Comments on both Lorenz and Davids posts about Super Smash Bros
Lorenz (2016) and David (2016) both writes that one of their favorite games is the Super Smash Bros. I myself have it at home for my Wii, and have played it a few times, but frankly I am a really bad player. My tactic is usually to get super stressed out by the game and push every button as many times as you can, and hope for the best. But you can’t really say that you are a good or a bad player in this game. It all depends on the people you are playing with in this case. If you are playing with equal crappy players, you might be the best one! Just because that this, for me at least, is mainly a social game. You play it with your friends, and the goal isn’t really to be the best, you just want to have fun and (hopefully) kill your friends characters.
Spoil-sport?
David (2016) writes that because the fact that our classmate Lorenz has mastered possibly all the different moves of the different characters in the game, he is some sort of a spoil-sport. From a newbie players point of view here, is he really a spoil-sport in this case? Isn’t that one of the purposes of this game? Or any game in that matter. That the better knowledge and experience you have of a game, the better player you will become.
Johan Huizinga (2000) writes that a spoil-sport is a person who deviate from the rules of the game, and ruins the game experience as a whole. I don’t think a player who has learned all the tricks and has a higher skill level ruins the game completely.
David (2016) writes that there are short cuts in the game that will make your character do more advanced stuff than just the basics. I can completely understand where David (2016) is coming from when he says that these maneuvers will destroy the illusion of the perfect game-world you are in. But in my point of view, these are there for a reason, they’re there to be used. And if the only reason to be called a spoil-sport is that the amount of knowledge you have of this game is superior than your competitors, the expression spoil-sport doesn’t really apply. Just because you know all the little secrets doesn’t mean that you aren’t still playing by the rules. You just may be a little better at the game than the rest.
Sure, it’s not super fun to play a game where one single player wins constantly, but it does not destroy the game experience. It is still a game, with all the correct rules being followed. Lets say that if all the players are on Lorenz level, and uses the same fighting techniques with their characters, are they all spoil-sports? It all comes down to who you play with. If you play with a player that is very experienced compared to you it’s no fun, and if you play with someone who is a “bad” player, there’s no competition and therefore it’s not very fun for them either.
The point of having different characters in this game is that they are supposed to have different powers or techniques to use when they fight. This way there are characters that may be easier to use, or more powerful compared to it’s opponents. You as a player can pick your favorite character, learn all its techniques and become a better player. Maybe this way you can also adjust your skill level to make it more even with the other players. Perhaps you’ll choose a “hard played” character next time, to make the difficulty level more equal to all the players. This way it would probably be more fun.
References
Huizinga, Johan (2000). Homo ludens [Elektronisk resurs] a study of play-element in culture. London: Routledge