Our recent success with Chopscotch brings up an interesting question: what place does spite have in games?
Our lengthly and in-depth observation of human psychology has confirmed the presence of spiteful behavior in humans, i.e. the occasional desire to deliberately cause annoyance or grief in another human. We have further observed that by and large this behavior is viewed as rather juvenile; those who act out of spite are looked down on in anger and annoyance by others.
And yet, a large portion of Earth's games include some form of competition. For any game that pits players against each other, we take it as a given that where there is a winner there must also be a loser. When a soccer goalie blocks a score they as much taking a point away from the opposing team as they are protecting their team's chances of winning. As the goal is blocked, a collective groan rises from the opposing team, the kicker scowls and swears under their breath. The goalie has deliberately caused annoyance from their successful block.
Humans have developed a special word for spite in the context of games: sportsmanship. It seems to be an agreement that a certain amount of spite is allowed to the players but only in the context of the game and its rules. A goalie may indeed block a goal but in doing so they are well aware that in return the opposing team will rush at them with renewed fervor at the next opportunity. Players may also expect that outside of the game, those that were previously their enemies are now entitled to peace from spiteful behavior until the next round.
Our question is this: given that the rules of sportsmanship allow for an acceptable amount of in-game anger, where is the limit? At what point does frustration caused by spite outweigh the fun?
Let us take, for another example, the board game Munchkin. Players take turns to try and level their in-game characters to 10. The closer a particular character gets to 10, the more likely that the remaining players will gang up on them to prevent them from reaching that level and winning. Spite runs rampant in Munchkin. For some, it is too much; they dislike the game. For others, the most satisfying part of the game is the opportunity to bring a successful player to their knees simply because they are doing a better job.
This is an intriguing area to explore. Get on it, R&D.
Spite! I love the idea of spite in gaming. It is one of the most refreshing and playful aspects in gaming and it is fascinating to think about it's contrast with spite in "real life". As you mentioned, spite is treated very differently by different types of players.
ReplyDeleteI definitely fall under the category of a spite-loving gamer. I think the gamers that get too upset about either acting spiteful or being the receiver of spiteful action are probably taking the game way too seriously. Games are a playground that allow us the freedom to act in ways that we can't in the real world (because of more serious consequences.)
I revel in the ability to repeatedly throw my uncle off the side of the platform in the New Super Mario Bros. for no other reason than spite. I love targeting players that have wronged me in boardgames far beyond any strategic sense of logic. In Eric Chang's complex role playing dice game, I purposefully targeted my good friend Alex Hu for no good reason other than it made it more fun. In Albert Shih's time-traveling game, I also chose to kill the ancestors of my opponent even when it made more strategic sense to warn my own ancestors. Spite is fun.
I think you pose a very interesting point. It took me awhile to catch on to what your saying, but I think sports are a great example. I thought of how if a team is losing miserably (say, the Denver Broncos for example), to the point where them winning is more than improbable (closer to impossible), their objective moves from "winning the game" to "making sure they don't lose as miserably". And I think this can very easily translate to "annoyance" as you put it. Or better yet, "blocking"/ minimizing their success out of spite.
ReplyDeleteI also think the NFL is a great example when it comes to your question of "what's too much spite"? It seems like every year now, the NFL is cracking down on "unsportsmanlike-like conduct". That is, sportsmanship not accepted by the federation as "appropriate, and in your context, TOO much spite. I think an even more favorable example, however, is playing games like Call of Duty online. I was actually talking to someone about this, because I just thought it was amusing, and interesting that gamers CREATE ways to taunt, given that Call of Duty doesn't have a taunt "move" intended by programmers, so people come up with their own. Some are of course more crude than others, but to give a rated G example, a friend of mine got knifed by a soldier on COD, and then he began rapidly swapping his weapons close to the corpse (so that it was visible on the kill cam). Eventually, my friend killed that player and did the same. But this is all fun and games.
I'm not sure how I feel about the logic of someone getting upset if spite gets out of hand. If someone is no longer playing the game, but is just being spiteful (trolling), that can get very annoying, but I guess that is another way of playing the game? Some people don't care to win. They just want to watch the world burn!
As a part of our program, the MHCI students go through conflict management training which involved knowing yourself through a Myer-Briggs style personality evaluation. I was mildly surprised that I was labeled a “Puppy Dog” which is basically someone who avoids conflict. So when I’m on a team, I play without the desire to hurt the other team. In fact, if there is a way for both teams to win, I’d try for that. I see your perspective on why competition can seem like a deliberate action against the other team. But, “spite” to me connotes the desire to inflict pain or offend the other party. I will conceded that there can easily be “spite” between players or even whole teams. But competition to me is more struggle than spite. In fact I wish there were more games which allowed all players to win. I’m not talking about a team game where you are fighting against the computer. I’m talking about games that you play individually but can choose the help each other and achieve something such that all players reach the final goal together. I know it sounds like the game should be called “Sweet Unicorns Jumping Over Rainbows” but if you consider the “Prisoner’s Dilemma”, you can start to imagine a different type of cooperative game.
ReplyDelete