Achievement Unlocked 06.20.08: Classifying How You Game
Posted by Rod Oracheski on 06.20.2008
Some people play to win, some play to win at all costs, some play to annoy, and some just play - which are you?
In his book The Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia, originally published in 1978, Bernard Suits explored how people play games - but, more to the point, he examined why they play games that way. He wasn't the first to explore the theme, nor will he be the last, but he was Canadian so he's probably right.
Published in 1978, you say? How the hell can that possibly relate to today? We've got landers on Mars! Free porn on the Internet! Women of questionable morals on public television!
Don't get me wrong, all those things are great, but Suits had real insight into gaming as a whole, and that translates to electronic gaming pretty handily.
Suits' definition of the process of gaming is occasionally cited as the definition of sport:
It is a goal-directed activity - prelusory goal
The rules limit the permissible means of goal attainment - lusory means
The rules prohibit the more efficient in favour of less efficient means - constitutive rules
The rules are accepted to make the activity possible - lusory attitude
It's the rules in play that define a sport or game. Just throwing a ball towards someone and having them hit it is neither - it's only the addition of rules that create a game from an otherwise trivial activity, and it's a natural extension of almost any trivial activity.
You can see the phenomenon in children at play. Give a group of teenaged children a ball, bat, and some gloves and they'll eventually create a game - whether that's similar to baseball or more informal fly-ball hitting. You've probably taken part in this sort of thing yourself, whether on a school playground or in a back yard.
Only one person can bat at a time, so rules are swiftly constructed - three outs and you switch, 10 hits and you switch, one person catches three balls and they get to bat, etc...
Suits was interested in more than defining the mechanisms of gaming, however. He talked about how people gamed, expanding on the earlier work of someone I've unfortunately forgotten at the moment. It's in this analysis that we can find ourselves, even today.
The most obvious archetype is the Cheater. They know the goal and they know the rules - they just choose to ignore the latter in the pursuit of the former. These are typified by gamers who put their modem to stand-by in order to get an advantage in online play, or those who use cheat codes or glitches in order to 'win' the game. The experience en route to the goal isn't important to the cheater, merely achieving that goal by whatever means possible.
Another archetype is the Griefer. Anyone who has played a massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) has likely encountered this section of the gamer population. For this player, the goal of the game becomes secondary to a player-created one - annoying others as they try to continue on the game's 'true' purpose. This type often, but not always, crosses into the territory of the cheater as the rules of the game are also a secondary concern. At the most 'pure' levels of Griefer, the game itself is a secondary concern - they'll play anything that offers up an opportunity to truly anger other players.
Perhaps the class with the most crossover potential is the Player - a class that simply plays the game the way it's intended. The Player can often dabble with other types, griefing when bored for example, or turning to cheating when stuck in a game. Most gamers will categorize themselves as a Player
There's also the Trifler, a class that Suits called "quasi-players" as they, like the griefer, choose to ignore the game's goal - but without malice. Instead they set their own goals within the game, completely separate to the game's actual goals. He mentions chess, giving an example of someone who - playing chess - will simply try to move six of their pieces to the other side of the board before they are put into checkmate. This can be seen most clearly in games like Grand Theft Auto, where many a Player, Griefer, or Cheater has transformed into a Trifler - ignoring the game's content-related goals in order to explore or cause havoc.
So...which category do you fall into most?
I figure myself for the Player type most of the time, pushing into Trifler from time to time when I get bored. I'm guessing most people will fall into that category as well.
Pick-An-Achievement
In Achievement related news, Ubisoft is after gamer input on the new Prince of Persia's Achievement List. Gamers can choose one of three vaguely-described Achievements to make it into the new game. You can find the list here.
While, to be honest, none of the three are particularly 'great' Achievements, I'm leaning towards the Combo specialist one. The falling one seems fairly limited, and the one about running...well, I've never been a fan of 'sprint/drive/fly [x] miles' Achievements. Still, it's very nice to see Ubisoft looking for input and hopefully something we'll see more of in the future.
