Cooperatively Competitive

[PrototypeC]

THANK YOU for this incredibly insightful article. I've tried to explain to my friends why I don't enjoy aggressive competitive play but it never seemed to take. I hadn't even thought of using Princess Bride as an example. Which is more fun to watch, over and over, between the two fights? There's a clear answer; killing Rugen was kind of a necessary thing rather than something fun like the rest of the movie.

Thinking about it, my favourite gaming moments have been co-operative experiences with friends, while my worst have been purposefully caused by some dick overseas who was getting their aggressive in my fun.

Can you imagine what kind of movie would include the Man in Black teabagging the unconscious Inigo and insulting his mother? Ugggghlk.

 

[AdamxD]

(and, Alas!, MTG girl is married. Competition strikes again!)

You're right. Competition might just be a bad thing!

With online gaming though, I find I'm not challenging other people, I'm challenging myself. To try and get more kills than the last game and to score more goals. I find it a personal competition sometimes, and I'm not trying to take other peoples fun.
However, I'm a real sucker for a fantastic co-op game. I think that's why I found Halo so much better than the CoD series. I could get 3 of my best mates and save the planet, rather than save the planet single handedly. One of my favourite moments was completing Annual on H3.

 

[Deviluk]

Superb article! I have a very competitive girlfriend who I live with, and we recently got the Small World board game. She got the app and practiced and practiced whilst I was out, and now our matches are won by less then 10 points each time. It is gratifying to be so closely tied to someone, and to share strategies after, and to appreciate their skill. I think she just wants to win all the time, but if we ever play a video game or sport then I normally win!

On the other hand I also have a SC2 friend who is super-competitive, and ruins the games for the whole team when he throws a hissy fit because we're not listening to him, or doing what he says, or just losing. Everyone then sinks to his level and becomes mardy and frustrated at losses. Why are negative emotions so contagious?

 

[Sentox6]

None of you have even touched upon competitive gaming until you play Starcraft 2.

Or, you know, any number of other games.

 

[zefiris]

All those games that we play are competitive at their core, even the cooperative ones.

I like playing games that are not competitive. They certainly exist. Not everything needs to be about competition - this single minded focus you are displaying is a major problem in gaming in general, in my opinion.

 

[Starik20X6]

When my younger brother and I play games together, they are almost exclusively co-operative, or at least more co-op than they are competitive. LittleBigPlanet is our most played by far, but we'll get into anything that lets us both work together. Only time we play against each other is in racing games, where he thoroughly destroys me.

 

[Scow2]

All those games that we play are competitive at their core, even the cooperative ones. So, I'm afraid this article is trying to make a point that doesn't really exist.

I think the point is that we focus too much on winning the game, rather than enjoying it; we allow the competitive possibilities to outweigh all others.

As for cooperative games, how about Journey? I don't think it's even possible to 'win' against the person you're playing with; you both win together. But Journey is somewhat unique in it's approach; I think that the author wants to foster an environment that is more Settlers of Catan than Monopoly. He wants a place where you can play against each other without trying to destroy one another; where you can enjoy the experience of playing and remember the great moments, rather than focus on winning and forget all else.

Your points about resource acquisition and denial are true, and using skillful play to gain resources while denying them to opponents is at the heart of games; however, fun doesn't have to be such a resource.

Okay... so I was wrong about cooperative games being competitive. I don't even know why I said that wallbang-worthy phrase.

However, Settlers of Catan can be VERY cutthroat-competitive: Would you trade your Wood for Sheep because while you need the Sheep, the other guy would be able to win the game or cut your expansion off with the Wood?

It's true that it's not about winning or losing, but how you play the game. On the other hand, [url = "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zLlIdZikDk"]you play to win the game.[/url]

 

[Dastardly]

There's two kinds of serious gaming, in my opinion...

Sorry for the snip, I liked your points. I think one of the problems in getting others to understand what you're saying is that we've allowed the scoreboard to become our only measuring stick.

Some people are very serious about winning, whatever the cost. Others are very serious about playing well, even if they lose while doing it. But too many people would jump to the immediate conclusion that, if the guy's losing, he's not "playing well," right?

