It seems like this would be a common topic around here. If it is, I apologize, would appreciate guidance to such an existing discussion, and will happily close the thread.
If not, though, then I'd really like to know what The Escapist community thinks about this article.
For the uninitiated, here's the piece: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html
Now, let's keep this limited to game philosophy, because if we break out to real-world examples, I fear that this article gets messy. I don't want to provide a basic article synopsis, because it's a quick enough piece and I fear that I have too many mixed thoughts about this to give an honest appraisal. I understand that this article is a brief summary, and Sirlin's whole book might provide more detail, but I'm going off of what I was given.
The long and the short of it from where I'm sitting:
Sirlin is 100% right. That said, he's only in an extremely narrow context (namely, the professional [if applicable] competitive meta-game) such that his definition of the "scrub" becomes irrelevant. What Sirlin describes as "arbitrary rules" actually craft a very particular play experience serving entirely different goals than those which the competitive player desires, and the rules he describes are not applicable to the "scrub."
The longer explanation:
Sorry for the long piece; it's basically a "different folks, different strokes" argument. Now, I do acknowledge that I may have totally missed the point; if Sirlin's piece is addressed to "scrubs" simply looking to play the game on their own terms, where they want the feel of victory but only on their own terms, well, that's not really fair, and of course Sirlin's points apply. But he seems to claim that this is the only way to enjoy the game is his way; for instance,
At the end of it, I guess Sirlin is a victim of his own prejudices and blinded by his own methods of finding fun in games, and it bleeds through to his article. He presents it like a universal, though, which is truly problematic and a sign of his own shortsightedness.
If not, though, then I'd really like to know what The Escapist community thinks about this article.
For the uninitiated, here's the piece: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html
Now, let's keep this limited to game philosophy, because if we break out to real-world examples, I fear that this article gets messy. I don't want to provide a basic article synopsis, because it's a quick enough piece and I fear that I have too many mixed thoughts about this to give an honest appraisal. I understand that this article is a brief summary, and Sirlin's whole book might provide more detail, but I'm going off of what I was given.
The long and the short of it from where I'm sitting:
Sirlin is 100% right. That said, he's only in an extremely narrow context (namely, the professional [if applicable] competitive meta-game) such that his definition of the "scrub" becomes irrelevant. What Sirlin describes as "arbitrary rules" actually craft a very particular play experience serving entirely different goals than those which the competitive player desires, and the rules he describes are not applicable to the "scrub."
The longer explanation:
The confusion seems to come about due to a lack of empathy and understanding for other player-types.
Let's not argue that the "play-to-win" rules are subjective ? they're not. They're very objective. But they're objective to some ends, and here is where the fundamental confusion is rooted. Let's call these play-to-win types "elitists" (not meant disparagingly, just borrowed from the World of Warcraft forum lexicon). What are the rules of "elitists" objective to? In other words, what do "elitist" rules seek to promote? The answer: a series of games where winning is the ultimate goal and the largest toolset is available to get to that point. Everything else is 100% subservient to this ideal.
The second point ? the largest toolset available ? is meant to deter the game from a state of a stagnant equilibrium. When equilibrium equates to stagnation, one lone strategy is dominant, and the game either very fundamentally changes to the point where player 1 and player 2 are definitively playing different games or the game simply becomes noncompetitive. When the maximum amount of tools are assured to players, the largest number of checks and balances are introduced, and victory becomes possible, given that a player is willing to utilize the winning strategy in the face of competition (or, that he is willing to "play to win").
Furthermore, victory must be granted to the player who played better, not some other, non-skill intensive way to measure victory. The "elitist" has no interest in a game that negates some concept of player skill in victory determination, where skill seems to be defined as having (and using) the tools available to maximize chances of victory. Sirlin does a great job of describing skill not necessarily as a technical competence, but instead as a mastery of and appropriate usage of the right skills and techniques at the right times in order to maximize chances of victory.
A large toolset exists to support the possibility of victory, but why is victory so critical? In short, certain players have placed it as the highest "good," the top priority, etc. But why?
Allow me to put this a different way. Why, given the choice when playing Super Smash Brothers Brawl, will Player X choose Spear Pillar as the stage of play over Final Destination or Battlefield every time? Because Player X's end goal is not a successful display of skill, competence, or "playing to win," but fun, which, for Player X, involves things like big lasers, random deaths, and stages messing with players. Player X couldn't be bothered with limited stage selection, turning items off, or Brawl+ add-ons ? true, they make the game more skill-intensive and more competitive, rewarding players for successful execution of effective techniques and counters to the techniques of others ? but that holds no appeal for Player X. He'd rather reflect a Bob-omb back to the sender than execute a chain grab.
Player Y, on the other hand, couldn't ever understand how Player X derives any pleasure from that play experience. There's no evaluation of skill, just a test of who doesn't randomly explode first. True, there may be some silliness involved when Player Y turns on items, but if he wanted to watch pretty explosions and play a random game, he'd flip a coin and go watch a Michael Bay movie.
The point I'm trying to make here is that the "scrub" and "elitist" derive pleasure from games for different reasons. The "scrub" views "playing to win" as draining any fun from the game, and that fun is the ultimate goal, while the "elitist" views playing any other way as a failure to test one's self to the fullest, to affirm one's superiority, to grow and develop, to sharpen mentally, to utilize all resources available, etc. The "scrub" has already lost the "elitist's" game, true, but the "elitist" has already failed to succeed in the "scrub's" territory if he won't agree to arbitrary rules which promote more relaxed, less intense game play.