Finally picked up Ninja Gaiden II this week, churning through a number of Achievements as I went. It's kind of nice to see them teach you a new move, then give you a low-point Achievement for using it. The game isn't as brutally hard as the original, though I'm not playing on the hardest difficulty. I'm liking it so far - the camera really didn't take long to get the hang of once again, though it'd be nice to see them do it better next time.
Oh...right. I guess that's not going to happen any time soon.
I also grabbed Kung Fu Panda off the strength of the demo. It's aimed at kids, so I'm teaching my daughter how to play, but it's also got a good deal of humour and some decent gameplay for the adults. There's nothing amazing here, but worth a rental if you're a fan of beat-em-ups.
To close it out, here's a look at how to get one Achievement from The Incredible Hulk - the 'Around The World In 80 Steps' one, to be exact. The Achievement isn't that hard, but it does require you to unlock the Sprint ability, as well as upgrade your jumping twice.
Well, I would be a Player. I have such a large library of games (and more than one game system) that I never have to reduce myself to other forms of entertainment (the griefer or trifler). I would be caught dead being a cheater (because I win on my talent/skill alone).
The griefers in CoD4 anoy me. As Coach Edwards would say, I "play to win the game," but they do not. They just want to jack up their Kill-ratio or something.
Posted By: David Redkey (Registered) on June 21, 2008 at 12:20 AM
I think pretty much everyone who played older games has fallen into the cheater category from time to time. Never entered the Konami code?
Posted By: Rod Oracheski (Registered) on June 21, 2008 at 02:17 AM
*facepalm*
Nope. I wasn't really a fan of the first two Contra games (the original or Super C). The only one I really enjoyed was Contra 3.
You see, I'm more of a JRPG player, I didn't pull tricks like that in that genre; therefore, I wouldn't need to use the Konami Code.
Unless you consider power-leveling cheating, I do not qualify. If you need to use the Konami code, that is your thing. It was never mine.
Posted By: David Redkey (Registered) on June 21, 2008 at 04:32 AM
Staying ahead of the content level curve would also be straying outside the Player category though. Anything that's not playing the game pretty much exactly as intended would be.
That would probably fit under Trifler, churning through battles instead of continuing the plot.
Posted By: Rod Oracheski (Registered) on June 21, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Wow! Trying to catagorize the way I play? Hmmm...fascinating. Actually, you suggest that I play that as an end unto itself. It is actually an end to an end.
To reduce the difficlty of later battles, power leveling allows the battles later on in the game to appeear easier in the future. Furthermore, it isn't a multiplayer game. How many multiplayer JRPGs are there? Really?
If you try to peg me into a group, you need to try better next time. Thank you.
Posted By: David Redkey (Guest) on June 21, 2008 at 06:14 PM
*means to an end.
That actually flows better than "end to an end." :-D
Posted By: Guest#3278 (Guest) on June 21, 2008 at 06:39 PM
"To reduce the difficlty of later battles, power leveling allows the
battles later on in the game to appeear easier in the future. Furthermore, it isn't a multiplayer game. How many multiplayer JRPGs are there? Really?"
Secret of Mana comes to mind. The 'Tales of...' series as well.
But it doesn't really matter, because the concept of "cheating" doesn't simply mean in multiplayer. By leveling beyond the level range that the developers designed the content for, you'd effectively be falling into the Cheater class.
All that class means is that you looked outside the standard gaming convention to make it easier for yourself. Whether that's entering a cheat code, using a glitch, or any other means - it's all the same in terms of classifying the 'how' of gameplay.
I don't see how you can deny it, when you even admit that you do it to reduce the difficulty of battles...
Try a reply after you understand the basics of the column's premise, Dave.
Posted By: Rod Oracheski (Registered) on June 21, 2008 at 07:27 PM
A JRPG is not an action game, silly rabbit. Your concept doesn't apply. You know why? I'm not cheating. A person is functioning within the confines of the program the developer implemented. He is using the tools provided. Therefore, you failed again my friend. Cheating would mean that a person is using nefarious methods to make the game easeir for themselves. Unfortunately for you, you don't seem to understand your own column.
