لطفا منتظر باشید ...
Competition and Cooperation
So far, we have spoken somewhat loosely about competition and cooperation as they relate to the conflict in a game. But what do these terms really mean? Competition occurs when players struggle against each other within the artificial conflict of a game. Perhaps our clearest model of competition comes from game theory: the zero-sum game. In a zero-sum game, one player's winnings equal another player's losses. If one player is the victor in a two-player zero-sum game, the other player will necessarily lose. Winning is always equally balanced by losing, making the end sum zero. A common criticism leveled against games is that they are all competitive, and that competition is somehow undesirable. Framed in this way, competition is something to avoid in order to ensure a positive play experience. Bernard DeKoven, game designer and author of The Well-Played Game, states this position eloquently: It is clear to me now, that the result of such a union [playing to win] is separation, always separation. It divides us into winners and losers, those who have achieved and those who have failed. The division then leads us into further division. It becomes difficult, now that some of us have won and some of us have lost, to find a game that we are all willing to play well together. It was never our focus at all. Though what we have always cherished most is the game in which we are playing well together, winning takes precedence.[1]
DeKoven's point is that when the winning and losing of competition enters into the conflict of a game, it becomes the paramount concern of the game's participants, eclipsing everything else the game has to offer. With all due respect, we disagree. It seems quite clear to us that competitive games can offer genuinely meaningful experiences. Sometimes that meaning can stem from the joy of play itself (DeKoven's "playing well together"), but certainly much meaning derives from the competitive struggle of a game, from trying to become a winner while avoiding a loss. The competitive striving toward a goal is fundamental in giving shape to the structure of a game and the way that the game creates meaning. The idea, for example, that in meaningful play a player's actions are integrated into the larger context of a game is dependent on the competitive nature of games. Without a goal toward which players strive, it is very difficult for a player to measure his or her progress through the system of a game. Without a measure of progress to give a player feedback on the meaning of his or her decisions, meaningful play is not possible. Remember the "horrible" game The Grid in Games as Emergent Systems? That game had no goal, and no way for players to compete with each other. There was nothing to motivate players to move their pieces this way instead of that way. Meaningful play was impossible.
Our opinion is that all games are competitive. All games involve a conflict, whether that conflict occurs directly between players or whether players work together against the challenging activity presented by the game system. Without a clearly defined goal, games generally become less formalized play activities. However, just because all games are competitive does not mean that they are not cooperative as well. Although we can assert with confidence that all games are competitive, it is equally true that all games are cooperative. Are these two statements contradictory? Can all games be both competitive and cooperative? The idea that games are both competitive and cooperative is only contradictory if the two terms are mutually exclusive, which they are not. The root of the word "compete"is the Latin con petire, which means "to seek together."[2]
In what ways are all games cooperative? Recall the magic circle and the lusory attitude, and the way that these aspects of a game create meaning.To play a game is to submit your behavior to the rules of the game, to enter into the time and space that the game demarcates, to traffic in the special meanings that the game offers up. To play a game is to participate in the discourse of the game with the other players. Players can play Basketball together because they both speak the "language" of Basketball. When two players hit the courts for a game of one-on-one, that is exactly what they are doing. Therefore, to play a game is to cooperatively take on the artificial meanings of the game, to communicate to the other players through the artificial discourse that the game makes possible.
We use the term "cooperation" here in a slightly different way than at the beginning of this chapter. Saying that all games are cooperative refers to the mechanisms that underlie all games, and the way these structures ensure a shared discourse and cooperative spirit among players. We call this form of cooperation systemic cooperation because it occurs in all games at a fundamental level. However, when we said that the Lord of the Rings Board Game, in which players work together to defeat the game system, was cooperative, we used the word in its more common sense. Unlike a directly competitive, zero-sum game such as Chess, players in Lord of the Rings win or lose as a group. We call this form of cooperation player cooperation because it describes specific player relationships that do not occur in all games. The two uses of the word are not ultimately dissimilar. Player cooperation is really just a literalized manifestation of systemic cooperation. Systemic cooperation, as a phenomenon intrinsic to all games, occurs "under the hood" of the experienced game structure, whereas player cooperation happens at a higher level, incorporated more consciously into a player's understanding of a game.
In this sense, the very act of playing a game is an act of cooperation. It is only through the shared efforts of the players that a game's fragile magic circle takes shape and is sustained over the course of play.There is a wonderful paradox here. Within the magic circle set aside for the game, within the arena spelled out by the rules, a conflict takes place. The players cooperatively form the space of the game, in order to create a competition for their own amusement. Game conflict is like a duel between actors in a play: it is an elaborately staged competitive artifice, enjoyed in part because of its artificiality. There is genuine conflict in a game, but only within a larger cooperative frame sustained by the participation of the players. [1]Bernard DeKoven, The Well-Played Game (New York: Doubleday, 1978),
p. 11. [2]Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991), p. 72–3.
