Theorycraft and Optimization - Wordplay and the Discourse of Video Games - page 138

fi rst healer was present with 10 with [sic] the second was not, though
such experiments would be quite hard to make.
The McDonalds employee who packs 2x more hamburgers is 2x
better than the other employee. The university professor who does 2x
more lectures is defi nitely not 2x better (often not even better at all)
than his [sic] colleague. 43
The presumption lurking behind theorycraft, that more is better, stands
the risk of homogenizing jobs and not of ering the fl exibility of looking
to the other things members can add or detract from a group. Elements of
situational awareness and larger social issues, like attendance and collegial-
ity, cannot be tracked by traditional theorycrafting metrics. Theorycraft-
ing gives a picture of the game, but the way that it is often situated within
the discourse of WoW makes it central to all decisions, even if its holdings
only focus on part of the picture of play. Procedure is overcome by para-
text and the game changes. The desire to understand and optimize creates
a lens through which what counts is only what can be counted. Lacking
other modes of analysis the game loses depth, variety, and choice, as one
approach marginalizes all others.
Theorycrafting is always partial, as players only know so much about
the rules that govern WoW , so attempts to deduce the answers to how
the game works are frequently checked by the limited number of actual,
published formulae that dictate action within the game world. This
leads to players crying foul about mechanics of the game because they
think they have a working understanding of WoW , even if they do not.
One such example can be found in Landsoul's “Newly Discovered Rage
Ghost Nerf Unveiled!” thread. 44 The thread led to a Blizzard investiga-
tion of the issue, which found that “it was not true—the rage generation
formula has not changed anytime recently.” 45 Central to the misunder-
standing is that players were using old numbers that had been changed.
The problem was that players read the situation as a horrible af ront
to warriors, one that was both a “nerf,” something that made warriors
weaker, and needed to be “unveiled,” as Blizzard was not forthcoming
about the supposed change. Likely by virtue of both the assumptions of
theorycraft, that math is right, and the dynamics of online discussion,
deliberative debate was not encouraged and sweeping statements were
made. In these cases, developers are put into a limited, structured box by
players, as they must defend themselves and WoW from accusations that
are based on incorrect information.
Theorycraft is often portrayed as a clear good, something that helps
WoW players understand the game they are playing and experience suc-
cess. Unfortunately the constraints to theorycraft, from the way discussion
about WoW has changed to the attitude it fosters are not often discussed. A
key thing theorycraft does illustrate is that the means by which games are
played have a material impact on their rhetorical construction.