<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Playing to Win, Part 1</title>
	<link>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/</link>
	<description>A game designer's eye view of things</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:10:44 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Snicker-Snack</title>
		<link>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-185930</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:44:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-185930</guid>
					<description>&quot;I think i was to esoteric for you. Based on your comment you understood zero of what i said. &quot;

 In that case, you may want to rewrite the &quot;@ Sirlin&quot; paragraph to be less &quot;esoteric&quot;, because what is written there is pretty much what I parodied.

 You argue that what you understand by the article is what others will understand by reading it (despite the fact that there is nothing actually written there to support you), then you add a silly statement  that if they don't, it's probably because they agree with this phantom interpretation, and then point that you think this interpretation is what Sirlin actually thinks, even though he didn't write anything to support this idea. 

 If you meant something else, then yes, perhaps you were being too &quot;esoteric&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I think i was to esoteric for you. Based on your comment you understood zero of what i said. &#8220;</p>
<p> In that case, you may want to rewrite the &#8220;@ Sirlin&#8221; paragraph to be less &#8220;esoteric&#8221;, because what is written there is pretty much what I parodied.</p>
<p> You argue that what you understand by the article is what others will understand by reading it (despite the fact that there is nothing actually written there to support you), then you add a silly statement  that if they don&#8217;t, it&#8217;s probably because they agree with this phantom interpretation, and then point that you think this interpretation is what Sirlin actually thinks, even though he didn&#8217;t write anything to support this idea. </p>
<p> If you meant something else, then yes, perhaps you were being too &#8220;esoteric&#8221;.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Esoto</title>
		<link>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-185927</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:16:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-185927</guid>
					<description>---------------------------------
“it’s community treats it as such.”
prove my point. The community treats it as a fighter, but that doesn’t automatically make it a fighter.
---------------------------------
Hm.. yeah, his argument sounds kinda fallacious. Just because many people thinks something is true doesn't make it true. Also, I don't think the definition of &quot;fighting game&quot; has &quot;people thinks it is a fighting game&quot; in it.
However, it doesn't prove your point. Thinking &quot;hm, you used a bad argument against my point, therefore my point is true&quot; is also fallacious, and I hope I don't have to explain you why. :P

---------------------------------
It has some resemblance to a fighter, but it is a party game.
---------------------------------
It can be both. You see, &quot;Mario Party&quot; is (huh) a party game, but that doesn't mean it isn't a &quot;board game&quot; (or whatever the &quot;throw-dices-to-go-up-squares-and-blah-blah&quot; genre is called). I bet many genres can get a party game, if only a producer picks the genre and start throwing a lot of whatever-makes-something-a-party-game in it. 

Now, I don't see how ssbb is NOT a fighting game. I mean, you pick between many characters (yeah) then use them to fight against other picked characters (like a fighting game) in a kind of side-scrolling environment (like other fighting games) and you use normal moves and specials and combos or whatever (like other fighting games) and, hm, dunno what else, but why wouldn't it be a fighting game? If anything, maybe it is a *shallow* fighting game. But that doesn't mean it is not a fighting game. And besides, you totally ignored the part where Claytus said it requires strategy. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding black and white definitions: How right you are, somethings aren’t gray. But adjectives are. If you tell someone to paint a wall green, chances are the green you were thinking, will be differnt from the green they painted the wall. Adjectives are gray, and scrub is an adjective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some adjectives aren't. You are either &quot;French&quot; (because you were born in France) or &quot;not French&quot;. You are either an atheist (if you don't believe in God) or not an atheist. 

Ops, my time is finished. Bye.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<br />
“it’s community treats it as such.”<br />
prove my point. The community treats it as a fighter, but that doesn’t automatically make it a fighter.<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<br />
Hm.. yeah, his argument sounds kinda fallacious. Just because many people thinks something is true doesn&#8217;t make it true. Also, I don&#8217;t think the definition of &#8220;fighting game&#8221; has &#8220;people thinks it is a fighting game&#8221; in it.<br />
However, it doesn&#8217;t prove your point. Thinking &#8220;hm, you used a bad argument against my point, therefore my point is true&#8221; is also fallacious, and I hope I don&#8217;t have to explain you why. :P</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<br />
It has some resemblance to a fighter, but it is a party game.<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<br />
It can be both. You see, &#8220;Mario Party&#8221; is (huh) a party game, but that doesn&#8217;t mean it isn&#8217;t a &#8220;board game&#8221; (or whatever the &#8220;throw-dices-to-go-up-squares-and-blah-blah&#8221; genre is called). I bet many genres can get a party game, if only a producer picks the genre and start throwing a lot of whatever-makes-something-a-party-game in it. </p>
<p>Now, I don&#8217;t see how ssbb is NOT a fighting game. I mean, you pick between many characters (yeah) then use them to fight against other picked characters (like a fighting game) in a kind of side-scrolling environment (like other fighting games) and you use normal moves and specials and combos or whatever (like other fighting games) and, hm, dunno what else, but why wouldn&#8217;t it be a fighting game? If anything, maybe it is a *shallow* fighting game. But that doesn&#8217;t mean it is not a fighting game. And besides, you totally ignored the part where Claytus said it requires strategy. </p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br />
Regarding black and white definitions: How right you are, somethings aren’t gray. But adjectives are. If you tell someone to paint a wall green, chances are the green you were thinking, will be differnt from the green they painted the wall. Adjectives are gray, and scrub is an adjective.<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br />
Some adjectives aren&#8217;t. You are either &#8220;French&#8221; (because you were born in France) or &#8220;not French&#8221;. You are either an atheist (if you don&#8217;t believe in God) or not an atheist. </p>
<p>Ops, my time is finished. Bye.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: blargh</title>
		<link>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-185862</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:08:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-185862</guid>
					<description>&quot;it’s community treats it as such.&quot;

