The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
IS IT OKAY TO PLAY TO WIN?
I've been wanting to write about this topic for some time, but always put it off for one reason or another. However, a recent games-playing session with some friends prompted me to consider writing this once again, so finally, here it is.
Primarily, games are a form of entertainment. I play games for enjoyment, for the challenge, and for the fun that they can bring me. But, probably the MAIN point of playing games, is to win? I always said that it was the playing that was important, and not necessarily the winning. But, if we dedicate so many hours to a game in an effort to reach the end, surely we're playing to win? To complete a game, is to win. By completing every challenge that is set in-front of you, you "beat the game", you "win".
Whether or not we're actually playing to win is a complete different argument though. THAT argument, is a toughie to break down. My above point illustrates how one could argue that playing games IS to win, and playing for fun doesn't exist.
My point, however, comes from the realms of multi-player gaming. Surely no-one would argue that in a multi-player environment, we're ALL playing to win? Unless it's a co-operative based game (which reverts back to the original argument, that we ARE only playing to win), we play against friends to win. We are competing, because most people would agree, beating a friend at a computer game is one of the most fulfilling things you'll ever do as a gamesplayer. Beating a computer AI is one thing, but beating friends in a battle of skill and ability, is on a completely different level. It's an exhilarating experience, laughing in the face of a friend having completely humiliated them in multi-player contest, especially when you've bragged about your abilities prior to the game.
Of course, likewise it's one of the most humiliating experiences, when a friend sits mocking you having proved you terribly wrong. It's something that i've been on the receiving of MANY times, and it's something that i'm absolutely helpless to do anything about.
The situation is thus...
Most of the games that I play with friends (at least until recently when I purchased my PS2) were based on the N64, and obviously consistently playing games based on one system favours anyone with that system/games. Now, only one out of my immediate group of friends owned an N64, and as a result was really capable of humiliating all of us on a regular basis. Whereas some were ready to fight bravely, but in the end go down HARD, my take on the challenge was a little different. They tried siding with him, assisting him in the middle of a Perfect Dark battle in the hope that he would then team with them in later battles. Alternatively, they would run head first into him, hoping that by some stroke of luck they could deplete his health sufficiently to allow someone else to gain a kill at a later stage in the game.
This sort of thing happened each time we sat down for a group gaming session, which made the proceedings EXTREMELY boring for anyone other than that one friend. Surely, simply accepting defeat is NOT the way to play games? The competitive instinct within me yearned for victory, and as such I persistently looked for new ways of defeating my friend.
No Mercy offers a fine example of this. Where some charged the ring ready to run into the waiting clothesline or big-boot, I waited on the outside. I would attack quickly, and then depart the ring, waiting for my next chance to strike. I'm not talking COMPLETE hit and run, just intelligent playing. There's no point staying inside the ring if as soon as your opponent stands you find yourself completely obliterated is there? Having put together a string of moves, I would retreat to the outside before he had a chance to retaliate, and then storm again ready to do more damage. Surely there is nothing wrong in this strategy? Surely this is just another method of attempting to win a game? Maybe it IS a bit of a "chicken's" way out, but if the point of the game is to win, why shouldn't I try my very best to do so?
Similarly, in Perfect Dark my strategy would be to try and keep as far away from my opponent as possible, and pick off other players as and when the opportunity arose. I saw no point in running head on into battle, as the outcome was inevitably death. My gameplan was to try and find weaknesses, and capitalise on them.
However, such strategies were of course greeted with chants of "CHICKEN" and "OH LOOK AT HIM RUN AGAIN!" and "YOUR PATHETIC" among others.
If we're playing games together to try and gain victory over one another, what's wrong with me attempting to WIN? It would appear that my friends (and yes, the others ALSO began taunting because they found my tactics to be "pathetic" [as if their running head on into death ISN'T a pathetic tactic]) didn't like the thought of me actually trying to win. I'm supposed to accept that I can't win, and take my loss gracefully.
So, when we play games, is it okay to play to win? Is it okay to do whatever it takes (and I don't mean cheating, I mean play "intelligently"), or should we play by "conventional" tactics, even if it means losing?
We play games to win, so why shouldn't we be ALLOWED to play to win? If anyone can see the point in myself and my friends playing games if we're not ALLOWED to try and win, then i'd be very grateful to be filled in. As it stands, we all play to feed the ego of just one person, and I for one would like a share of the glory.
Really, is it okay to play to win?
[I'd be grateful to hear from anyone who finds themselves in a similar situation]
I've been wanting to write about this topic for some time, but always put it off for one reason or another. However, a recent games-playing session with some friends prompted me to consider writing this once again, so finally, here it is.
