Playing to Win, Part 0: Why Bother?
Some may be wondering why this site about game design includes a section on playing competitive games. Here you go:
One cannot hope to design a hugely successful competitive game if one is ignorant of how such games are played at the highest level.
It's that simple.
Multiplayer games are played for "fun," sure. Playing for "fun" and playing to win are wildly different pursuits. Edward Lasker begins the second half of his book Chess for Fun & Chess For Blood:
"In the preceding pages, we have looked only at the pleasant side of chess---the kind played among amateurs for the excitement of a battle without bloodshed, in which the supreme command is in their hands, but the outcome of which is of no grave consequence to either player.
"There is another side to chess, however, which is quite different---tournament and match games played by masters or those striving to become masters, whose standing, if not livelihood, may be seriously affected by the outcome.
"Such games are no fun, even for the winner. They are the hardest work imaginable. You play for blood! You avoid the lure of beautiful combinations unless you see clearly that they do not endanger your chance to draw the game at least, if you cannot win it. For it is not the beauty of a combination which wins a tournament, but the number of points you make---a whole point for a win, a half a point for a draw, and an "egg" for a loss."
Well said. But surely most players of any hit competitive game do not play with the seriousness Lasker alludes to. They don't. And accordingly, the game must be fun at low levels of skill. Players who play for the momentary amusement must have an exciting experience. Every element---the sound effects, music, user interface, mood, theme, feel, everything---must contribute to that experience. But that is not enough.
Actually, I suppose it is enough if you are not after making something really great, or if for other reasons beyond the scope of the game design the game is doomed from the start. It's also enough for a game like Ready 2 Rumble, where the game's success had to do with the marketing, the characters, and being a launch title for a new system. Its gameplay---which suffered horribly, and worse, needlessly from slippery slope---was almost incidental and didn't have to be solid.
If those things are enough for you, then just get out of here now. Go on. This site isn't for you.
Ok, those of you still here...your game will need to attract the hardcore players who play at an insanely high level. They're your opinion leaders. If a game can stand up to the rigors of tournament play---which is orders of magnitude more rigorous than you might believe---then it will be able to hold their attention. As players get better, they will get more into your game, not less into it. The hardcore players, as opinion leaders, influence a big part of the casual market.
Just look at the examples: Street Fighter, Starcraft, and Quake. All three games have some problems at tournament level play, but on the whole, they hold together surprisingly well. They can withstand the harsh extremes of expert players trying to eke out every possible advantage...even after years of play. If these games couldn't do that, they certainly wouldn't have been the hits they are. There would have been no tournament scenes. Interest would have died away. They would not be perceived as THE standards of competition that they are.
Lots of people are qualified to make a game fun for beginners. The real trick is making it still be a game at all once the ridiculously clever top players get a hold of it. That's the trick, as well as the brass ring, for that's what the market rewards via the bandwagon effect.
I think one (of many) reasons there are such few games that succeed on this level is that being a top player and being articulate and logical enough to explain exactly why you're a top player are skill sets that generally do not go hand in hand. As a result, there just aren't that many people with both the knowledge and ability to design tournament games.
All I can say is to jump in the pool and see how it really is, if you haven't already. Play to win.
April 24th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Your view on game design are exellent, but you are forgetting one point : develeoppers also “play to win”. If 99% of people are scrub, theb they will design a game for them. Why bother about 1% of the population? You pay the same price. The only reason why they should design competitive games is pride, which is a self-made rule in economy.
This is the main problem with your cynical point of view : why some people should design a game for their pride and other play to win? You stated it well, being a scrub is not being idiot. It’s chosing not to take the video games seriously. Most of the time it’s not building a mental prison, but only playing the way you want.
I’m ok with the fact that a lot of player build their own set of rules and want everyone to agree with them, that’s not 99% of people.
June 5th, 2006 at 3:48 am
The reason one would want to make a game that shines for both scrubs and top players is that those games always have enormous reputations, and years later still sell very well. Flippantly designed games made for casual players come and go too fast to become a mainstay in gaming, thus dont make nearly as much money as games like Starcraft and Counter Strike.
August 4th, 2006 at 3:55 am
For some reason, this reminded me of the Star Trek: TNG episode, “Peak Performance” (2.21), where Data, having initially lost a game of Strategema to the strategist Kolrami, changed his strategy upon rematch. He gave up obvious avenues of advancement in order to maintain a stalemate, which he, being an android, could have maintained, effectively, forever. This frustrated Kolrami to the point where he gave up, essentially handing Data the win. (Episode synopsis available here: http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episode/68400.html )
Many may have called this tactic “cheap.”