Others are more concerned with having "a good game." But because the hyper-competitive believe "good game" means "game I won," they assume other players must think the same way... meaning the only reason you're complaining about it must be that you're just a sore loser or something.

It's the nature of things. More aggressively competitive people will tend to be the sort of people that assume everyone thinks the way they do (or at least they should), so it's harder to communicate this kind of thing.

... I don't like holding back for long periods of time since it takes me a while to get back into gear when I have to play for real. I don't like demolishing newbies because I know how tough the genre is to new players just by itself. I think constantly holding back nowadays might be hurting my play. When I really have to go at it, I can't do it properly because I've been using inefficient playstyles for so long. It kinda sucks.

And this is really one of the hardest things about it. To those players that can completely demolish other players, not getting the chance to do so is like caging a tiger. It can be frustrating to constantly have to hold back, especially because the competitive part of our nature so aggressively craves expression.

Moderation is the key, I guess. Sometimes, it's cool to play a few "fair" games, and then say, "Hey guys, mind if I go all out on this one?" Of course, you can't really do that in randomized multiplayer. We can always find other ways to practice.

If I know the map way better than you, I can probably sneak around and plug you without a care in the world. And sure, it'll feel good to win and show off my expertise, and y'know what? Once in awhile it's okay. Other times, I don't necessarily have to hold back my skills, but rather just hold back my kills -- I can sneak up, tag you for half your health, taunt you over voice chat (in a playful way), and then disappear. I proved I could have killed you, but let you keep playing for awhile instead.

(And then on the next match-up, I can bring out the nukes.)

 

[Skarlette]

I had started thinking about Magic before you had even mentioned it. So many of my husband's friends play their games that way, many of them being long time players, with back catalogues of cards they've bought since they were kids. They're always going to have better decks, better cards, etc. I'll never be able to compete with them, so I don't want to play with them. A bit defeatist, maybe, but it might explain my aversion to combat games like Mortal Kombat, too.

Anyone remember in Super Mario Bros. 3, how there was the mini-game level you could play with player 2, and it was usually a race to get the most enemies killed, or most coins? My cousins and I played that level for hours, giggling endlessly, not racing each other to 'win' by the mini-game's parameters, but instead playing tag within the level until one of us died.

And you know? THAT was the most fun I've ever had with a video game, for the past 20 years. What changed since then? Play style? Did the games themselves change?

 

[Dastardly]

I had started thinking about Magic before you had even mentioned it. So many of my husband's friends play their games that way, many of them being long time players, with back catalogues of cards they've bought since they were kids. They're always going to have better decks, better cards, etc. I'll never be able to compete with them, so I don't want to play with them. A bit defeatist, maybe, but it might explain my aversion to combat games like Mortal Kombat, too.

Actually, situations like this explain the rise of formats like "Commander" in MTG. It was originally supposed to be a way for people to put a deck together out of whatever they had lying around, de-emphasizing combos and such. Of course, it didn't take long for people to start "gaming the format," and buying cards to construct uber-decks...

Anyone remember in Super Mario Bros. 3, how there was the mini-game level you could play with player 2, and it was usually a race to get the most enemies killed, or most coins? My cousins and I played that level for hours, giggling endlessly, not racing each other to 'win' by the mini-game's parameters, but instead playing tag within the level until one of us died.

And you know? THAT was the most fun I've ever had with a video game, for the past 20 years. What changed since then? Play style? Did the games themselves change?

The biggest change? People looking at that kind of play and asking, "What's the point?" Often, the people asking that are the over-competitive folks that need scores and wins and losses to enjoy a game. And while they were asking that, those of us that love "pointless" play were too busy enjoying it. We didn't speak up.

 

[Eldiran]

Nice article. I think it's worth mentioning that in the long term it is usually competitively beneficial to "play" for some matches to improve your abilities. If you let the opponent catch their breath, you are only giving yourself more struggle and training. If you mess around trying new things (as opposed to going all out and following that competitive "script"), you'll learn more about the constraints of the game, and might pick up a new trick or two.

