Recently, I participated in an extremely interesting debate on how skill is defined. While the true definition is somewhat subjective in terms of video games, I learned what true skill is not. The title of today's article is a direct result of that particular discussion.
Essentially, the entire discussion boiled down skill being one's ability to emerge victorious given exactly equal circumstances to the opponent. While this sounds correct upon first hearing it, the definition of "equal circumstances" was certainly a skewed one in this particular instance. The people in the discussion went on to state that it is unfair how certain players have more time to practice advanced techniques than more casual players, so advanced techniques are forms of cheating in that they grant an unfair advantage against those who have not practiced them. In other words, when two people sit down to play a game, the chances of a newbie winning and a five year veteran winning have to be equal.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but that sounds like a coin toss. Is it not? If the chances of a player who never practices needs to equal that of a polished veteran, only a coin toss will satisfy that. Any other system would steer clear of the needed 50/50 odds. These debaters attempted to clarify that skill implies an ability to adapt and play a new game without experience. So, this changed the argument from a coin toss to a direct measure of God-given talent. Practice is not allowed to alter results; skill simply measures the player's natural ability. Are you confused yet? So am I.
I have checked the world over, and I cannot find one instance of serious competition where this was the measure of skill involved. Last I checked, basketball players were allowed to practice dribbles and shots before competing. Last I checked, skill resulted from hard work and personal refinement as opposed to gaging the amount of dumb luck a person has. However, if these expressions of skill are incorrect, then I suppose Candy Land is the only way we can see how much natural talent a person has. After all, it would be unfair if the game promoted practice or gave anyone an unfair advantage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I could so beat you at Candy Land. Any time, pal.
I've been practicing. : )
That faulty reasoning stems simply from excuses, johns if you will. A person is not able to practice the game, yet is also afraid to lose... so they make excuses. They either don't have as much free time as the other player to practice (unlikely, considering the age of those usually sporting this sort of immature attitude) or they believe that advanced tactics are cheating (which is just another cop out.)
Those attitudes don't last very long in the community for a number of reasons, the top two usually being:
1) People grow up.
2) People get fed up with all the cheating and hacking in SSBM and quit.
...and the rest of us are completely satisfied with both the game and the community.
~Tom
Post a Comment