Ironically, by NOT “playing to win,” he WAS “playing to win” (or, force the opponent to eventually give up, which is counted the same).
August 9th, 2006 at 8:47 am
“If 99% of people are scrub, then they will design a game for them. Why bother about 1% of the population?”
Appropriately, only about 1% of the games have the staying power to be played by that 1% non-scrub population. So I guess that should read, “If 99% of people are scrubs, then 99% of the games will be designed for them.” It would be equally cynical to believe that all developers play to win, whereby “winning” is defined as making money. There are still artists out there after all.
August 25th, 2006 at 4:13 am
“Ironically, by NOT “playing to win,” he WAS “playing to win”
This reminded me of how Sirlin won in SFA2 by using rose’s crouching mp.
September 19th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Oh my, some1 is already convinced himself every1 gets the most fun of a game (or even life) by playing FTW. Very very useful if you die anyway in 50 years…
October 6th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
minimax (playing to NOT lose) is a possibility in poor designed games. Tic tac toe is a good example. You just play a dominant strategy that will not let you lose while waiting for the opponent to make a mistake as he play the same way. Lots of draws and a boring game.
In the star trek episode mentioned, Data was not playing to win, he was playing to not lose. This tactic is not cheap but the game that let you do that truly is.
(I’m not used to write english so please excuse poor grammar or misspelling)
December 12th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
In my opinion a great game is the result of great testing and balance. Starcraft come to one mind in this regard . It was extensively tested and finely balance between sides . Result is it is still playable today with great enjoyment by almost anybody.
Don Lapre is a Superstar
webmaster@j-ams.org
www.j-ams.org
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Allot of “players playing to win” in many different pursuits end up stressed out and in early graves.
Is playing to win worth it in some cases when the ultimate game is to cling to existence as long as possible?.
Scrubs stick together, therefor increasing their chances of survival, the whole of modern civilization and society is “scrubbish” and look how we dominate the cultures and societies that didn’t join the modern age.
I would say that given the unlikely chance, the 99% of the worlds scrubs could overrun the 1% of solo rambo artist “winners”.
Winning, in the natural sense, is out-surviving your competitors.
“Winning” on your own and discarding everyone else to the side in your pursuit of victory will do you little good when your alone and need help of others and it isn’t there.
Basically what I’m saying is your philosophy only seems to take into account immediate short term gains. Sure you will win for now, but being a “scrub” only means that you spend less energy yourself on winning, because the combined “scrubbyness” of your fellow scrubs will overwhelm even the most energetic and motivated winner.
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Are you saying that playing to win will get you beat up by scrubs when the game is over?
April 18th, 2007 at 2:42 am
Nuri´s post doesn´t even deserve a thorough spanking. Everyone with half a brain can see that he´s not making any sense at all.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:36 am
About the idea that people will aim their games towards scrubs to make more money. That’s not neccissary. Scrubs will buy games made to have competetive envirements and simply apply their ‘rules’ to make it more to their tastes. People who play to win won’t settle, however.
On top of that, if a person finds the game fun, they are more likely to recommend it to people looking for a fun game. If your ‘casual’ gaming friend who doesn’t play that many games recommends it, but your ‘hardcore’ gaming friend who seems to really care about the small details of a game despises it, who’s oppinion are you most likely going to follow.
TLoZ:OoT is a game that is considered to be (near) perfection by many. If someone hears about a (near) perfect game, they are more likely to not only try out that game, but the others made by the people who made the (near) perfect game. If someone hears the game was hit and miss with many people, they might be jaded towards buying it, and the people that did not like it are less likely to but your future games.
If your game is hit and miss, you also have to consider that you have competition. Let’s say you’re a customer looking for a good platformer game. You have two choices. You can go with game ‘a’, which is hit and miss, or game ‘b’ which has recieved praise from almost everyone. Unless game ‘b’ is out of your price range, odds are you won’t be getting game ‘a’.
In other words, it is indeed worth the extra time and effort to improve a game, as opposed to trying to sell a game you made half-heartedly.