 

[Tempest13]

I guess it makes me a little weird but I enjoy the competition. Most of us who play fighting games like Street Fighter and King of Fighters etc. take proving who's the best seriously, but we never stop wanting to hang out with each other and help each other out. I'm always driven to do better for myself, but at the same time I'm helping them by giving them the matches they deserve and making it more fun for them. Winning and losing can be a part of the fun, but exciting and well played matches brings out the best in my community. For other people who don't want to engage in this competitive field they're free to enjoy games casually or as a spectator sport (which is awesome btw), but for me playing and being competitive is enough for me to not be put off by losing badly.

That is what gaming is for me when I play with friends. I still enjoy crazy games like Dokapon kingdom and such, but I get the most enjoyment out of playing fighting games and the emotions that come with conflict. Oh and I like RPGs but that's not the point.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Very interesting article, putting something so simple into a well considered and delivered argument. This is obviously applicable to games but also to sports. I have a friend with whom I used to enjoy playing badminton once in a while. However, while I enjoyed the "playing" part, he enjoyed the "beating" me part. While I would look forward to rallies he would actively seek to end them with overhead smashes, lobs and the usual left-right trickery. I don't enjoy spending so much time picking up shuttlecocks, and the result is now we don't play really (though I didn't actually say anything).

With games, I'm with the author and enjoy playing with friends "co-op competitively" (second to outright co-op". I enjoy out-foxing them and in turn being out-foxed and will gladly (and silently) hold back if I have too large an advantage. The fun for me is in the playing and having fun with friends, not the beating of them. Never been particularly competitive.

 

[Bonemeal]

I know it's frowned upon in the fighting game community at large, but I almost always give second round if I'm just absolutely crushing my opponent. It's hard to hold back sometimes, knowing that I could end the fight in under 20 seconds in a game of SF4, but I don't want my opponent to want to bail. It's hard for me to get my friends to want to play fighting games as-is, but totally wrecking them while offering them little opportunity to even throw a punch seems like the wrong way to try to get them to want to play more often, so I'll throw rounds and matches from time to time to try and coax a bit of the fighting spirit out of them.

It seems to be working. I've found that they're a lot more receptive to playing now than they were a couple months ago.

 

[Dastardly]

I guess it makes me a little weird but I enjoy the competition. ... For other people who don't want to engage in this competitive field they're free to enjoy games casually or as a spectator sport (which is awesome btw), but for me playing and being competitive is enough for me to not be put off by losing badly.

It's not weird at all. Competition can be a lot of fun. It's not about getting rid of it, or making everyone use "safety scissors," or anything like that.

And it's not about dividing things up by genre, either. It's not about what we play, just about how. It's possible to play fighting games without every single match being a knock-down, drag-out, no-holds-barred affair. Sometimes (I'd even say most times) it's about making sure that one person's Winning doesn't become more important than everyone's Fun.

I have a friend with whom I used to enjoy playing badminton once in a while. However, while I enjoyed the "playing" part, he enjoyed the "beating" me part.

It's so common to run into that, too. You've basically got two personality types in these situations -- the group-minded, less competitive personality (like mine, and apparently yours), and the individual-minded, more competitive personality (like your friend's). Neither personality should rule the other. There should be a balance.

It just so happens that the more competitive personality is also the more aggressive, so it's the one that's more likely to impose itself upon others. Not to say it's bad or has no place, just has a bit more potential for problems.

It seems to be working. I've found that they're a lot more receptive to playing now than they were a couple months ago.

I love hearing stories like yours! I'm curious, though -- do you feel doing this has changed your enjoyment of the game? Specifically, do you enjoy it less, more, or the same? I'm usually the person on the other side of this, and I like getting insight from people on yours...

 

[Bonemeal]

It seems to be working. I've found that they're a lot more receptive to playing now than they were a couple months ago.

I love hearing stories like yours! I'm curious, though -- do you feel doing this has changed your enjoyment of the game? Specifically, do you enjoy it less, more, or the same? I'm usually the person on the other side of this, and I like getting insight from people on yours...