Primarily, games are a form of entertainment. I play games for enjoyment, for the challenge, and for the fun that they can bring me. But, probably the MAIN point of playing games, is to win? I always said that it was the playing that was important, and not necessarily the winning. But, if we dedicate so many hours to a game in an effort to reach the end, surely we're playing to win? To complete a game, is to win. By completing every challenge that is set in-front of you, you "beat the game", you "win".
Whether or not we're actually playing to win is a complete different argument though. THAT argument, is a toughie to break down. My above point illustrates how one could argue that playing games IS to win, and playing for fun doesn't exist.
My point, however, comes from the realms of multi-player gaming. Surely no-one would argue that in a multi-player environment, we're ALL playing to win? Unless it's a co-operative based game (which reverts back to the original argument, that we ARE only playing to win), we play against friends to win. We are competing, because most people would agree, beating a friend at a computer game is one of the most fulfilling things you'll ever do as a gamesplayer. Beating a computer AI is one thing, but beating friends in a battle of skill and ability, is on a completely different level. It's an exhilarating experience, laughing in the face of a friend having completely humiliated them in multi-player contest, especially when you've bragged about your abilities prior to the game.
Of course, likewise it's one of the most humiliating experiences, when a friend sits mocking you having proved you terribly wrong. It's something that i've been on the receiving of MANY times, and it's something that i'm absolutely helpless to do anything about.
The situation is thus...
Most of the games that I play with friends (at least until recently when I purchased my PS2) were based on the N64, and obviously consistently playing games based on one system favours anyone with that system/games. Now, only one out of my immediate group of friends owned an N64, and as a result was really capable of humiliating all of us on a regular basis. Whereas some were ready to fight bravely, but in the end go down HARD, my take on the challenge was a little different. They tried siding with him, assisting him in the middle of a Perfect Dark battle in the hope that he would then team with them in later battles. Alternatively, they would run head first into him, hoping that by some stroke of luck they could deplete his health sufficiently to allow someone else to gain a kill at a later stage in the game.
This sort of thing happened each time we sat down for a group gaming session, which made the proceedings EXTREMELY boring for anyone other than that one friend. Surely, simply accepting defeat is NOT the way to play games? The competitive instinct within me yearned for victory, and as such I persistently looked for new ways of defeating my friend.
No Mercy offers a fine example of this. Where some charged the ring ready to run into the waiting clothesline or big-boot, I waited on the outside. I would attack quickly, and then depart the ring, waiting for my next chance to strike. I'm not talking COMPLETE hit and run, just intelligent playing. There's no point staying inside the ring if as soon as your opponent stands you find yourself completely obliterated is there? Having put together a string of moves, I would retreat to the outside before he had a chance to retaliate, and then storm again ready to do more damage. Surely there is nothing wrong in this strategy? Surely this is just another method of attempting to win a game? Maybe it IS a bit of a "chicken's" way out, but if the point of the game is to win, why shouldn't I try my very best to do so?
Similarly, in Perfect Dark my strategy would be to try and keep as far away from my opponent as possible, and pick off other players as and when the opportunity arose. I saw no point in running head on into battle, as the outcome was inevitably death. My gameplan was to try and find weaknesses, and capitalise on them.
However, such strategies were of course greeted with chants of "CHICKEN" and "OH LOOK AT HIM RUN AGAIN!" and "YOUR PATHETIC" among others.
If we're playing games together to try and gain victory over one another, what's wrong with me attempting to WIN? It would appear that my friends (and yes, the others ALSO began taunting because they found my tactics to be "pathetic" [as if their running head on into death ISN'T a pathetic tactic]) didn't like the thought of me actually trying to win. I'm supposed to accept that I can't win, and take my loss gracefully.
So, when we play games, is it okay to play to win? Is it okay to do whatever it takes (and I don't mean cheating, I mean play "intelligently"), or should we play by "conventional" tactics, even if it means losing?
We play games to win, so why shouldn't we be ALLOWED to play to win? If anyone can see the point in myself and my friends playing games if we're not ALLOWED to try and win, then i'd be very grateful to be filled in. As it stands, we all play to feed the ego of just one person, and I for one would like a share of the glory.
Really, is it okay to play to win?
[I'd be grateful to hear from anyone who finds themselves in a similar situation]
IS IT OKAY TO PLAY TO WIN?
I've been wanting to write about this topic for some time, but always put it off for one reason or another. However, a recent games-playing session with some friends prompted me to consider writing this once again, so finally, here it is.