prove my point. The community treats it as a fighter, but that doesn't automatically make it a fighter. It has some resemblance to a fighter, but it is a party game. 

&quot;Congratulations for changing words to create new sentences that sirlin never actually wrote&quot;

I never said he wrote it, I told him to read it with my changes. Also, I said it sounds an awful lot like, whether he thinks that or not is none of my concern. I'm allowed my opinion. And I bet he won't respond to that either.

&quot;There just aren’t any moves that allow the other characters to respond.&quot;

so akuma is so good, picking him is win. Thats unfair, but that does fall under his definition of scrub. (you can't deny that) My whole point was that everyone is somewhat scrub.

Regarding black and white definitions: How right you are, somethings aren't gray. But adjectives are. If you tell someone to paint a wall green, chances are the green you were thinking, will be differnt from the green they painted the wall. Adjectives are gray, and scrub is an adjective. 

@ snicker-snacker

I think i was to esoteric for you. Based on your comment you understood zero of what i said.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;it’s community treats it as such.&#8221;</p>
<p>prove my point. The community treats it as a fighter, but that doesn&#8217;t automatically make it a fighter. It has some resemblance to a fighter, but it is a party game. </p>
<p>&#8220;Congratulations for changing words to create new sentences that sirlin never actually wrote&#8221;</p>
<p>I never said he wrote it, I told him to read it with my changes. Also, I said it sounds an awful lot like, whether he thinks that or not is none of my concern. I&#8217;m allowed my opinion. And I bet he won&#8217;t respond to that either.</p>
<p>&#8220;There just aren’t any moves that allow the other characters to respond.&#8221;</p>
<p>so akuma is so good, picking him is win. Thats unfair, but that does fall under his definition of scrub. (you can&#8217;t deny that) My whole point was that everyone is somewhat scrub.</p>
<p>Regarding black and white definitions: How right you are, somethings aren&#8217;t gray. But adjectives are. If you tell someone to paint a wall green, chances are the green you were thinking, will be differnt from the green they painted the wall. Adjectives are gray, and scrub is an adjective. </p>
<p>@ snicker-snacker</p>
<p>I think i was to esoteric for you. Based on your comment you understood zero of what i said.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Snicker-Snack</title>
		<link>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-185617</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-185617</guid>
					<description>Man, that comment from blargh is hilarious: &quot;Well, that's not what you said, but it is what I *think* you said, and I'm pretty certain that it is what a lot of other people *think* you said, and if it isn't, it's because they are secretly thinking what I *thought* you said. Also, I *think* that is secretly what *you* think, but didn't say.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Man, that comment from blargh is hilarious: &#8220;Well, that&#8217;s not what you said, but it is what I *think* you said, and I&#8217;m pretty certain that it is what a lot of other people *think* you said, and if it isn&#8217;t, it&#8217;s because they are secretly thinking what I *thought* you said. Also, I *think* that is secretly what *you* think, but didn&#8217;t say.&#8221;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Claytus</title>
		<link>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-185611</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:00:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-185611</guid>
					<description>What?   Ssbb is most definitely a fighting game, it's community treats it as such.   If you think there aren't deep strategies to apply in smash, you're completely blind to the way it's actually played.

Regarding your @sirlin stuff:   Congratulations for changing words to create new sentences that sirlin never actually wrote, and then accusing him of having said your fantastical new definitions.   Dude, how do you sleep at night?

Regarding akuma:   People did fight against him, remember ST is a 14-year old game.   It turns out that there are no counter strategies.   There just aren't any moves that allow the other characters to respond.   