As for me, I'm having more fun now than ever. Being able to share fighting games with my friends was always a kind of far-off dream for years. I don't mind loosening up for a bit and letting my buddies get a few rounds or games over on me, because that's what motivates them to keep playing, and I CERTAINLY don't mind assisting my friends when they want to spend 15 or 30 minutes in training mode trying to figure out a combo or technique that's just out of reach. It's lowering the barrier of entry so that the idea of trying to control this strange character in a foreign genre doesn't seem so intimidating.

When possible, I'm glad to volunteer my advice and give encouragement. To give a really, really, really basic example, one of my friends--the one with the least fighting game experience by far--could not consistently pull off a double quarter-circle motion to save his life. Obviously, if I'm just looking out for number one, this would be awesome for me. One less tool for him to use to try and dig a win. As he was trying to get it to come out, I noticed that the way he was holding the stick was similar to how I used to back when I first started, and back then I had the same problem. I showed him the grip I've since started using, and as soon as he tried it out, it was like someone flipped a switch. Dude's execution for his Supers and Ultras jumped by an order of magnitude in seconds. Sure, for a high-level player, that's kid's stuff, but I remember when I first started with fighting games when I was just a little kid, and how just being able to make my character bust out a fancy 20-hit combo while I looked on were some of the most satisfying seconds in gaming. At 25 years old, my friend had the exact same moment.

And here's one thing I DIDN'T expect to come of it: after going easy for a couple of rounds and letting the rounds stay close--even losing a few--when I come back at them at 100%, I find that they've suddenly gotten BETTER. No doubt that a lot of that can be attributed to just getting warm on the fightstick, but when they win a few rounds and start to taste success, they're emboldened to try new tactics, take risks that they might not have otherwise taken, and generally approach every fight with a degree of thoughtfulness and consideration that they wouldn't have otherwise even bothered with if they had just gotten stomped into oblivion for the thirtieth consecutive round. Success begets success, and that has as much to do with technical proficiency as it does the motivation to do what it takes to maintain that positive momentum.

 

[Dastardly]

snip

I think what you've really hit on is a problem that a lot of very competitive people notice, and the solution to that very problem.

The very competitive player often worries that, if we make games more accessible to less competitive (and less experienced) players, they're going to have a shortage of challenging games and opponents. What they don't realize is that's like a farmer worrying that if he keeps filling his fields with these stupid "seeds," he's not going to have any room for corn.

 

[Johnny Kilhefner]

Interesting article. I wrote a counter to it on Nightmare Mode...
http://nightmaremode.net/2012/05/feedback-loop-playing-to-win-18586/

"Playing, Campbell suggests, should be about ?how we play without always letting it be why [we play].? But isn?t how we play determined by why we play? When we play for a reason it affects how we go about playing. People play videogames to win adoration; to win fellowship; to win within the game?s rules; etc. So, if playing to win within the rules of the game, how we play becomes more aggressive. If playing to win, say, the enjoyment of company, how we play becomes less aggressive, but only in the traditional sense. Why we play leads into how we play, and becomes the basis for playing. Where Campbell?s subjectivity hits its stride is his assertion that people playing to win the game take the fun away for everyone else. Can?t the same be said about people playing for simple amusement?"

 

[Dastardly]

Interesting article. I wrote a counter to it on Nightmare Mode...
http://nightmaremode.net/2012/05/feedback-loop-playing-to-win-18586/

"Playing, Campbell suggests, should be about ?how we play without always letting it be why [we play].? But isn?t how we play determined by why we play? When we play for a reason it affects how we go about playing. People play videogames to win adoration; to win fellowship; to win within the game?s rules; etc. So, if playing to win within the rules of the game, how we play becomes more aggressive. If playing to win, say, the enjoyment of company, how we play becomes less aggressive, but only in the traditional sense. Why we play leads into how we play, and becomes the basis for playing. Where Campbell?s subjectivity hits its stride is his assertion that people playing to win the game take the fun away for everyone else. Can?t the same be said about people playing for simple amusement?"

Thanks for letting me know! I've given your article a read, and I've provided a response in your comment section. We'll go ahead and keep the discussion going there, if that's okay with you!