All games have a subtle, mystical theme about them in that the whole experience comes from one mind (or one set of minds). Experienced players know how to exploit this element by "getting inside the head of the creator" so to speak. By discovering patterns that are common in a particular game series, solutions to puzzles and enemy weaknesses become more obvious with each iteration.
Take Metroid Prime, for example. The game is very puzzle-heavy, so it is natural for the player to become stuck and be forced to wander aimlessly for a while. However, by understanding the nature of the Metroid universe, players know to retrace their steps using the other available visors in hopes of revealing a secret. Under these circumstances, it helps immensely to know the game creator's intent. Unraveling the mind of the creator drastically simplifies the problem. By being able to anticipate AI's next move, players may exploit that predictability in order to make progress.
Enter the world of Super Smash Bros. (or any multiplayer fighter), and the creator's intent takes a 180. Suddenly, creator's intent no longer helps because that intent is not reflected in the behavior of the opponent. Victory now depends on comprehension of the opponent's intent. This skill of anticipation is all wrapped up into one term: mind games. The greatest players are the ones who literally control their opponents by manipulating their reflexes, habits, and tendencies.
Many smashers look down on the competitive community. Emotions run high when discussing how the game is supposed to be played. Competitive players operate with the philosophy that "if it is in the game and available to everyone, it is fair" (unless it is blatantly game-breaking). Many casual gamers operate within the realm of "the creator's intent", which is usually a mentality surrounding board games. The problem with this mentality is that it is impossible to define the creator's intent, so even such gamers argue with each other about what is "cheap" and what is fair. I have even heard people argue that "because the creator does not know about particular unintended exploits, that means that players would be *gasp* better at the game than the creator". Are creators really offended that fans know more about the game than they do?
To be honest, I believe that in most cases, game creators do not play their own creations anywhere near the same amount as fans do. Is it really so bad that fans are better than the creators? What about games such as SimCity or Rollercoaster Tycoon? Given the level of customization in those games, the purpose is to have fun (however you do that). Smash is exactly the same way. Items can be disabled, stages can be removed from the random list, and there are several modes of play. How do we know that Stamina Mode is not the "correct" way to play? In no way does creator's intent dictate how we are to play the game. There is no "wrong" way to play a game. To suggest otherwise is to stricken us of our creativity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
While I'm not a professional game designer (yet), I have put thousands of hours into developing games of various types, my largest project being a turn-based strategy board game. (I'll be connecting this to the post in a minute).
One of the key parts of this board game is simple rules and abilities that can produce complex strategies. While there is a large degree of work done in designing certain armies to be best played with certain tactics, I actually enjoy seeing people take my rules and create something greater or more effective than I, as the designer, had planned.
Indeed, one of the best formulae for a great game is simple rules that create complex tactics, and under this kind of system, it is intentional for players to go beyond what the developers had imagined. If the inventors of chess were to play against today's grandmasters, they would see a flood of tactics that they never imagined and most likely congratulate themselves for creating a game with so much potential.
While I can't read the minds of Smash's designers, I find it hard to believe that somebody would go through all of the work to create a game that follows the formula that I listed above, then be disappointed to see players develop more effective ways to implement these simple rules than they had intended.
Great post, Buzz, I think we're of the same viewpoint on this.
"Video games, like all software, have bugs. Even non-computerized games can have interactions the designers did not intend. If an expert does anything he can to win, then does he exploit bugs in the game? The answer is a resounding yes. The player cannot be bothered to interpret the will of the game designer as far as which moves are “fair” and which moves are not, or which moves were intended and which moves weren’t. It’s irrelevant anyway. The player knows only moves that lead to winning and moves that don’t."
I just don't see why it isn't mandatory for people signing up for SWF accounts to read Sirlin's book.
Mind Games?
I don't really believe in those to some extent.
Its more or less play and exploit my opponent's playstyle. Like if their attacking, and they Short Hop, that is a gaurenteed hit from a bomb. etc etc. Stuff like that.
Mind games only go as far as not knowing when your opponent is gonna approach. And when they approach, not knowing if they will attack or grab. :\
But that just applies to Smash Bros. :\
Mind games work differently in every game.
From Dylan :
I choose to look at intentions from the standpoint of formalist era artists.
Their philosophy was that once a work of art, such as a painting and for the sake of argument here, SSBM, was created it became its own entity, it lives its own existence outside the predetermined aspects of its creators intentions.
Intention does not matter.
Good articles, ill keep an eye out for this blog.
That, friend, is a damn good post.
Like anything else, a video game should be more about what you get out of it than what the creators put into it. Everyone who plays Smash gets a different experience out of it, but so many people think that their experience is the correct one, and they believe it so strongly that they want to force it upon others, a sort of intellectual fascism (on a microcosmic scale).
Play the game the way you want to play the game. Ultimately, we're all in this to enjoy it.
That's a very well written article. What makes me wonder is that in this article you sound very passive, as opposed to the forums, where you sometimes flame other people and defend your points in an aggressive tone. If you already stated that the point of the game is to have fun, then why keep arguing? So what if wavedashing is a glitch after all? (no, I'm not saying it is) Would it change the game at all? Would you be forced to change the way you or others play? The answer is no, so why worry? It'd be nice to see some more friendly posts back on the boards (not only from you, but from everyone in general), but alas, that's not likely to happen.. Ah well.. Props on the article.
Post a Comment