Theory

[mees]

If any of you use facebook, you've undoubtedly become aware of the "post a note containing 25 facts about you trend" which has taken the whole place by storm. Well, I decided to do it and, as a sort of joke, wrote a piece about my roommates' insistence on playing Smash Brothers with random character selection. Just wondering if anyone had anything to say about my analysis of the situation. And Icy, I realize I use some of your ideas in here, if you really want me to link you or take it down or something I will.

25. No matter when you enter "room 22," there's a ninety percent chance that some videogame is being played, and at least a fifty percent chance that that game is Super Smash Brothers Brawl. Recently, certain avid players have been insisting that all matches be played with "random" character selections, despite the obvious fact that this makes the game less complex (as it removes a very important element of strategy from the game--the selection of one's character) and therefore less interesting. Apparently, this rule is enforced in order to make the outcome of the game less predictable, i.e. some people aren't winning enough to be enjoying themselves.

So the reasoning goes: "If I can't win when characters are chosen consciously, hopefully the random matchup will, by chance, hurt my opponent more than it will hurt me, thus giving me a better chance at victory."

Now, before you object and say (1) "but it's not about winning or losing, it's about having FUN," or (2) "we're just doing this to 'mix it up,'" or something equally asinine, let me set these objections straight.

(1) I'm sure no one reading this will object to the premise, "anyone playing a videogame does so, at bottom, for the purpose of pleasure." Yet they fail to realize, when they speak of "fun," that pleasure (see also: FUN) in a sport is derived from a player's nearness to victory. One says that a football game is "bad," and rightfully so, if the score is 44 to 3, and the loser is soundly owned at each and every opportunity. The loser is ashamed at their pathetic capabilities, and the winner feels as if he has wasted his time. The pleasure of victory and pain of defeat increase in proportion, then, to the nearness that separates victory from defeat. Thus, sports (which Smash Brothers, and all other competitive games where the result rests largely on reflexes, are), are ALL ABOUT winning and losing, because that is where the fun is.

(2) Does the winner of a close match ever wish that he had "mixed it up" beforehand, changing the rules of the game? No, it is always the loser, speaking out of the unbearable pain of his defeat. I suppose then, that it makes sense that "mixing it up" has been the norm recently, since in Smash Brothers there are always more losers than winners (whose victories are inevitably ridiculed on pathetic moralistic grounds--"He's not even playing the game!" "Stop teaming up!").

And, in clearing the objections, I've basically covered it. If one still feels the need to complain, perhaps about Luke's Metaknight, well, maybe we ought to realize that Smash Brothers might not, in fact, be the best game ever.

[JoshF]

are ALL ABOUT winning and losing, because that is where the fun is.

Not necessarily. Some players aren't afraid to eat a loss from a bad match-up if it makes for an interesting performance (link). SRK types can't stand this mindset though.

[icycalm]

Not necessarily. Some players aren't afraid to eat a loss from a bad match-up if it makes for an interesting performance (link).

Not being afraid to lose does not mean that you are not playing to win. Even if victory is clearly impossible, as in the 300 at Thermopylae, for example, you can bet anything you want that those 300 were fighting to win. In fact, though this is a subtle point and not very easy to understand, the truth is that it is physically impossible for anyone to play to lose. I.e. whoever plays anything, automatically plays to win whether he wants to or not. The only way to NOT play to win is to not play at all. Or to quit the moment the game begins, by suiciding or whatever. If you are not taking steps to commit direct suicide you are playing to win, and any protestations to the contrary are nothing more than humbug to cover up a pathetic performance. (By the way, it says a lot about the usefulness of books written by mediocre thinkers, that an entire book devoted to the subject of "Playing to Win" -- Sirlin's book of that name -- would neglect to mention that it is physically impossible to play to lose: the best argument one could bring up against the "playing for fun" mentality.)

If anyone wants more explanations on the above, start a new thread.

The other thing I'd like to say in this thread is that forcing players to pick characters at random is a good way of increasing the complexity of a fighting game. Initially, a newcomer will have approximately equal chances of success against a player who has specialized in a single character -- a fact which shows you that, under this new way of playing the game, extreme specialization is a bad strategy. It simply forces players to devote equal time to learning every single character in the roster, and thus gives them a lot more work to do in order to get good.

[mees]

I see. I guess what I should have said is, my roommates' strategy is to make you play as a character that you are unfamiliar with. If everyone had mastered every character, I hardly think they would care if it were random or not, and in fact would rather choose characters so they wouldn't get stuck with Bowser or some crap. They simply KNOW that people are largely unfamiliar with most of the roster, and just hope that they get a "good" character while everyone else gets a "bad."

They are basically trying to get a situation where everyone has to play crappy except for them. And that shouldn't really be too much fun for anyone.

[icycalm]

If everyone had mastered every character

"Mastering" is a relative quality. If you invest 100 hours in a single character you will have obviously "mastered" him more than if you had spread that time amongst ten or twenty characters. By the standards of the specialized player, you will in fact have not "mastered" anything.

They are basically trying to get a situation where everyone has to play crappy except for them.

No, they are basically trying to get to a situation where everyone has to play crappy INCLUDING them. The person who proposes random character selection is not GAINING any positive advantage -- he is simply trying to nullify the advantage of a specialized opponent. If he is unlucky, and the opponent's character ends up being the one he has specialized in, he hasn't gained anything.

[mees]

Alright, thanks for your help Josh and Icy!