Sportsmanship in video games

[JackKieser]

Well, personally, I'm sure (especially after this discussion) that you're both decent dudes to play against, but, like I've said, running an actual large-scale tournament is quite the experience; I've been in contact with anywhere between 500-750 players in my Smash career (maybe not unique players, though). After what I've seen at actual live tournaments, you guys are an exception. Decent people at a tournament are not impossible to find by any means, but a group is usually judged based off of the outstanding people (good or bad), not the median people, and tournaments with their large cash prizes really bring some cruel people out of the woodwork; it's hard to believe until you actually see it for yourself.

I know I've dogged a lot on Sirlin in this thread, and I understand that his stuff has really helped some people, but after reading it at a more critical level, I really do see elements that encourage poor sportsmanship, even if it's not explicity doing so (that quotation earlier, for instance, doesn't say "be a douche", but can be used to justify it).

So, basically, yeah. Sportsmanship is always a good thing, and you guys are good dudes... but I see you as exceptions to the rule, and that's thanks to my experiences.

[Geeky Stoner]

How many of you would play in a Tic Tac Toe tournament? What’s the point? The same goes for any game where there is essentially only one option, or only one move that you have to perform.

this is exactly why i dislike pro level playing.

To me videogames should be spontaneous and semi chaotic.

Breaking everything down to this exact science ruins the point to me.

[PriZm]

Bardic is right (again). We're all agreeing on the point that good sportsmanship is important to the health and longevity of a game, and that good sportsmanship is, well, good to have. We just seem to disagree on whether "playing to win" inherently results in bad sportsmanship. Considering both he and I do play to win, as well as many others we know in this community, the answer would seem to be "no" and I'm not sure how much more proof we can really give of that.

I don't think the point is whether Sirlin is right or wrong, it's about how people use his literature to justify being douches. As much as what he says is true, you can't deny that it is golden ammunitions for assfucks; those are the people I say are unsportsmanlike. And, to return a bit earlier in the thread, I think we see more of these people on the internet than in sports because of internet anonymity and lack of media coverage.

My conclusion is that although there is obviously sportsmanship in games, they seem to be plagued by more fuckaroos than actual sports.

[The Derrit]

2) If the skill gap between two players at a tourney is sufficiently big, the better player doesn't need to completely dominate the player. Why not take this time to experiment with risky techniques for a minute? The reaction of an unbiased (doesn't know the "standard" reaction/counter) player might actually help your game develop. Note that here I'm talking about the skill difference between, say, my wife and I in Smash (yep, I'm better than her, go figure).

I know everyone's coming to their conclusions and whatnot but I just want to say one more thing on this point. While it is a good opportunity, I believe many people who play would be offended if they were being beaten and their opponent decided to do ultra-fancy high risk stuff, because it can come off as showing off. I think its perfectly fine but there's two ways to see everything, as evidenced by this thread as a whole.

Good talk, everyone.

[zircon]

I don't think the point is whether Sirlin is right or wrong, it's about how people use his literature to justify being douches. As much as what he says is true, you can't deny that it is golden ammunitions for assfucks

That is exactly what I deny. I don't think "playing to win" at all equates with "being a dick." In fact being a dick is counter-productive to playing to win; you want MORE good opponents, not fewer, and if you force people away from the game by your attitude you are only hurting yourself in the long run.

[JackKieser]

I don't see how more opponents helps someone who's playing to win. If anything, more opponents means more fights in the bracket, which mean a harder time getting the gold. Sure, you won't get too much better at a tournament with only 16 people in it, but it's not called "playing to get better" or "playing to be skilled"... it's called "playing to win". Winning at any cost is your ultimate goal, and fighting good people in the bracket will always make achieving that goal harder.

[zircon]

The point of the PTW philosophy is not just "win this match at all costs", but to become better and also improve your chances of winning future matches. Sirlin's article about the topological 'landscape' basically summed that up. If you do literally nothing but play to win whatever current match you're in, you may ignore the big picture - learning new characters and techniques, experimenting, maybe doing worse for a few matches or games but being better off in the long run. I guess you could say it's the difference between the student who studies hard "for the test" and puts all their effort into cramming material, and the student who really takes their time to understand what they're learning. The former might get as good or better grades, but they're not better off in the long run at all.

If you only play people who are much worse than you, then you are not getting any real practice, and you will be dominated when you encounter someone who practices with people at their skill level continually.

[BardicKnowledge]

That is exactly what I deny. I don't think "playing to win" at all equates with "being a dick." In fact being a dick is counter-productive to playing to win; you want MORE good opponents, not fewer, and if you force people away from the game by your attitude you are only hurting yourself in the long run.

I don't think Sirlin's essay directly equates to this either, but that isn't Jack's point. I do see how it could be used to try and justify poor behavior (though all three of us agree that there is no valid behavior for being a douche to other people, Sirlin's essay or no).

[JackKieser]

The point of the PTW philosophy is not just "win this match at all costs", but to become better and also improve your chances of winning future matches. Sirlin's article about the topological 'landscape' basically summed that up. If you do literally nothing but play to win whatever current match you're in, you may ignore the big picture - learning new characters and techniques, experimenting, maybe doing worse for a few matches or games but being better off in the long run. I guess you could say it's the difference between the student who studies hard "for the test" and puts all their effort into cramming material, and the student who really takes their time to understand what they're learning. The former might get as good or better grades, but they're not better off in the long run at all.

If you only play people who are much worse than you, then you are not getting any real practice, and you will be dominated when you encounter someone who practices with people at their skill level continually.

If that's really the case (and I've read enough of it to know that it is, honestly; I'm just trying to point out the flaws), then "Playing to Win" was a horrible name for the book/philosophy, because he's not really advocating playing to win, he's advocating playing to do your best. Not quite the catchy title, but people remember catchphrases more than they remember actual passages. "Play to win" is easier to remember or regurgitate than "play with the intention of always bettering yourself and fighting to he best of your ability", and so people are going to act on what they remember. "Playing to win" means playing to win, and people will do that.

[PriZm]

That is exactly what I deny. I don't think "playing to win" at all equates with "being a dick." In fact being a dick is counter-productive to playing to win; you want MORE good opponents, not fewer, and if you force people away from the game by your attitude you are only hurting yourself in the long run.

Well like Bardic said, I did not equate playing to win to being a dick. There is certainly a way to be playing to win and be sportmanlike at the same time. I was simply pointing out that in many fighting communities I have visited (8wayrun, shoryuken and tekkenzaibatsu), people use Sirlin's article to justify being dicks and calling everyone scrubs. I honestly can't believe how you wouldn't notice that.