Primarily, games are a form of entertainment. I play games for enjoyment, for the challenge, and for the fun that they can bring me. But, probably the MAIN point of playing games, is to win? I always said that it was the playing that was important, and not necessarily the winning. But, if we dedicate so many hours to a game in an effort to reach the end, surely we're playing to win? To complete a game, is to win. By completing every challenge that is set in-front of you, you "beat the game", you "win".
Whether or not we're actually playing to win is a complete different argument though. THAT argument, is a toughie to break down. My above point illustrates how one could argue that playing games IS to win, and playing for fun doesn't exist.
My point, however, comes from the realms of multi-player gaming. Surely no-one would argue that in a multi-player environment, we're ALL playing to win? Unless it's a co-operative based game (which reverts back to the original argument, that we ARE only playing to win), we play against friends to win. We are competing, because most people would agree, beating a friend at a computer game is one of the most fulfilling things you'll ever do as a gamesplayer. Beating a computer AI is one thing, but beating friends in a battle of skill and ability, is on a completely different level. It's an exhilarating experience, laughing in the face of a friend having completely humiliated them in multi-player contest, especially when you've bragged about your abilities prior to the game.
Of course, likewise it's one of the most humiliating experiences, when a friend sits mocking you having proved you terribly wrong. It's something that i've been on the receiving of MANY times, and it's something that i'm absolutely helpless to do anything about.
The situation is thus...
Most of the games that I play with friends (at least until recently when I purchased my PS2) were based on the N64, and obviously consistently playing games based on one system favours anyone with that system/games. Now, only one out of my immediate group of friends owned an N64, and as a result was really capable of humiliating all of us on a regular basis. Whereas some were ready to fight bravely, but in the end go down HARD, my take on the challenge was a little different. They tried siding with him, assisting him in the middle of a Perfect Dark battle in the hope that he would then team with them in later battles. Alternatively, they would run head first into him, hoping that by some stroke of luck they could deplete his health sufficiently to allow someone else to gain a kill at a later stage in the game.
This sort of thing happened each time we sat down for a group gaming session, which made the proceedings EXTREMELY boring for anyone other than that one friend. Surely, simply accepting defeat is NOT the way to play games? The competitive instinct within me yearned for victory, and as such I persistently looked for new ways of defeating my friend.
No Mercy offers a fine example of this. Where some charged the ring ready to run into the waiting clothesline or big-boot, I waited on the outside. I would attack quickly, and then depart the ring, waiting for my next chance to strike. I'm not talking COMPLETE hit and run, just intelligent playing. There's no point staying inside the ring if as soon as your opponent stands you find yourself completely obliterated is there? Having put together a string of moves, I would retreat to the outside before he had a chance to retaliate, and then storm again ready to do more damage. Surely there is nothing wrong in this strategy? Surely this is just another method of attempting to win a game? Maybe it IS a bit of a "chicken's" way out, but if the point of the game is to win, why shouldn't I try my very best to do so?
Similarly, in Perfect Dark my strategy would be to try and keep as far away from my opponent as possible, and pick off other players as and when the opportunity arose. I saw no point in running head on into battle, as the outcome was inevitably death. My gameplan was to try and find weaknesses, and capitalise on them.
However, such strategies were of course greeted with chants of "CHICKEN" and "OH LOOK AT HIM RUN AGAIN!" and "YOUR PATHETIC" among others.
If we're playing games together to try and gain victory over one another, what's wrong with me attempting to WIN? It would appear that my friends (and yes, the others ALSO began taunting because they found my tactics to be "pathetic" [as if their running head on into death ISN'T a pathetic tactic]) didn't like the thought of me actually trying to win. I'm supposed to accept that I can't win, and take my loss gracefully.
So, when we play games, is it okay to play to win? Is it okay to do whatever it takes (and I don't mean cheating, I mean play "intelligently"), or should we play by "conventional" tactics, even if it means losing?
We play games to win, so why shouldn't we be ALLOWED to play to win? If anyone can see the point in myself and my friends playing games if we're not ALLOWED to try and win, then i'd be very grateful to be filled in. As it stands, we all play to feed the ego of just one person, and I for one would like a share of the glory.
Really, is it okay to play to win?
[I'd be grateful to hear from anyone who finds themselves in a similar situation]
I've been wanting to write about this topic for some time, but always put it off for one reason or another. However, a recent games-playing session with some friends prompted me to consider writing this once again, so finally, here it is.
Primarily, games are a form of entertainment. I play games for enjoyment, for the challenge, and for the fun that they can bring me. But, probably the MAIN point of playing games, is to win? I always said that it was the playing that was important, and not necessarily the winning. But, if we dedicate so many hours to a game in an effort to reach the end, surely we're playing to win? To complete a game, is to win. By completing every challenge that is set in-front of you, you "beat the game", you "win".
