Beren Zaiga
Smash Ace
That's correct. I did call it dogmatic. Why? The why is easy to see on Smash Boards between the people who play casually and the people who play competitively. The dominate mindset of the extremists of this philosophy (or who take it too far) is:
"If you aren't playing to win: you're a scrub.
That about sums it up.
Frankly, the mindset is a poison to gaming, even if the point of competitive play is to win. They outcast people for simply playing a different way, they get mad when people deviate from the standards, and they are intolerant of the casual players, effectively placing them as socially inferior.
They also preach the words of Sirlin's book Playing to Win like they are the words of a deity, which despite it's pretty words is biased against the casual players. Sirlin later makes an article called Not Playing to Win which talks about the benefits of not always playing for the sake of winning. Yet in end, that article is often ignored in favor of the book that favors their philosophy, and often they flame, verbally maim, and outright just act like complete *******s to the casual players.
That is not to say that people of the casual community are mellow and carefree, not giving a care about the things done to them by the some of the people in the competitive community. There are plenty of idiots in the casual community, just as there are idiots in the competitive community that are as stubborn as some of the casual players, and both share common characteristics, as all extremists of philosophy.
• They will argue to aud naseum about how their respective philosophies being better than the other.
• They will continually talk down to, and treat others opposite of their respective philosophies like trash.
• Both are nauseously stubborn about their philosophies.
Before moving on, allow me to state this.
If it somehow got into your mind that the above points are a generalization of all players in both communities, flush it out of your mind now. This thread has no place for that.
When you step back and look at how these two communities clash constantly everywhere, you begin to see how senseless the constant arguments are, and see how the philosophy of playing to win causes such friction between these two (not excluding the philosophy of not playing to win). Both have two different objectives at their core, but when you broaden the perspective and generalize it, the objective of both philosophies comes to one simple thing: playing the game.
This is the reason most all people today started to play video games to begin with: to play the game. To get a quick thrill that challenges the senses, mind, and reflexes. Not to compete with one another. What a lot of members of both communities fail to realize is that neither philosophy is invalid, nor are they correct, or anything else. They are simply a way of playing the game, if that causes friction between people, it's their own fault that they reject the other philosophy so heatedly, not the other person.
It's as if one is saying the family dog killed a hen, when it was the fox that did the deed. It is not true, but neither party recognizes or realizes it, which is a big element of the proverbial chasm between the two philosophies.
There are some moderates in both groups, but they are few and far between, and the ones who are, are usually ignored by the others.
Back to the topic of the "Playing to Win" philosophy.
The dogmatism of some of the competitive communities' extreme members is atrocious, filthy, and as I said before, poisonous. It only creates strife, hate, and foolish feuds between members that last for pages of threads senselessly with no foreseeable end barring that one argues the other into a corner. How this vile behavior is not called out on by the more level-headed of their own community more often astounds me, what is more is that in some instances, it is even allowed to continue.
This behavior is unnecessary, even if the opposing person disagrees with the "playing to win" view, the fact remains that these arguments are pointless, and oft are started on the most idiotic of reasons, by both sides. If the given reason is because the person is a "casual scrub", it still does not validate the behavior, nor does any other excuses that both communities can come up with. This kind of behavior is against forum rules.
The acts of the extremists of both communities are against forum rules.
If neither one likes the philosophy, tough beans to both communities, it is their own faults for rejecting the other philosophy without much cause other than that it differentiates from their style of play.
TL;DR : Neither is to blame, neither is truly right, neither is truly wrong. The only true right or wrong comes in when either philosophy is put in the context of it's opposite. If you can't face that truth, tough luck.
---------------------------------------------
If you're going to flame this thread, leave now, any flames will be reported, and flagged as spam.
YOU'VE BEEN WARNED.
"If you aren't playing to win: you're a scrub.
That about sums it up.
Frankly, the mindset is a poison to gaming, even if the point of competitive play is to win. They outcast people for simply playing a different way, they get mad when people deviate from the standards, and they are intolerant of the casual players, effectively placing them as socially inferior.
They also preach the words of Sirlin's book Playing to Win like they are the words of a deity, which despite it's pretty words is biased against the casual players. Sirlin later makes an article called Not Playing to Win which talks about the benefits of not always playing for the sake of winning. Yet in end, that article is often ignored in favor of the book that favors their philosophy, and often they flame, verbally maim, and outright just act like complete *******s to the casual players.
That is not to say that people of the casual community are mellow and carefree, not giving a care about the things done to them by the some of the people in the competitive community. There are plenty of idiots in the casual community, just as there are idiots in the competitive community that are as stubborn as some of the casual players, and both share common characteristics, as all extremists of philosophy.
• They will argue to aud naseum about how their respective philosophies being better than the other.
• They will continually talk down to, and treat others opposite of their respective philosophies like trash.
• Both are nauseously stubborn about their philosophies.
Before moving on, allow me to state this.
If it somehow got into your mind that the above points are a generalization of all players in both communities, flush it out of your mind now. This thread has no place for that.
When you step back and look at how these two communities clash constantly everywhere, you begin to see how senseless the constant arguments are, and see how the philosophy of playing to win causes such friction between these two (not excluding the philosophy of not playing to win). Both have two different objectives at their core, but when you broaden the perspective and generalize it, the objective of both philosophies comes to one simple thing: playing the game.
This is the reason most all people today started to play video games to begin with: to play the game. To get a quick thrill that challenges the senses, mind, and reflexes. Not to compete with one another. What a lot of members of both communities fail to realize is that neither philosophy is invalid, nor are they correct, or anything else. They are simply a way of playing the game, if that causes friction between people, it's their own fault that they reject the other philosophy so heatedly, not the other person.
It's as if one is saying the family dog killed a hen, when it was the fox that did the deed. It is not true, but neither party recognizes or realizes it, which is a big element of the proverbial chasm between the two philosophies.
There are some moderates in both groups, but they are few and far between, and the ones who are, are usually ignored by the others.
Back to the topic of the "Playing to Win" philosophy.
The dogmatism of some of the competitive communities' extreme members is atrocious, filthy, and as I said before, poisonous. It only creates strife, hate, and foolish feuds between members that last for pages of threads senselessly with no foreseeable end barring that one argues the other into a corner. How this vile behavior is not called out on by the more level-headed of their own community more often astounds me, what is more is that in some instances, it is even allowed to continue.
This behavior is unnecessary, even if the opposing person disagrees with the "playing to win" view, the fact remains that these arguments are pointless, and oft are started on the most idiotic of reasons, by both sides. If the given reason is because the person is a "casual scrub", it still does not validate the behavior, nor does any other excuses that both communities can come up with. This kind of behavior is against forum rules.
The acts of the extremists of both communities are against forum rules.
If neither one likes the philosophy, tough beans to both communities, it is their own faults for rejecting the other philosophy without much cause other than that it differentiates from their style of play.
TL;DR : Neither is to blame, neither is truly right, neither is truly wrong. The only true right or wrong comes in when either philosophy is put in the context of it's opposite. If you can't face that truth, tough luck.
---------------------------------------------
If you're going to flame this thread, leave now, any flames will be reported, and flagged as spam.
YOU'VE BEEN WARNED.