July 1st, 2007 at 4:23 am
[…] Usually in these games, the term skill is used to describe an ingame ability. Press a key and you use the skill.But putting that asside, there are two forms of gaming skills, Physical and Mental. Physical skill refers mainly to your reflex abilities. In an RPG, there is rarely much room for this, because everything is automated and controlled through hotkeys. While there is some room for physical skill of micromanagement (an RTS term), it is generally negligable and in many cases a macro or hardware device can surpass it. It’s games like FPS is where physical skills shine, the ability to aim and dodge all require either talent or practice to be good at. Mental skill refers mainly to strategy and intelligence. In an FPS, mental skills apply to adapting to your opponents play styles, discovering his weaknesses, memorizing and utilizing the terrain, knowing what weapons and options to use in a given situation, etc. There is alot of room in RPG’s for mental skill as it incorporates all forms of tactics. Doesnt matter if how automated the combat system is, you are still required to decide on what to attack and what to avoid and to run or kite or whatever else may be involved. PvP wise, knowing when to fight and when to run is the difference between living and dying, but it’s the large scale pvp when things take on a whole new perspective. When doing, lets say, Guild vs Guild style PvP, think of every single player is as a unit. There are lots of points where skill mental skill applies from the tactics you decide to employ in the fight, to the way you form the groups, to the way you position your troops. Leadership is one of the most critical points, having an intelligent and strategic leader(s) capable of delivering orders and adapting to the situation is critical to the entire picture. Communication actually falls into the physical skill category, being able to type fast or being able to talk clearly is vital to giving out orders. The actual choice of choosing the medium, IE using TS is a strategic action that falls into the mental category though. Things like zerg tactics are also another form of mental skill application, it just utilizes a simpler tactic of overwhelming by numbers. Someone has to make that choice and while less leadership is needed to perform, alot more management is required to keep more people satisfied and under your command. I see people ***** about "zerg tactics" alot a bit too blindly, more like an excuse to give up, than a motivator to overcome, so I thought I’d mention it. There is also what I call diplomacy. The ability to communicate and get along with other players is a diplomatic importance that also falls into mental skills (IE People Skills). Some game mechanims require working together with additional guilds to accomplish a common goal not possible on their own. Sure one can attempt a zerg tactic in this scenerio, but then you have the management problem. It’s easier to command a guild of 100 and communicate to the leaders of a two others with 100 more under their command, than it is commanding 300 yourself. Keeping 300 happy, and even ensuring they meet your guild’s quality standards becomes that much more challenging that may easily result in a lower overall quality of 300 people vs the other 300 from 3 guilds. Again, this is just one example of many I could come up with. Being able to decide when you need to work together and form things like truces and alliances is often vital, and an example of the use of diplomacy to tip the odds in your favor. In Lineage 2 when I formed Inner Circle, I recognized that my guild alone cannot take a castle so we worked out an alliance with 3 other guilds bent on taking all 4 castles together and sharing. The game doesnt just end there, please take a look at Playing to Win’s 4 page article at Sirlin.net — Your source of shocking insights on game design ? Blog Archive ? Playing to Win, Part 0: Why Bother?. Just as predicted, other competative guilds were forced to employ deplomacy of their own and organize against us. And then we were forced to go the next step and things kept rising to a new level nobody was expecting the game to evolve into, and trying to manage everything among such global chaos is not easy. All of this falls right into the mental skill category, it’s all based around strategy and the intelligence to form and reform them. Hopefully that helped answer your question, I tend to ramble and I dont really organize my thoughts (I’m not writing a book you know), so this is for whatever it’s worth. I guess the underlying point is that while there is physical and mental skill sets in gaming, mmorpg’s are mostly mentally involved. You see people claim it takes no skill to play these games, I disagree with them. But you have to either be intelligent enough to see it, or be smart enough to work with others who are (afterall, dont most people join guilds with the intention of either getting loot, surviving pvp, or getting access to content they wouldnt see otherwise?). […]
July 1st, 2007 at 4:26 am
[…] Usually in these games, the term skill is used to describe an ingame ability. Press a key and you use the skill.But putting that asside, there are two forms of gaming skills, Physical and Mental. Physical skill refers mainly to your reflex abilities. In an RPG, there is rarely much room for this, because everything is automated and controlled through hotkeys. While there is some room for physical skill of micromanagement (an RTS term), it is generally negligable and in many cases a macro or hardware device can surpass it. It’s games like FPS is where physical skills shine, the ability to aim and dodge all require either talent or practice to be good at. Mental skill refers mainly to strategy and intelligence. In an FPS, mental skills apply to adapting to your opponents play styles, discovering his weaknesses, memorizing and utilizing the terrain, knowing what weapons and options to use in a given situation, etc. There is alot of room in RPG’s for mental skill as it incorporates all forms of tactics. Doesnt matter if how automated the combat system is, you are still required to decide on what to attack and what