Whether or not we're actually playing to win is a complete different argument though. THAT argument, is a toughie to break down. My above point illustrates how one could argue that playing games IS to win, and playing for fun doesn't exist.
My point, however, comes from the realms of multi-player gaming. Surely no-one would argue that in a multi-player environment, we're ALL playing to win? Unless it's a co-operative based game (which reverts back to the original argument, that we ARE only playing to win), we play against friends to win. We are competing, because most people would agree, beating a friend at a computer game is one of the most fulfilling things you'll ever do as a gamesplayer. Beating a computer AI is one thing, but beating friends in a battle of skill and ability, is on a completely different level. It's an exhilarating experience, laughing in the face of a friend having completely humiliated them in multi-player contest, especially when you've bragged about your abilities prior to the game.
Of course, likewise it's one of the most humiliating experiences, when a friend sits mocking you having proved you terribly wrong. It's something that i've been on the receiving of MANY times, and it's something that i'm absolutely helpless to do anything about.
The situation is thus...
Most of the games that I play with friends (at least until recently when I purchased my PS2) were based on the N64, and obviously consistently playing games based on one system favours anyone with that system/games. Now, only one out of my immediate group of friends owned an N64, and as a result was really capable of humiliating all of us on a regular basis. Whereas some were ready to fight bravely, but in the end go down HARD, my take on the challenge was a little different. They tried siding with him, assisting him in the middle of a Perfect Dark battle in the hope that he would then team with them in later battles. Alternatively, they would run head first into him, hoping that by some stroke of luck they could deplete his health sufficiently to allow someone else to gain a kill at a later stage in the game.
This sort of thing happened each time we sat down for a group gaming session, which made the proceedings EXTREMELY boring for anyone other than that one friend. Surely, simply accepting defeat is NOT the way to play games? The competitive instinct within me yearned for victory, and as such I persistently looked for new ways of defeating my friend.
No Mercy offers a fine example of this. Where some charged the ring ready to run into the waiting clothesline or big-boot, I waited on the outside. I would attack quickly, and then depart the ring, waiting for my next chance to strike. I'm not talking COMPLETE hit and run, just intelligent playing. There's no point staying inside the ring if as soon as your opponent stands you find yourself completely obliterated is there? Having put together a string of moves, I would retreat to the outside before he had a chance to retaliate, and then storm again ready to do more damage. Surely there is nothing wrong in this strategy? Surely this is just another method of attempting to win a game? Maybe it IS a bit of a "chicken's" way out, but if the point of the game is to win, why shouldn't I try my very best to do so?
Similarly, in Perfect Dark my strategy would be to try and keep as far away from my opponent as possible, and pick off other players as and when the opportunity arose. I saw no point in running head on into battle, as the outcome was inevitably death. My gameplan was to try and find weaknesses, and capitalise on them.
However, such strategies were of course greeted with chants of "CHICKEN" and "OH LOOK AT HIM RUN AGAIN!" and "YOUR PATHETIC" among others.
If we're playing games together to try and gain victory over one another, what's wrong with me attempting to WIN? It would appear that my friends (and yes, the others ALSO began taunting because they found my tactics to be "pathetic" [as if their running head on into death ISN'T a pathetic tactic]) didn't like the thought of me actually trying to win. I'm supposed to accept that I can't win, and take my loss gracefully.
So, when we play games, is it okay to play to win? Is it okay to do whatever it takes (and I don't mean cheating, I mean play "intelligently"), or should we play by "conventional" tactics, even if it means losing?
We play games to win, so why shouldn't we be ALLOWED to play to win? If anyone can see the point in myself and my friends playing games if we're not ALLOWED to try and win, then i'd be very grateful to be filled in. As it stands, we all play to feed the ego of just one person, and I for one would like a share of the glory.
Really, is it okay to play to win?
[I'd be grateful to hear from anyone who finds themselves in a similar situation]
If it was up to me i'd give it a GAD. I have that one of my mates is often braggin and when you beat them it's the best feeling. Knowing that you have beaten him at a game that he considers himself very good at.
Well done, a great post worthy of a GAD.
Well done, a great post worthy of a GAD.
Nice post and all but it needed to be read twice to be understood properly.. I think this post might have been more accepted if it was in Prime and without a Topic tiltle in Capitals..
Nice post though,
well worth a GAD
Nice post though,
well worth a GAD
HálloHowArtThou wrote:
> Nice post and all but it needed to be read twice to be understood properly.. I
> think this post might have been more accepted if it was in Prime and without a
> Topic tiltle in Capitals..
