Whether a game predisposed to offensive play is competitive?

[Jaedrik]

Objection 1. It seems that a neutral position in a game's design is more desirable than an unfavorable position for one person or another. For a neutral position guarantees a greater interplay of opposed forces. Now, depth is said to be the number and quality of emergent and viable gameplay choices one has to decide between. Therefore, a neutral position is conducive to a superior metagame.

Objection 2. Further, an unfavorable position implies the decrease in choices. But the opponent comparatively gains choices. Therefore, it is said that one side gains such options as to nullify the choices of his opponent, and there by its excess overwhelm the opponent into an even worse position.

Objection 3. Further, it is more exciting to observe the neutral interplay between opponents. Since it is known that they are both on equal footing. Therefore, the skill of one is emphasized when they more regularly succeed over another in the neutral position.

Objection 4. Further, it seems that a more defensively oriented game serves to create this desirable play state of constant neutral position. For as one's defensive options increase so too does the ability for one to incur the neutral state from a potentially unfavorable position.

On the contrary, a neutral position is the medium by which one enters in to various other positions, here where one has the advantage over another, there where all have less options, and another place where all have more options, thus there is the greater depth in that which has numerous other significant possible positions. For, as The Scholar and The Economist say, action cannot be considered human insofar as there are no alternatives to deliberate among.

I answer that, a game predisposed to offensiveness is competitive.

For, without a rich and meaningful offense there is no possibility of a rich and meaningful defense. The two are opposed in that an expansion in the depth of one necessitates an expansion in the depth of the other, since the object of offense is to break defense and the object of defense is to thwart offence. This is most powerfully demonstrated when we observe maneuvers which carry the implication of both offense and defense, that is, an offensive option which shuts down some of the opponent's offensive options, thus thwarting them.

Reply to Objection 1. The variance of said interplay cannot change when relegated to one position alone. Interplay between opponents is deepened when the more options imply a shift in mindset entirely, that is, a change in the interplay.

Reply to Objection 2. Choice is not a proportional constant that is split between opponents.

Reply to Objection 3. It is a far greater, more explicit, or poignant testament to one's skill to be able to pull a favorable condition from generally unfavorable circumstances. Further, a competition is just as much centered around a celebration of the richness of a game's mechanics as they are the manipulation of said mechanics by competitors, and we have already demonstrated that a constant neutral lacks depth.

Reply to Objection 4. A defensive option is not truly an option unless it incurs risk, for if it incurred no risk then there be no viable choice other than to constantly use it to neutralize any threat from the opponent. Likewise, the opponent would do the same.

Edit: The Scholar and The Economist are St. Thomas Aquinas and Ludwig Von Mises, respectively.

 

[Thinkaman]

Now, depth is said to be the number and quality of emergent and viable gameplay choices one has to decide between.

No. No no no.

This is breadth.

This is the exact inverse of depth.

Depth is how many layers of legitimate future choices can be examined--"how many moves ahead" players are empowered to think.

Adding breadth reduces depth for any player agent with a finite processing capability, including humans. In this context, they are opposed in a dichotomy. If we consider yomi (fractal depth) separate from standard depth, then it's a trichotomy.

**********

Regardless, the topic is moot. Competitiveness is not a property of a game, it is a property of a community. A game itself cannot be competitive or non-competitive. Furthermore, what properties are most conducive to establishing a competitive community are entirely subjective.

 

[Jaedrik]

No. No no no.

This is breadth.

This is the exact inverse of depth.

Depth is how many layers of legitimate future choices can be examined--"how many moves ahead" players are empowered to think.

Adding breadth reduces depth for any player agent with a finite processing capability, including humans. In this context, they are opposed in a dichotomy. If we consider yomi (fractal depth) separate from standard depth, then it's a trichotomy.

**********

Regardless, the topic is moot. Competitiveness is not a property of a game, it is a property of a community. A game itself cannot be competitive or non-competitive. Furthermore, what properties are most conducive to establishing a competitive community are entirely subjective.

It has been demonstrated that there is no depth without breadth, for, as The Scholar and The Economist say, if the options number but one, then there is no choice, since there are no alternatives to deliberate among. Likewise, the quality of the options alone is insufficient to elucidate the full 'breadth' of depth, as it were, since it could be understood that the quality of a few options is high. Yet another game may have a few options that are of lesser quality but far greater in quantity, therefore making the general character of one game have more depth.