Regarding black and white defintions:   Actually, it's how most of the things in life work.   Either you have a college degree or you don't.  Either you're taller than 6 feet or you're not.   Either you live in France or you don't.   The scrub definition pretty clearly describes a line in the sand, and explains who is on each side.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What?   Ssbb is most definitely a fighting game, it&#8217;s community treats it as such.   If you think there aren&#8217;t deep strategies to apply in smash, you&#8217;re completely blind to the way it&#8217;s actually played.</p>
<p>Regarding your @sirlin stuff:   Congratulations for changing words to create new sentences that sirlin never actually wrote, and then accusing him of having said your fantastical new definitions.   Dude, how do you sleep at night?</p>
<p>Regarding akuma:   People did fight against him, remember ST is a 14-year old game.   It turns out that there are no counter strategies.   There just aren&#8217;t any moves that allow the other characters to respond.   </p>
<p>Regarding black and white defintions:   Actually, it&#8217;s how most of the things in life work.   Either you have a college degree or you don&#8217;t.  Either you&#8217;re taller than 6 feet or you&#8217;re not.   Either you live in France or you don&#8217;t.   The scrub definition pretty clearly describes a line in the sand, and explains who is on each side.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: blargh</title>
		<link>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-185601</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:22:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-185601</guid>
					<description>First off

Why are people comparing ssbb to fighting games? That is obviously the worse game to compare to a fighting game, ever. The only reason they even have tourneys for that game is because of public demand, not because its gonna be so fun creating strategies/counter-strats. ssbb was a party game, trying to make it something else is the stupidest thing that has ever happened in the world.

@ sirlin

Most people aren't gonna read your book. Look at the last part of this article, and replace every &quot;scrub&quot;, with &quot;people who aren't gonna read my book.&quot; From the article at least, it sounds an awful lot like you think competitive players are better then &quot;scrubs.&quot; I really doubt anyone who has read this would disagree with me. (except for the diligent few that agree with you secretly.) And for some reason, i think that &quot;disclaimer&quot; at the begining of your book was because you didn't want hate-mail.

@ the article

From the article you get, anyone that plays with &quot;honor&quot; and &quot;cheapness&quot; in mind is a scrub. That makes some sense, but if someone that wants to win plays akuma, will everyone in the room not jump up and shout, &quot;wheres your honor you cheap bastard?&quot; You give the excuse, &quot;well akuma is unbeatable, so it makes sense.&quot; If akuma is banned how can you find counter strategies to him and his raining fireballs of fury? you give another excuse, &quot;well there is no counter so ban ban ban.&quot; How can you possibly know where the counters are, without fighting him? People who preach about how bad scrubs are because they follow certain &quot;rules&quot; and don't play to win, which is a very small community by your definition, should at least admit, that no one has zero scrubiness. Otherwise freezing matches to aviod losing would be allowed, and everyone would choose akuma. 

Your definition is just horrible. You are a scrub or you aren't. Thats not how life works; thats not how anything works. As far as I'm concerned, there are certainly areas in between, and no one is a complete non-scrub, and no one is a complete scrub.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First off</p>
<p>Why are people comparing ssbb to fighting games? That is obviously the worse game to compare to a fighting game, ever. The only reason they even have tourneys for that game is because of public demand, not because its gonna be so fun creating strategies/counter-strats. ssbb was a party game, trying to make it something else is the stupidest thing that has ever happened in the world.</p>
<p>@ sirlin</p>
<p>Most people aren&#8217;t gonna read your book. Look at the last part of this article, and replace every &#8220;scrub&#8221;, with &#8220;people who aren&#8217;t gonna read my book.&#8221; From the article at least, it sounds an awful lot like you think competitive players are better then &#8220;scrubs.&#8221; I really doubt anyone who has read this would disagree with me. (except for the diligent few that agree with you secretly.) And for some reason, i think that &#8220;disclaimer&#8221; at the begining of your book was because you didn&#8217;t want hate-mail.</p>
<p>@ the article</p>
<p>From the article you get, anyone that plays with &#8220;honor&#8221; and &#8220;cheapness&#8221; in mind is a scrub. That makes some sense, but if someone that wants to win plays akuma, will everyone in the room not jump up and shout, &#8220;wheres your honor you cheap bastard?&#8221; You give the excuse, &#8220;well akuma is unbeatable, so it makes sense.&#8221; If akuma is banned how can you find counter strategies to him and his raining fireballs of fury? you give another excuse, &#8220;well there is no counter so ban ban ban.&#8221; How can you possibly know where the counters are, without fighting him? People who preach about how bad scrubs are because they follow certain &#8220;rules&#8221; and don&#8217;t play to win, which is a very small community by your definition, should at least admit, that no one has zero scrubiness. Otherwise freezing matches to aviod losing would be allowed, and everyone would choose akuma. </p>
<p>Your definition is just horrible. You are a scrub or you aren&#8217;t. Thats not how life works; thats not how anything works. As far as I&#8217;m concerned, there are certainly areas in between, and no one is a complete non-scrub, and no one is a complete scrub.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Sirlin</title>
		<link>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-185178</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:27:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-185178</guid>
					<description>Wildcard, you do not understand what you have read and you are putting words in my mouth. I can't make it any more clear than what I said on page 1 of my book (I mean literally, the first page). There's nothing wrong with playing casually and I never said there was. In fact, I explicitly say that the entire message is for people who are trying to be top competitors and who are not able to get there. Try reading page 1:

