Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8870381" data-attributes="member: 6790260">The problem I find with the comparison here is that the showboating baseball player is simply doing trick shots (or the equivalent, I guess) in a contest that may not even be truly scored. Even if it is, the points don't really matter. No one on these casual teams is trying to win. It may not even rise to the level of "horse" or other nominally competitive games.By comparison, the entire point of powergaming IS to win. To achieve, by some external standard, the best possible result--not just an enjoyable result. What I have previously called the "Score and Achievement" purpose of gaming. Score is the (semi-objective) metric by which one judges success, and Achievement is the act of succeeding at relevant goals while avoiding pitfalls along the way. The pleasure of powergaming is very specifically rooted in, as the kids say, wanting "to be the very best, like no one ever was."Because of this emphasis, not merely on being skillful, but on pursuing and displaying optimal success, Score and Achievement has the risk of very, very easily promoting the dark side of competition, even in a game that is supposed to be cooperative. It can foster vainglory and resentment, hubris and envy, acquisitiveness, aggression, and belligerence. Note: can cause, as in does not absolutely have to. The problem is that it's a major temptation to fall into that sort of pattern, and once it starts, it's self-reinforcing.To expand your game analogy: imagine this baseball team of yours is actually competing in an amateur tournament against a slate of other teams. The prize is small but valuable to every member of the team, perhaps tickets to their favorite pro team or whatever. The only way to get the prize is to actually perform the best they can--they are not simply playing for the joy of the sport, they're motivated to win. Now the pro and college players are heavily incentivized to give it their all, because if they do well, everyone is more likely to win. But if the team was formed on the premise that everyone would be contributing more or less similarly, it can foster feelings of inferiority and resentment if you're the backbencher and evergone knows it. Being carried across the finish line by someone massively more powerful than you can be very disappointing and even demoralizing.So...yeah. I respect the analogical argument you have made here, but there's a critical difference that makes both your analogy and the one I just gave flawed: sports don't have this mix of "it's just for fun, not for an actual prize per se" and yet also "it actually involves trying to win, and to avoid losing, as much as you possibly can." Purely cooperative sport analogies will fail to recognize the critical importance of "I need to win the most" that is so incredibly common in powergamers, while competitive sports miss the fact that there is no "prize" other than continuing to play and gettibg outcomes one would prefer to see.</blockquote>

Verification