Further, breadth is not simply the number of choices alone. For, one may say that, regarding one game, that there are many options with few of them relevant to the goal at hand, and therefore do not enter or enter in a lesser desirability the consideration of the individual when deliberating among routes to take. Therefore it is more patently clear which options one would take more often in a variety of circumstances. On the other hand, one may say that, regarding another game, there is a likewise number of options with most of them relevant to the goal at hand, and therefore they all enter the consideration of the individual in a higher regard. Therefore, one can see that the object of breadth is not the inverse of depth, for a mere increase in the number of options is not indicative of the circumstances surrounding said options. If it were, breadth would more accurately be described as both the number of choices and the ease of deliberating among them. Yet even this is a flawed definition, for it is to suppose that a game with a perpetually uncertain choice has an infinite depth. This is patently not so, since depth consists not in the act of deliberating but rather has for its object the game's mechanics themselves, as even you acknowledge.

There must be addressed the nature of depth in a temporal context. One has not to consider possibilities on the spot where the reach of our mind is narrowed. Indeed, it is said that those that deliberate beforehand and practice the execution of such a maneuver are participating in the 'metagame'. That is, they are participating of the game beforehand. This is as The Philosopher (Aristotle) says, for Metaphysics is the science of the nature of the concepts we rely upon to distinguish the various other physics, without which we have no framework for interpreting any causal consequence. It is 'before' the physics, metagame is 'before' the game. But it is the nature of a choice that the choice already be decided if the action be deliberate, for one cannot choose that which happens upon them, rather only what they happen to do about it. Therefore, depth cannot be understood merely in a temporal way, though it is useful for demonstrating many properties of depth.

Competition is the act of competing, where the opposite is to choose not to compete, for without at least two subjects there is no competition. Yet, competition necessitates a medium by which these two or more compete. Now, you are entirely right in that the willingness to compete, and therefore the competition, is found in the subject that observes it. However, each person has for their object the competition itself in addition to the good desired from the competition. Now, for a competition to conclude, one must have an advantage over the other in some way lest it be a draw. It is true that we, as tournament organizers, make our rules how we see fit, and therefore determine what this advantage consists of. But, the results of those rules are a natural product, that is, they are found in the object of the competition. It is only understood that one succeeds a competition in that they abide by said rules. Therefore, competition is not merely subjective, it is normative. That is, it implies a norm or standard by which two or more people compete against each other. For, there can be no competition where there is no game, and a game is a normative set of rules. Therefore, it cannot be said that competitiveness is entirely subjective, since some result must be found in the norm that is the object rather than the subject. Therefore, it can be said that the rules are the cause of competition, and insofar as those rules are either conducive or not conducive to the decision between the two or more opponents in a satisfactory manner, they are properly understood as more or less competitive.

Edit: The original question of this thread is not whether and offensive game is more competitive than a defensive game. Rather it is whether the offensive game can be understood as competitive. We have proven that it can be.

 

[Conda]

Competitiveness is not a property of a game, it is a property of a community.

Brought a tear to my eye.

 

[Jaedrik]

Brought a tear to my eye.

Yet it is not so, as shown above.

 

[mimgrim]

.....What's the point exactly?

I don't know if it is the way you type, or what. but I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

 

[Jaedrik]

.....What's the point exactly?

I don't know if it is the way you type, or what. but I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

Well, the things proven so far are are a bunch of, as my friend said from another site but put more politely, "no duh", things. Like, he said, 'proving' the definitions of a bunch of stuff.

A few of the other things are "Competition is not entirely subjective, but it is normative", and the implication that "Competition is best served through a composite of neutral and non-neutral positions", but I haven't proven that assertion fully. Though, it doesn't take much for one to see that it naturally follows. Oh, and I've debunked the popular notion (Edit: popular, as I label them, perhaps unfairly, 'casual elitists'. Seems like an oxymoron, right?) that neutral (or a relatively neutral) position is inherently better than where one has an advantage for some reason or another, especially from the perspective of competition.