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/prologue/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wildcard, you do not understand what you have read and you are putting words in my mouth. I can&#8217;t make it any more clear than what I said on page 1 of my book (I mean literally, the first page). There&#8217;s nothing wrong with playing casually and I never said there was. In fact, I explicitly say that the entire message is for people who are trying to be top competitors and who are not able to get there. Try reading page 1:</p>
<p><a href='http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/prologue/' rel='nofollow'>http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/prologue/</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Wildcard</title>
		<link>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-185053</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:40:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-185053</guid>
					<description>Sorry, but I'm definatly gonna have to disagree. I'm usually the one called &quot;cheap&quot; and all, but it seems you labeled all casual players who don't constanly play and improve and maybe only do it occasionly do it at parties.

This blog seems like a narrow-minded attack on the entire party-games mindset then those who call everything cheap. I have played with whiners like that, and I wouldn't have a problem if you didn't label pretty much everybody who's ever comblained about a loss in here. 

I think you just take your gaming a little too seriously dude.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, but I&#8217;m definatly gonna have to disagree. I&#8217;m usually the one called &#8220;cheap&#8221; and all, but it seems you labeled all casual players who don&#8217;t constanly play and improve and maybe only do it occasionly do it at parties.</p>
<p>This blog seems like a narrow-minded attack on the entire party-games mindset then those who call everything cheap. I have played with whiners like that, and I wouldn&#8217;t have a problem if you didn&#8217;t label pretty much everybody who&#8217;s ever comblained about a loss in here. </p>
<p>I think you just take your gaming a little too seriously dude.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Trykt</title>
		<link>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-185032</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:27:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-185032</guid>
					<description>some1, you are not a very good troll.  Try being less obvious if you want to bait someone into attempting a serious discussion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>some1, you are not a very good troll.  Try being less obvious if you want to bait someone into attempting a serious discussion.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: some1</title>
		<link>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-184906</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:14:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/#comment-184906</guid>
					<description>This was a good review on bad players. You just keeping going on and on about how every1 should exploit, use the bugs to their advantages and brag about it. Why? There are lots of bugs in games and there is no need to point them out with abusing them. And what the hell is up with Street fighter games. They were good...on the bug charts. Try tekken out. Sure..there are moves the NPC can't dodge, but you can. 
There's nothing proud or good in winning by using the same glitch. There is a word for you: NOOB. 

I understand the need to &quot;play 2 win&quot; but play is in the word sphere of FUN. A good game is a fun game to play. 

Also a more in-depth response towards you so good &quot;counter tactic&quot;. 1 loser uses repetitive punch/kick move that cannot be blocked, by mistake the other mashes some buttons and gets away to just do the same move on the opponent. WOW..amazing... I saw good players die out because of you all cheaters, because that is what you are. If you can enter a code in a game to become immune and you use it then you are a cheater. And about tournaments. Abusers die fast. There have been cases where ppl were kicked out because they exploited these bugs. And nowdays you get kicked out of such tournaments if you exploit. So, in conclusion, the only reason why you play is to cheat, and the only games you play are the ones you know the cheat to. You are lame!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This was a good review on bad players. You just keeping going on and on about how every1 should exploit, use the bugs to their advantages and brag about it. Why? There are lots of bugs in games and there is no need to point them out with abusing them. And what the hell is up with Street fighter games. They were good&#8230;on the bug charts. Try tekken out. Sure..there are moves the NPC can&#8217;t dodge, but you can.<br />
There&#8217;s nothing proud or good in winning by using the same glitch. There is a word for you: NOOB. </p>
<p>I understand the need to &#8220;play 2 win&#8221; but play is in the word sphere of FUN. A good game is a fun game to play. </p>
<p>Also a more in-depth response towards you so good &#8220;counter tactic&#8221;. 1 loser uses repetitive punch/kick move that cannot be blocked, by mistake the other mashes some buttons and gets away to just do the same move on the opponent. WOW..amazing&#8230; I saw good players die out because of you all cheaters, because that is what you are. If you can enter a code in a game to become immune and you use it then you are a cheater. And about tournaments. Abusers die fast. There have been cases where ppl were kicked out because they exploited these bugs. And nowdays you get kicked out of such tournaments if you exploit. So, in conclusion, the only reason why you play is to cheat, and the only games you play are the ones you know the cheat to. You are lame!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
