavy Metal in High School but then liked it less when other people started liking it.
The hell?
I think it is entirely enjoyable to amass a group of characters which has been recognized as a sensible grouping of characters. I think it is fine to try something new and different.
But to do one or the other for the sake of something other than the completion of the instance seems to miss the point of what we're doing.
Going out of one's way to be different and unique by virtue of being nonconformist is far less sensible, in my mind, than going out of one's way to be different and unique by virtue of how freaking awesome you are.
In some ways it seems like the noncomformity desire may result from one redefining success to bypass the game structure. I'm not saying that you or Ros do this. Some people do, however, not desire to raid and so approach the game in a manner which makes raiding unneccessary: They define the goal to be such that it is obtainable.
It's like how in Magic once one discovers T1 decks and the cost of such decks some will structure their view of success in the game to be such that they don't have to spend the money to get T1 decks because they don't want to get T1 decks.
Ramble ramble ramble.
I like cookie cutter groups because they make raids and instances go faster. Rather than wipe 3 times with a unique group I'd rather motor through an instance, get the loot, and then go on to the next instance.
It's just more efficient.
"My goal in magic isn't to make the wonkiest decks.. my goal is to take cards no one else will use and make them something to be feared."
I play what I want to play. I like playing dragons and affinity; they are enjoyable decks. I like playing Mindslaver and that powerstone minefield deck I made. I liked playing the howling mine deck.
What I don't like is someone who argues that since other people have versions of Dragon then somehow my version of Dragon is somehow less awesome; that somehow a netdecker is a less able player as a result of their ability to assess and identify good deck design.
And I don't think you're that person. But we've both been in comic shops with people who are.
Their argument is "Your deck is not good because other people play it."
I've no idea how they support such a claim.
"I kinda want to be in on this discussion badly, but I don't have the time to read it right now.. grrr."
You don't have to read what people say to reply to them.
If someone wants to make a level one orc and stand in Ogrimmar yelling "I WON!" they are welcome to do that. They're not doing something incorrectly.
If one's desire is to make a raiding Warlock who can deal the most possible damage for a warlock, not pull threat, and stay alive in Gruul's lair that is a fine desire as well.
But an Affliction spec will meet this goal. A Demonology spec will not. A destruction spec will not. Why? Because we can build these characters, send them to Gruul's lair, and then check the damage meter afterwards.
We can determine "best" in a context. What is best in one context may not be best in another context.
If one Magic deck wins 52% of games and another Magic deck wins 23% of games we cannot say that each of these decks are equally viable in the same context in the same way.
It's all about the context of what we're trying to achieve.
It's not obscurity for the sake of obscurity, it is obscurity for the sake of a challenge. I don't like the race condition challenges that high level raids throw at you, I like challenges to be meaningful to be overcome regardless of situation. With a race condition, the only way to overcome it is to have better gear/higher dps specs to increase dps output.
In my mind DPS output should not be the end all/be all way to be useful to a group. A dps meter doesn't take into account the intangibles. Were a warlock to out dps a moonkin by say 20%, does this automatically mean the moonkin should be replaced with another warlock? Of course not, the dps meter doesn't take into account the bonus damage the warlock gains from the moonkin's crit bonuses or the amount of time the moonkin came out to decurse.
In my opinion the worst thing that ever happened to wow raiding is the damage meter. What defines a metric of success in a raid is whether the boss went down, nothing else should be taken into account.
My comment didn't save. Nuts!
I don't like challenges. I like forming a group who can breeze through an instance. If I have two hours to kill I'd rather breeze through two instances quickly than slug it out in one instance for the sake of a challenge. Two instances is more loot.
"What defines a metric of success in a raid is whether the boss went down, nothing else should be taken into account."
The ease with which the boss went down ought to be included.
And that's what cookie cutter builds and groups are about: Fine tuning. There's no need to reinvent the wheel or spit in the face of the information gathered on wowwiki and thottbot. I'm happy to utilize what other people have found to make my experience easier.
I'll agree that characters can have utility outside of their DPS. Warlocks SS, Mages make food, boomkins add crit and look cute.
But if one is going to use a boomkin one might as well use one with +900 spell damage rather than one with +550 spell damage. If one needs a tank better to get one with 16k life than one with 8k.
It's just math.
You're really arguing between the experience and the end result.
This is the whole point of Jay's Best-path-based constructions. He has chosen a specific end result, his context, and everything is in regards to that. His very game experiences are only interpretable in relation to that end-result. His magic decks are designed to win. Time and time again. He raids for loot. Perfoming better gets him better loot, therefore he strives to perform better.
Kyle, on the other hand, and Adam's play-scale both describe the experience, for itself. Kyle takes an underutilized card and crafts it into a tight, devestating deck, to experience the card. He games in WoW to see what he can do. Adam played in WoW, only to be shown how things are done, and wasn't interested becuase the doing wasn't his. The experience wasn't experienced, per se.
Good summary.
It's why I like this discussion. We all have different primary assumptions so we'll always have conflicting views.
That's what makes talking about it fun.
No, it makes pointing, arguing, and head shaking about it fun.
Also, Blue Control is all about resource Denial. That makes it totally like Red LD.
Same thing.
If we're going to take a very loose definition of "resource" and "denial" such that they can refer to completely unrelated and different aspects of the game.
Then, sure.
Red Land Destruction removes the means by which cards are played: land. (ignoring other sources of mana and 0 cost cards)
Blue Control allows a player to have the means by which they can play cards but then stops the card from actually taking effect.
That's the difference. If a player has no lands or other mana sources they cannot play cards. Blue allows a player to play cards but then either stops the card from coming into play or allows the card to come into play but then controls it or taps it or somehow shackles it.
It's the difference between shooting someone's dog and muzzling someone's dog.
(points, shouts)
Post a Comment