Later, I hope to discuss (not debate or argue) into the specifics. But that risks flaring up Melee vs Brawl/Smash 4, or whatever, which isn't really conducive to rational discussion. It's kinda why I left it general and didn't include any examples. I also kinda wanted to hide behind this wall of words, for fear that someone would come along and pick up one thing or another, 'cherry pick' as it's called. I don't like that term.

Edit: also, my grammar sucks. Lots of run on sentences.

 

[Soshii]

How about lets all just play the game.

 

[shapular]

Literally citing von Mises though.

 

[Jaedrik]

How about lets all just play the game.

I wish.
There will always be people who have erroneous ideas about things. I just want to talk it out. Ultimately, I want to remove a good deal of vitriol with clarity. Again, there will always be people who take the opposition and hurt others and posterity with their words and falsehoods. Very little can change that, unless they change themselves.

Literally citing von Mises though.

 

[joetherocker]

I, personally and acting as my own witness, find the enormity and magnitude of the positions that you are expounding upon in this given thread to be indubitably and incontrovertibly both extensive and exhaustive to a degree that does not appear, at a first glance, to be entirely necessitated by the gravity of the subject matter at hand to be discussed in such passages as those which have been inscribed upon the threads of the great canvas we refer to as the world wide web or, to simpler minds, the "internet". My suggestion at this point in time and, most likely, extending into the future as far as our feeble human minds can comprehend its great vastness, is to act upon the already expounded upon suggestion by the honorable Soshii, said suggestion being the heretofore ignored prospect of simply "playing the game", as they put it in their short yet entirely ingenious post in response to the brobdingnagian prospects iterated within the depths of the original post, or "OP" as the rest of the boards seem intent to refer to it, as it stands currently at this very moment in tie the discussion within the thread will likely become comparable to the circumbilivagination of a confused man as we all stumble through life, leading to the topic stagnating and becoming thanatognomic as interest among the common folk is lost due to the meandering and extensive nature of posts such as these.

 

[1MachGO]

@ Jaedrik

"Brevity is the soul of wit"
-William Shakespeare

 

[Tagxy]

I agree with a lot of the primary post except where it is contradicted by any of the following.

There's three things that need to be considered here. The mechanics, the goal, and the user interaction between these two traits. Using smash as an example, the primary goal is to remove all stocks before the timer runs out. Mechanics with an offensive tilt work towards this goal making an extremely natural progression. Mechanics with a defensive tilt are in a sense, opposed to this goal. In both cases the user make's use of the games mechanics to reach the goal, but games that lean defensive tend to require more meaningful choices to attain this goal. This isn't the result of inherent traits of offensive/defensive mechanics so much as how the tools you are handed relate to the goal you are trying to achieve. It might seem as if having tools that do not naturally work towards the goal would result in the goal not being achievable. However the user will use his mental capacities to achieve the goal with the given set of tools. Of course this falls apart entirely if the tools simply wont allow you to accomplish the goal at all, which could happen if a games defensive abilities entirely prevent the primary goal of taking all stocks from occurring (something we'd call degenerate gameplay). However all things considered the smash series is predisposed to offensive play (if at varying speeds).

Few other quick tidbits:
-Brawl is not played heavily in neutral
-Melee's mechanics have a defensive tilt

 

[Jaedrik]

@ Jaedrik

"Brevity is the soul of wit"
-William Shakespeare

I admit this is not my strong suit. It is a flaw.

Here's someone else on my style:

Jesus christ jaedrik.

You use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. Every few sentences explains a word and then the opposite of that word. You dont need to explain dictionary words like "competition." Nobody worth discussing this with needs that defined in context.

But, I've tried to do this many times. It almost always happens that someone misunderstands something, so clarity is of the utmost importance. My goal is not to be concise; It is to be clear as crystal to those who actually put the effort in to further this discussion. And I have not only defined, I have proven the definitions. But, again, it has the weakness of turning people off who expect an easily digestible read.

I agree with a lot of the primary post except where it is contradicted by any of the following.