Does this mean that the "elitist" should "dumb down" his game? Of course not. If he does, he won't win, and that would suck. But, conversely, this means that the "scrub" is not inferior if he understands what the competitive meta is, respects its existence, and chooses to have absolutely nothing to do with it. Much of this thought process is informed by the article "Timmy, Johnny, and Spike Revisited," an interesting read regardless of game you play: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr220b
In addition, after skimming the comments, Sirlin doesn't seem to understand that his Akuma example is bad because the readers lack the specialized knowledge needed to contextualize it, and he lacks the authority in the reader's mind for the reader to trust him. This is a rather sophomoric writing error, really, and it's kind of sad that he doesn't see it and is so persistent on standing by it. As good of a technical example as it may be, if it causes undue confusion, it's not good.
Let's not argue that the "play-to-win" rules are subjective ? they're not. They're very objective. But they're objective to some ends, and here is where the fundamental confusion is rooted. Let's call these play-to-win types "elitists" (not meant disparagingly, just borrowed from the World of Warcraft forum lexicon). What are the rules of "elitists" objective to? In other words, what do "elitist" rules seek to promote? The answer: a series of games where winning is the ultimate goal and the largest toolset is available to get to that point. Everything else is 100% subservient to this ideal.
The second point ? the largest toolset available ? is meant to deter the game from a state of a stagnant equilibrium. When equilibrium equates to stagnation, one lone strategy is dominant, and the game either very fundamentally changes to the point where player 1 and player 2 are definitively playing different games or the game simply becomes noncompetitive. When the maximum amount of tools are assured to players, the largest number of checks and balances are introduced, and victory becomes possible, given that a player is willing to utilize the winning strategy in the face of competition (or, that he is willing to "play to win").
Furthermore, victory must be granted to the player who played better, not some other, non-skill intensive way to measure victory. The "elitist" has no interest in a game that negates some concept of player skill in victory determination, where skill seems to be defined as having (and using) the tools available to maximize chances of victory. Sirlin does a great job of describing skill not necessarily as a technical competence, but instead as a mastery of and appropriate usage of the right skills and techniques at the right times in order to maximize chances of victory.
A large toolset exists to support the possibility of victory, but why is victory so critical? In short, certain players have placed it as the highest "good," the top priority, etc. But why?
Allow me to put this a different way. Why, given the choice when playing Super Smash Brothers Brawl, will Player X choose Spear Pillar as the stage of play over Final Destination or Battlefield every time? Because Player X's end goal is not a successful display of skill, competence, or "playing to win," but fun, which, for Player X, involves things like big lasers, random deaths, and stages messing with players. Player X couldn't be bothered with limited stage selection, turning items off, or Brawl+ add-ons ? true, they make the game more skill-intensive and more competitive, rewarding players for successful execution of effective techniques and counters to the techniques of others ? but that holds no appeal for Player X. He'd rather reflect a Bob-omb back to the sender than execute a chain grab.
Player Y, on the other hand, couldn't ever understand how Player X derives any pleasure from that play experience. There's no evaluation of skill, just a test of who doesn't randomly explode first. True, there may be some silliness involved when Player Y turns on items, but if he wanted to watch pretty explosions and play a random game, he'd flip a coin and go watch a Michael Bay movie.
The point I'm trying to make here is that the "scrub" and "elitist" derive pleasure from games for different reasons. The "scrub" views "playing to win" as draining any fun from the game, and that fun is the ultimate goal, while the "elitist" views playing any other way as a failure to test one's self to the fullest, to affirm one's superiority, to grow and develop, to sharpen mentally, to utilize all resources available, etc. The "scrub" has already lost the "elitist's" game, true, but the "elitist" has already failed to succeed in the "scrub's" territory if he won't agree to arbitrary rules which promote more relaxed, less intense game play.
Does this mean that the "elitist" should "dumb down" his game? Of course not. If he does, he won't win, and that would suck. But, conversely, this means that the "scrub" is not inferior if he understands what the competitive meta is, respects its existence, and chooses to have absolutely nothing to do with it. Much of this thought process is informed by the article "Timmy, Johnny, and Spike Revisited," an interesting read regardless of game you play: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr220b
In addition, after skimming the comments, Sirlin doesn't seem to understand that his Akuma example is bad because the readers lack the specialized knowledge needed to contextualize it, and he lacks the authority in the reader's mind for the reader to trust him. This is a rather sophomoric writing error, really, and it's kind of sad that he doesn't see it and is so persistent on standing by it. As good of a technical example as it may be, if it causes undue confusion, it's not good.
Sorry for the long piece; it's basically a "different folks, different strokes" argument. Now, I do acknowledge that I may have totally missed the point; if Sirlin's piece is addressed to "scrubs" simply looking to play the game on their own terms, where they want the feel of victory but only on their own terms, well, that's not really fair, and of course Sirlin's points apply. But he seems to claim that this is the only way to enjoy the game is his way; for instance,
This is simply untrue, a prime example of loaded language, and completely player-dependent. There's no other way to put it. Furthermore, what is the "actual" game? It's the game which derived from a "play-to-win" mentality, which really is no inherently better or worse than a "play-for-fun" approach.
At the end of it, I guess Sirlin is a victim of his own prejudices and blinded by his own methods of finding fun in games, and it bleeds through to his article. He presents it like a universal, though, which is truly problematic and a sign of his own shortsightedness.