to avoid and to run or kite or whatever else may be involved. PvP wise, knowing when to fight and when to run is the difference between living and dying, but it’s the large scale pvp when things take on a whole new perspective. When doing, lets say, Guild vs Guild style PvP, think of every single player is as a unit. There are lots of points where skill mental skill applies from the tactics you decide to employ in the fight, to the way you form the groups, to the way you position your troops. Leadership is one of the most critical points, having an intelligent and strategic leader(s) capable of delivering orders and adapting to the situation is critical to the entire picture. Communication actually falls into the physical skill category, being able to type fast or being able to talk clearly is vital to giving out orders. The actual choice of choosing the medium, IE using TS is a strategic action that falls into the mental category though. Things like zerg tactics are also another form of mental skill application, it just utilizes a simpler tactic of overwhelming by numbers. Someone has to make that choice and while less leadership is needed to perform, alot more management is required to keep more people satisfied and under your command. I see people ***** about "zerg tactics" alot a bit too blindly, more like an excuse to give up, than a motivator to overcome, so I thought I’d mention it. There is also what I call diplomacy. The ability to communicate and get along with other players is a diplomatic importance that also falls into mental skills (IE People Skills). Some game mechanims require working together with additional guilds to accomplish a common goal not possible on their own. Sure one can attempt a zerg tactic in this scenerio, but then you have the management problem. It’s easier to command a guild of 100 and communicate to the leaders of a two others with 100 more under their command, than it is commanding 300 yourself. Keeping 300 happy, and even ensuring they meet your guild’s quality standards becomes that much more challenging that may easily result in a lower overall quality of 300 people vs the other 300 from 3 guilds. Again, this is just one example of many I could come up with. Being able to decide when you need to work together and form things like truces and alliances is often vital, and an example of the use of diplomacy to tip the odds in your favor. In Lineage 2 when I formed Inner Circle, I recognized that my guild alone cannot take a castle so we worked out an alliance with 3 other guilds bent on taking all 4 castles together and sharing. The game doesnt just end there, please take a look at Playing to Win’s 4 page article at Sirlin.net — Your source of shocking insights on game design ? Blog Archive ? Playing to Win, Part 0: Why Bother?. Just as predicted, other competative guilds were forced to employ deplomacy of their own and organize against us. And then we were forced to go the next step and things kept rising to a new level nobody was expecting the game to evolve into, and trying to manage everything among such global chaos is not easy. All of this falls right into the mental skill category, it’s all based around strategy and the intelligence to form and reform them. Hopefully that helped answer your question, I tend to ramble and I dont really organize my thoughts (I’m not writing a book you know), so this is for whatever it’s worth. I guess the underlying point is that while there is physical and mental skill sets in gaming, mmorpg’s are mostly mentally involved. You see people claim it takes no skill to play these games, I disagree with them. But you have to either be intelligent enough to see it, or be smart enough to work with others who are (afterall, dont most people join guilds with the intention of either getting loot, surviving pvp, or getting access to content they wouldnt see otherwise?). […]
August 1st, 2007 at 5:28 pm
How can one <i>design</i> a game that will hold together at a high level of play? The problem is that when you are designing a game you cannot playtest it on a high level, since the high-level player base does not (yet) exist. Also, the high-level player base knows more of the game that the designer, so how could the designer control things he does not know? I am not a competent game designer, but I have always believed that good games are born by chance rather than intentionally designed.
December 13th, 2007 at 1:58 am
That depends Punainen. Some compare their works with some currently top tier games. While some like Sirlin are top tier players and have big time experience before hand and know what to look for.
As for the guys defending scrubs attitudes like Nuri. I play to win because winning is fun. And no scrub has ever beat me. I’ve played against the same one up to twenty times before he got frustrated with my play style and left. (What I do works. I don’t care if it’s stylish or pretty. I never win pretty because I don’t care.) By the very nature of the scrub mentality, they can’t adapt well to multiple styles. This is different than playing for fun, or playing to win. Both can help out tremendously just because both styles cause a form of evolution.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
<strong>How to Incorporate Your Small Business</strong>
If you are a sole proprietor, you might be wondering, how can I incorporate my business. There are many reasons for small businesses to consider incorporating business.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:09 am
[…] David Sirlin is one of the smartest game designers that I’ve read. In particular he opened my eyes to the design requirements for making and playing games at the highest levels of competition something that I, as a generally casual player of multiplayer games was never really all that aware of. […]
May 19th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
[…] David Sirlin is one of the smartest game designers that I’ve read. In particular he opened my eyes to the design requirements for making and playing games at the highest levels of competition something that I, as a generally casual player of multiplayer games was never really all that aware of. […]