There's three things that need to be considered here. The mechanics, the goal, and the user interaction between these two traits. Using smash as an example, the primary goal is to remove all stocks before the timer runs out. Mechanics with an offensive tilt work towards this goal making an extremely natural progression. Mechanics with a defensive tilt are in a sense, opposed to this goal. In both cases the user make's use of the games mechanics to reach the goal, but games that lean defensive tend to require more meaningful choices to attain this goal. This isn't the result of inherent traits of offensive/defensive mechanics so much as how the tools you are handed relate to the goal you are trying to achieve. It might seem as if having tools that do not naturally work towards the goal would result in the goal not being achievable. However the user will use his mental capacities to achieve the goal with the given set of tools. Of course this falls apart entirely if the tools simply wont allow you to accomplish the goal at all, which could happen if a games defensive abilities entirely prevent the primary goal of taking all stocks from occurring (something we'd call degenerate gameplay). However all things considered the smash series is predisposed to offensive play (if at varying speeds).

Few other quick tidbits:
-Brawl is not played heavily in neutral
-Melee's mechanics have a defensive tilt

My biases want to agree with your initial point on the nature offense vs defense. But, I don't see how it follows that defensive mechanics hinder the resolution of a match.
Oh, wait, I think I got it. Mechanics which are 'defensive' become offensive when they exert a pressure on the other opponent to act. We shouldn't forget the timer, since it's a legitimate way to resolve a match. My intuition tells me this is kinda a flimsy explanation so far. I don't know.
Also, would you care to prove how games that lean defensive require more meaningful choice to attain this goal? I seem to have disproved this notion, because I did take that into account as "I answered that" the nature of offense and defense are intertwined, and that depth from one must cause depth from the other. Again, their objects in the goal of a moment is to gain a favorable position, and unless we wish to consider all things offense then the only way to call defense distinct is to say it specifically is a mechanic which thwarts offense, and offense that breaks defense.

 

[Aunt Jemima]

damn how do you guys just sit there and type all that

 

[Jaedrik]

damn how do you guys just sit there and type all that

It's actually easier than you think once you get used to it.
Personally, it feels very deliberate. It doesn't just flow, the focus I feel when reasoning through these things is intense. Every part of my mind is engaged and devoted to this thing. It's beautiful, honestly. We all should do what we love.
Our backgrounds shape who we are. I have a love of the hard topics in philosophy, which is probably what gives me my endurance. Once you find something, or someone, or some community, that you love, you want to improve them, especially by improving yourself.

 

[Unbounded]

It's actually easier than you think once you get used to it.
Personally, it feels very deliberate. It doesn't just flow, the focus I feel when reasoning through these things is intense. Every part of my mind is engaged and devoted to this thing. It's beautiful, honestly. We all should do what we love.
Our backgrounds shape who we are. I have a love of the hard topics in philosophy, which is probably what gives me my endurance. Once you find something, or someone, or some community, that you love, you want to improve them, especially by improving yourself.

So let me speak from experience, something you learn from the upper level sciences:

If you can't communicate it properly to your intended audience, your knowledge has no use.

Not really to sound harsh or anything, but if you want people to actually understand and converse with you in the future,(on here or otherwise), it'd do you quite a bit of good to cut down on the excessively flowery language and stay focused on your point.

I understand you want to be as clear as possible, but that isn't helpful when your attempt at clarification completely convolutes everything you wish to say.

 

[Tagxy]

You just have to be aware of the audience. Most people on smashboards aren't going to want to read the original format, for me I dont really care but I did format my response to be easy to read.

My biases want to agree with your initial point on the nature offense vs defense. But, I don't see how it follows that defensive mechanics hinder the resolution of a match.
Oh, wait, I think I got it. Mechanics which are 'defensive' become offensive when they exert a pressure on the other opponent to act. We shouldn't forget the timer, since it's a legitimate way to resolve a match. My intuition tells me this is kinda a flimsy explanation so far. I don't know.
Also, would you care to prove how games that lean defensive require more meaningful choice to attain this goal? I seem to have disproved this notion, because I did take that into account as "I answered that" the nature of offense and defense are intertwined, and that depth from one must cause depth from the other. Again, their objects in the goal of a moment is to gain a favorable position, and unless we wish to consider all things offense then the only way to call defense distinct is to say it specifically is a mechanic which thwarts offense, and offense that breaks defense.

Yes, I left couple things implicit and figured I could just answer any questions. But yes if removing stocks is the primary win condition then the timer condition is the secondary.

