Is a game bettered by a single dominant player (team)?

[AltF4]

Not everything has to be super serious around here, guys. This IS a video game forum.

Question: Is a game bettered by having a single dominant player or team?

I'm going to argue: yes. But first, let me explain what I mean...

Think of Ken in the early days of Melee. If you were to ask anyone who the best smasher in the world was, there was a single correct answer without even having to think about it: Ken. For many years, the world's best Starcraft Brood War player was SlayerSBoxer. Boxer single-handedly invented starcraft as an e-sport and showed that the game could be played at a high level. Halo 1 and 2 had Final Boss. They hardly even had a rivalry with the 2nd place teams.

All of these players understood something about the game that nobody else at the time did. They serve to extend the metagame beyond what it would have otherwise. Furthermore, as a spectator, it is an easy concept to rally behind. If I am new to your game (such as when I watched early matches of StarCraft) I can share a sense of excitement when I watch an up-and-coming player beat someone well known and dominant like Boxer or Flash.


The only counterexample I can think of can possibly be the Yankees. But I think that's more a case of concentrated money than it is a case of genuine organic skill.

Do you hate it when a game has a single dominant player / team? Do you think it hurts the game to have one?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I think it's very important in such a case to discern between a "head" game and a "body" game.

Brawl/Melee/Starcraft/Chess/etc are head games. They are based mostly upon your knowledge of the game, your knowledge of your opponent. Anyone (within reason) could sink the time in to get to the highest level.
Baseball/Football/etc. are body games. Train all you want, if you're 5'2" and skinny, you'll never reach the level of Barry Bonds or Tom Brady. You cannot become good at these games if you do not have the right body type.

I'd argue that a clear top team in body games is a bad thing; there will only ever be a certain number of barry bonds and AROD's.

However, in head games... kind of a different story.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Although, having an excellent player at the sport/game, is beneficial to the meta-game, I believe it would be better that there were more excellent players. Simply put, if there is the choice between having two geniuses and one, it's better to take two. And in a competitive sport like, I think having a few excellent players, as opposed to one would make it more competitive; these players would have to work harder to make their game better so they could win, while if there was one dominant player, he wouldn't have to work as hard to win and consequently, his talent that would be to some extent wasted.

 

[ballin4life]

The only counterexample I can think of can possibly be the Yankees. But I think that's more a case of concentrated money than it is a case of genuine organic skill.

I'm confused; what are the Yankees a counterexample to?

By the way, I don't think that the Yankees or any other team in American sports are as dominant as Ken/Final Boss. The closest is probably Manchester United in EPL.

I think it's very important in such a case to discern between a "head" game and a "body" game.

Brawl/Melee/Starcraft/Chess/etc are head games. They are based mostly upon your knowledge of the game, your knowledge of your opponent. Anyone (within reason) could sink the time in to get to the highest level.
Baseball/Football/etc. are body games. Train all you want, if you're 5'2" and skinny, you'll never reach the level of Barry Bonds or Tom Brady. You cannot become good at these games if you do not have the right body type.

Meh. I can also say that you'll never be as good as Boxer/whoever at Starcraft if you can't play at 150+ APM.

Only turn based games completely remove the physical component.

 

[AltF4]

"Counterexample" was meant to be against my own point. As in, a dominant team which is a detriment to the game. Meaning that I think the Yankees dominance has been bad for baseball. This is why so many people have been crying for a salary cap in baseball.

 

[ballin4life]

I don't see the Yankees as dominant - at least not in the way that Ken/Final Boss were. They don't win every year. And the reason people think they are a detriment is because they think its unfair that they spend more money - not that they win it all every year.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

A single dominant player is fine in a game. It forces other players to change their styles and try to beat this top player. If you have the most skill you should continue to dominate until someone beats you.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Actually, I have to revise my stance. I think that one dominant player may be positive, but not because he's alone at the top. As said before, "two geniuses is better than one". I think that the positive development to the metagame comes less from him being alone at the peak and more to do with him being at the peak at all. That is, M2K alone being the king of brawl? Cool, everyone has someone to look up to and beat, to learn how he beasts the contest. M2K and ADHD at the top? Cool, even more to look at to learn how to be the best. M2K, ADHD, and Ally? You get the point, I hope.

 

[Sucumbio]

Michel Jordon comes to mind. Not only was he the dominant player for the Chicago Bulls, but he took the Bulls to the Championships year after year. He helped the game of pro basketball by inventing such trademark baskets as the "fade-away jumper." He also was a god. Or signed a contract with the devil. How else could he have landed a dunk.. from HALF COURT (psycho mofo).

But yeah, it helps the game, I think. I can imagine how spectators may whine because they're tired of their team losing year after year because one team above all has an advantage. But it is good, because all the other teams train that much harder to beat the one team that seems so unbeatable.

Does this mean that the "meta game" turns into learning how to just beat one person?

Eh, yeah kinda. Jordan was in essence the Meta Knight of basketball. When playing NBA Live 97 on the PSX we for a while banned picking Chicago because it was a guaranteed win. But then we lifted the ban, taking teams like Indiana with Reggie Miller against them. Or The Utah Jazz with "the mailman" Karl Malone. "The Twin Towers" of San Antonio, The Heat's Tim Hardaway.... After awhile we started to notice that in fact just about every team had a really good player or two that was able to bring it to the Bulls.

But the bulls still won, why? It was more than just Jordan. Jordan was ... the catalyst for greatness. Sure he could win single handedly. He'd almost always earn a triple double, 40+ points 10+ assists and 20+ rebounds. But Rodman put up numbers. And Scotty Pippin too. The three ofthem formed a sick combo, kind of like Dragon Warrior 8's Tripple Trouble and their feared Stream Killer Attack, lol. Just... really tough to survive the onslaught.

So then we tried playing without Jordan.

Result, yeah, Chicago became mortal again.

So lesson learned from all this, they could be beat, but it was a hard thing to do, and the presence of Jordan made the game become focusing on beating Jordan.

So in the broader sense, it is good for a sport or game for there to be one dominant player/team because it is sure to bring the best out of the competition. However if they're -too- good, then the game can change from being about a team vs team, to being a team vs one player.

In fighting games, well it's different of course, as someone mentioned. But this is why there's so much avarice toward Meta Knight. For many, he's just a hampering of the game, because instead of learning the most you can about your character vs the rest of the roster, you're stuck (in vain usually) training on how to beat one character.

 

[Aesir]

In fighting games, well it's different of course, as someone mentioned. But this is why there's so much avarice toward Meta Knight. For many, he's just a hampering of the game, because instead of learning the most you can about your character vs the rest of the roster, you're stuck (in vain usually) training on how to beat one character.

This right here, since you're always striving to just beat that one character you begin to develop an anti-insert character here, style. Which might be very effective at combating said character, but what happens when you're up against another character? Your competitive mind is just so focused on one single character the aspects of your game have become so hindered. The best way I can describe is myself, I'm pretty damn good at the marth vs Sheik match up in melee, but when I fight a peach or samus. (IE characters I should beat with ease) I'm finding myself having a pretty hard time with it. Because your brain basically becomes handicapped in those situations.

That's just my thoughts though, I could be completely wrong, but that's what 5 years of melee tells me.

 

[KrazyGlue]

What's up guys.

Games thrive off of dominant players. People need top players to hate (or possibly love). It's what gets people riled up and continuously watching. The NBA would die out without players like Lebron James, as much as I hate him. If every superstar was modest like Kevin Durant, not as many people would care to be perfectly honest. Of course that's just one example, but I think the same principle holds true more or less across the board.