Nice post though,
well worth a GAD
Cheers.
Unfortunately it's often the case that posts get lost in the sea of obscurity that is the FOG Chat.
I might re-post it in the Prime forum and re-title it because I think it might be worth while for others to read it, as i'm sure i'm not the only one who feels this.
Thanks to both responses, here's hoping SR also agree it's worth a GAD!
> Nice post and all but it needed to be read twice to be understood properly.. I
> think this post might have been more accepted if it was in Prime and without a
> Topic tiltle in Capitals..
Nice post though,
well worth a GAD
Cheers.
Unfortunately it's often the case that posts get lost in the sea of obscurity that is the FOG Chat.
I might re-post it in the Prime forum and re-title it because I think it might be worth while for others to read it, as i'm sure i'm not the only one who feels this.
Thanks to both responses, here's hoping SR also agree it's worth a GAD!
HálloHowArtThou wrote:
> Nice post and all but it needed to be read twice to be understood properly.. I
> think this post might have been more accepted if it was in Prime and without a
> Topic tiltle in Capitals..
Nice post though,
well worth a GAD
Just something I wondered about, do you really think having the topic title in capitals influenced people's decisions to read it?
It wasn't something I conciously did (at least hadn't decided to use a title in capitals for attention purposes, etc.) and if that stopped it being read, I really regret using capitals.
> Nice post and all but it needed to be read twice to be understood properly.. I
> think this post might have been more accepted if it was in Prime and without a
> Topic tiltle in Capitals..
Nice post though,
well worth a GAD
Just something I wondered about, do you really think having the topic title in capitals influenced people's decisions to read it?
It wasn't something I conciously did (at least hadn't decided to use a title in capitals for attention purposes, etc.) and if that stopped it being read, I really regret using capitals.
FiveToGo wrote:
> HálloHowArtThou wrote:
> Nice post and all but it needed to be read
> twice to be understood properly.. I
> think this post might have been more
> accepted if it was in Prime and without a
> Topic tiltle in
> Capitals..
Nice post though,
well worth a GAD
Just something I
> wondered about, do you really think having the topic title in capitals
> influenced people's decisions to read it?
The thing is, is that when someone sees a topic with its title in capitals then probably think its a newbie who's written it and therefore ignore t completely.
And before posting it in prime check if its ok with snuggs or some other member of staff..
> HálloHowArtThou wrote:
> Nice post and all but it needed to be read
> twice to be understood properly.. I
> think this post might have been more
> accepted if it was in Prime and without a
> Topic tiltle in
> Capitals..
Nice post though,
well worth a GAD
Just something I
> wondered about, do you really think having the topic title in capitals
> influenced people's decisions to read it?
The thing is, is that when someone sees a topic with its title in capitals then probably think its a newbie who's written it and therefore ignore t completely.
And before posting it in prime check if its ok with snuggs or some other member of staff..
I did that as well, checked it out because it was capitals, and I'm ashamed to say I probably wouldn't have checked it out if it wasn't.
Glad I did though, excellent stuff, I think we all no someone like that.
Glad I did though, excellent stuff, I think we all no someone like that.
RM18 wrote:
> I did that as well, checked it out because it was capitals, and I'm ashamed to
> say I probably wouldn't have checked it out if it wasn't.
Glad I did though,
> excellent stuff, I think we all no someone like that.
I'm preety sure we do all know someone like that. I'm still sturggling to understand the way that the minds of those people work though. If they don't want you to TRY and beat them, to TRY and give them a challenge, why bother with games?
Maybe they just need to feed their ego's with easy wins all the time.
> I did that as well, checked it out because it was capitals, and I'm ashamed to
> say I probably wouldn't have checked it out if it wasn't.
Glad I did though,
> excellent stuff, I think we all no someone like that.
I'm preety sure we do all know someone like that. I'm still sturggling to understand the way that the minds of those people work though. If they don't want you to TRY and beat them, to TRY and give them a challenge, why bother with games?
Maybe they just need to feed their ego's with easy wins all the time.
Seinfeld_Enthusiast wrote:
> Great post, well worth a GAD, and I take your point. To be perfectly frank, I
> never play one-person missions with friends round, I tend to work better on my
> own.
Thanks very much for your comments.
I'm hoping and praying SR agree with those who've commended my post.
I'm glad that my opinions are thought to be worth reading by some people.
> Great post, well worth a GAD, and I take your point. To be perfectly frank, I
> never play one-person missions with friends round, I tend to work better on my
> own.
Thanks very much for your comments.
I'm hoping and praying SR agree with those who've commended my post.
I'm glad that my opinions are thought to be worth reading by some people.