I think there might be some confusion here though.

• The goal of removing stocks I feel on its own is an offensive task which is why defensive mechanics hinder its resolution.
• Our disagreement comes in a distinction I made. The games mechanics may tilt defensively, but its gameplay may lean offensive. This is the result of the "human" or user element I mentioned, which overcomes the games mechanical defense in pursuit of its goal. So if the gameplay itself has an offensive lean, then your argument follows. Indeed as you seem to imply, if it were not possible to complete the primary goal then gameplay would become degenerate.

 

[Ffamran]

Okay... This is like reading stuff from a warranty, law book, etc.

So, in layman's terms: killing things dead is not that fun when others can't kill you dead because they just can't when you keep killing them dead. Stopping them from killing you dead makes it fun because they can't kill you dead and you can kill them dead later. Now, we have a game where people try to kill others dead and stopping others from killing them dead.

A good offense is a good defense; a good defense is a good offense. I'm horribly when it comes to blocking, parrying, and such, but dodging is fine and my offense game is fine as well. So, I tend to gravitate towards offensive play styles which usually leads to staying away from slow characters who tend to be reliant on countering, positioning, and such - Exdeath is nothing, but a counter-wall in Dissidia. Different fighting games have different styles. Games like Soul Calibur and Street Fighter are more defensive. Marvel vs Capcom and Tekken are more offensive. Mixed games are like The King of Fighters and I think Injustice and Mortal Kombat. I don't remember 64, but I think Melee and Brawl were more defensive in nature and SSB4 is more offensive. Does that stop them from being competitive games? No, since fighting games like the above, all come in different flavors.

 

[deepseadiva]

I, personally and acting as my own witness, find the enormity and magnitude of the positions that you are expounding upon in this given thread to be indubitably and incontrovertibly both extensive and exhaustive to a degree that does not appear, at a first glance, to be entirely necessitated by the gravity of the subject matter at hand to be discussed in such passages as those which have been inscribed upon the threads of the great canvas we refer to as the world wide web or, to simpler minds, the "internet". My suggestion at this point in time and, most likely, extending into the future as far as our feeble human minds can comprehend its great vastness, is to act upon the already expounded upon suggestion by the honorable Soshii, said suggestion being the heretofore ignored prospect of simply "playing the game", as they put it in their short yet entirely ingenious post in response to the brobdingnagian prospects iterated within the depths of the original post, or "OP" as the rest of the boards seem intent to refer to it, as it stands currently at this very moment in tie the discussion within the thread will likely become comparable to the circumbilivagination of a confused man as we all stumble through life, leading to the topic stagnating and becoming thanatognomic as interest among the common folk is lost due to the meandering and extensive nature of posts such as these.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha

Ok, though for real, these are the rarity kind of posters the gaming community has always needed. This kind of thread is not for everyone.

 

[<π]

Regardless, the topic is moot. Competitiveness is not a property of a game, it is a property of a community. A game itself cannot be competitive or non-competitive. Furthermore, what properties are most conducive to establishing a competitive community are entirely subjective.

This sums up everything I need to say in a thread like this. Can't like this enough.

 

[Accelerator]

Competitiveness is a property of a game, because it will determine how long that game last. You can all say that a community is what makes something competitive, or that you can make anything competitive, but this is only true to a degree. The competitive potential of something is directly correlated to how complex that something is.

There is a reason chess is still played so much to this day. It is because it has the deep complexity necessary to be able to be played competitively for centuries. You can go ahead and call whatever you want competitive, but if it's not complex and deep enough to retain a large following for years to come, it's just another game that will die after it's successor comes out, or the community following it finds something more interesting to do.

 

[Thinkaman]

There is a reason chess is still played so much to this day. It is because it has the deep complexity necessary to be able to be played competitively for centuries. You can go ahead and call whatever you want competitive, but if it's not complex and deep enough to retain a large following for years to come, it's just another game that will die after it's successor comes out, or the community following it finds something more interesting to do.

But... chess is one of the simplest games ever made...

It has extremely low rules complexity, and extremely high strategic complexity. The latter comes from the community that plays it.