Powerleveling requires:
1) A person to level up to a certan point
2) There is no prerequisite for the level required (the designer does not tell you to be at XX level/XXX level)
3) *faceplam* you are not using codes to create an advantage. You are using the system created to produce an advangtage.
4) The advantage is not created that second. You have to work for it. Cheating requires a person to input a code (or do something that creates INSTANT gratification). That alone requires no skill.
Now, what type of player does the above attributes represent? OR, OR are you using a gross generalitzation to state that every player falls into the catagor? For online play, that works....for offline, not so much.
Posted By: David Redkey (Guest) on June 22, 2008 at 12:08 AM
As I stated previously, I'm a Player (read first comment for clarification). However, you try to label me as something I'm not. Let us break down your words, k?
"Perhaps the class with the most crossover potential is the Player - a class that simply plays the game the way it's intended. The Player CAN (keyword here) often dabble with other types, griefing when bored for example, or turning to cheating when stuck in a game. Most gamers will categorize themselves as a Player."
--This Achievement Unlocked published on 6/20/08
The word CAN signifies that a person has the ability to do it. Some people will do it; however, some people will not. I would be the person that does not cheat. To say I'm like that, that is like saying a black person can play hoops or run fast. It just illustrates that you have prejudiced views.
Posted By: David Redkey (Guest) on June 22, 2008 at 01:58 AM
LOL - Dave, the part you're missing is that powerleveling beyond the planned level range for the content is a form of cheating under this definition - you're trivializing the content. It doesn't matter if you're doing it via glitches, cheat codes, or just playing in a manner that they didn't intend - you're trivializing the content so you can win.
Developers clearly balance content for certain levels, except in games (typically Western RPGs) that scale mobs to your level. Everyone knows that, and that's why powerleveling has become so common - if you're not sound enough strategically to beat a boss, you just grind out 5-10 levels and it's much easier.
Doing that, they miss out on the sense of accomplishment from beating a tough foe, but that's not what they're after - they just want to beat the game.
"The experience en route to the goal isn't important to the cheater, merely achieving that goal by whatever means possible."
If you can't see the connection, I'm done arguing the point with you.
After all, you were the one that admitted to doing it, though you didn't understand the point. Why are you crying about it now?
Posted By: Rod Oracheski (Registered) on June 22, 2008 at 02:47 AM
A little bird told me that you like to complain. You also like to change other people's columns
Posted By: Guest#4126 (Guest) on June 24, 2008 at 02:06 PM
lol - next on FOX 'When 12 Year Olds Attack!'
Posted By: Rod Oracheski (Registered) on June 24, 2008 at 03:19 PM
Your ability to prove something false is world-renowned. Keep up the good work(/sarcasm)
Posted By: Guest#8212 (Guest) on June 24, 2008 at 04:21 PM
Keep reading, Dave.
Posted By: Rod Oracheski (Registered) on June 24, 2008 at 04:26 PM
I guess that is supposed to be an attack. Right. Not only you fail at catagorizing me as a Player, but you can't even attack me besides saying "keep reading." You have to send e-mails.
Posted By: Guest#4863 (Guest) on June 24, 2008 at 06:13 PM
By the way, Dave, I didn't "fail" to categorize you as a player at all. You did. You still don't understand what the Cheater category is. You seem to think it is, without reserve, a negative category. It's not.
But keep reading. Maybe you'll 'get it' one day.
Posted By: Rod Oracheski (Registered) on June 24, 2008 at 06:38 PM
-First, I read your articles.
-Second, I play more than JRPGs (I play CoD4 online on PS3).
-Third, as Coach Herm Edwards would say, I "play to win the game."
-Fourth, you calling me a cheater (besides a player) is the same as calling the 2007/2008 NE Patriots cheaters. Just because you play in a certain fashion (by the rules, I might add), that does not make you a cheater.
-Fifth, I view cheating as a deplorable trait in any shape or fashion.
Therefore, calling someone a cheater is a grave insult against me (and what I represent). That is the same as saying something about you and/or your family that you did't agree.
Posted By: Guest#0403 (Guest) on June 24, 2008 at 07:57 PM