The fact that chess is played for centuries is a consequence of two things:

1. People love it (more than other games)
2. It hasn't been solved

There are many, many games more complex than chess. For example, Go has a bigger solution space, and is mathematically more difficult to solve. This is also true of most video games, including Smash Bros. The amount of effort that has been invested into Chess could have been invested into these games as well, but more people simply prefer Chess.

 

[Accelerator]

But... chess is one of the simplest games ever made...

It has extremely low rules complexity, and extremely high strategic complexity. The latter comes from the community that plays it.

The fact that chess is played for centuries is a consequence of two things:

1. People love it (more than other games)
2. It hasn't been solved

There are many, many games more complex than chess. For example, Go has a bigger solution space, and is mathematically more difficult to solve. This is also true of most video games, including Smash Bros. The amount of effort that has been invested into Chess could have been invested into these games as well, but more people simply prefer Chess.

When I said complexity, I didn't specifically point out rule complexity, despite that it's pretty easy to infer I was talking about strategic complexity from the rest of the post.

Anyway, I wasn't saying that there aren't any games more complex than chess. I just used it as an example that competitive games with complex, deep play survive for long periods of time, and those that don't fade into obscurity.

 

[Thinkaman]

Anyway, I wasn't saying that there aren't any games more complex than chess. I just used it as an example that competitive games with complex, deep play survive for long periods of time, and those that don't fade into obscurity.

Games that people play survive for long periods of time.

Games that people don't play fade into obscurity.

Rock-paper-scissors has zero depth or complexity of any sort, and remains one of the most played games on earth--including major tourneys, as mind-boggling as that may seem to me and you.

 

[Accelerator]

Games that people play survive for long periods of time.

Games that people don't play fade into obscurity.

Rock-paper-scissors has zero depth or complexity of any sort, and remains one of the most played games on earth--including major tourneys, as mind-boggling as that may seem to me and you.

It's not mind boggling at all, it's called an outlier.

 

[Jaedrik]

But... chess is one of the simplest games ever made...

It has extremely low rules complexity, and extremely high strategic complexity. The latter comes from the community that plays it.

The fact that chess is played for centuries is a consequence of two things:

1. People love it (more than other games)
2. It hasn't been solved

There are many, many games more complex than chess. For example, Go has a bigger solution space, and is mathematically more difficult to solve. This is also true of most video games, including Smash Bros. The amount of effort that has been invested into Chess could have been invested into these games as well, but more people simply prefer Chess.

The conclusion does not follow from the distinction.
The effects of rules are indistinguishable from their effects. It is like saying that the 'fall' of an object caused by the law of gravity is different from the 'gravity' we observe in nature, which is patently false.
The strategic complexity, likewise, we observe in chess is a natural and inseparable result of the vast interplay of rules.
Therefore, 'metagame', or the dominant strategies in a community over time, is an emergent property of the rules. It cannot be said that the community is the sole cause, as you imply, though not explicitly, as the driving sentiment of your claims. Unless I misunderstand your intentions, and you do not believe that community is the sole cause of strategic complexity.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

I disagree with the notion that a game that defaults to neutrality is more competitive than one in which advantage is transferred between players, it's either a matter of preference or variety. As mentioned, it can be equally as enticing to see how a player at a disadvantage is able to turn the tables, as it is to see a player capitalise on an advantage.

To some extent I agree with @ Thinkaman 's idea that competitiveness is a property of community. Though it is revealed by the community, and certainly expanded on by the community, the competitive limits of a game are already defined by the rules before the community even touches it. I will concede that there cannot be competition without community, however, I don't think to refer to it as an aspect of the community is completely correct.

Competitiveness must be defined by a game's ability to facilitate a range of viable options, whose application tests a player's ability to comprehend their benefit (in games of intellect), or realise their execution (in games of skill or physical fortitude). Chess is a competitively successful game because the scope of a player's understanding of the options presented to them differs from player to player; the player who best understands the purpose of his own options is most likely to win.

Under this definition, a game predisposed to offensive play would only be non-competitive if the player with the disadvantage had his options so diminished that there was no chance for recourse. In this instance, though, we could perceive it as a drawn-out loss from a neutral position; the options when disadvantaged so poor that they amount to nothing, the winner merely required to further torment his opponent before the match is allowed to end.