Poll: Can you play a game wrong? [Please read before voting]

[Hungry Donner]

There are certainly ineffective and unintended ways to play games but there are very few I'd consider "wrong." Or at least if you are doing it "wrong" then I'd assume you can't progress very far at all. However this is really an issue of semantics, I may not consider a certain type of gameplay "wrong" but others are using the term for the same behavior.

There are many games that can be played in an unintended manner and they're far less fun for it, but sometimes there are games that can be played in an unintended manner for an extra challenge or thrill. And sometimes what is perceived as unintended may not be - when my son was only a few years old I played Morrowind with him using a stealth/illusionist/charmer character to avoid combat (although I'll note we used Morrowind to teach him not to hit, take that gaming causes violence people!). Anyway this character would go in to daedric shrines and bandit caves and use a combination of magic, speechcraft, and bribes to get everyone on his side - and it turned out that many of these NPCs had merchant and training functions.

 

[StriderShinryu]

That's a tough question. I'm not sure there's really a way to play a game wrong if you're just playing it for enjoyment purposes. If you're playing it as a job (to, for example, give an honest as unbiased as possible appraisal of the game like a reviewer should) then I think you at least owe it to your readers/viewers to think a little outside the box. This is particularly the case when what you're doing seems to actually be making the game less fun than it could be.

In the case the OP stated, there really were significant errors on the part of the reviewer that led to an unfair assessment of the game. If you're not going to really try to review a title for what it offers and instead are just going to recount your personal gripes with it then maybe you should just be writing a blog or doing something less score based and more strictly entertainment oriented (like what Yahtzee does).

 

[bob1052]

I rather like the older Jimquisition stuff (this is the only older one I watched, and don't ask me how I feel about his Escapist run so far).

You can play a game wrong, but if the right way to play it isn't inherently obvious through the game then it is the developer's fault.

 

[electronicgoat]

You can definitely play in a way that would make the developer slap you in the face, but I don't think there's any way of playing a game "wrong." Unless you're not having any fun, then you should go about and find a different way of doing things.

 

[TiefBlau]

Yes, and at times the developer is partially to blame.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

encumbering yourself in oblivion with clay pots or stolen cutlery *facepalm* (have to look away when little sister is playing)

I beg to differ. The only correct way to play a Bethesda RPG is to steal everything that isn't nailed down everywhere you go. Your little sister is playing the game perfectly.

 

[Netrigan]

If the Vanguish demo is any indication (assuming my memory isn't faulty), part of the problem is the amount of cover you're given. Games have pretty much trained us to go into cover-based-combat mode whenever we see tons of chest-high walls all over the place, especially if you have a magic button that attaches you to said walls. Sometimes the best way to get players to use your new gameplay elements is to take away their security blanket and not-so-subtly tutorialize them into using them.

Red Dead Redemption had cover-based combat, but I usually forgot all about it, because the visuals didn't constantly remind me that I could do so... dead eye was much more my focus. John Woo's Stranglehold, same deal. I almost never used cover, because the game emphasized its unique gameplay elements right from the go and made sure I knew how much fun they were.

Familiarity can be a trap and game developers need to realize that. Take the Assault Rifle example. I personally have a hard time with any game that makes the assault rifle fairly useless. In most games, it's a good, solid mid-range weapon and often the most used weapon in the game... so when a game like Halo decides it's the shit default weapon that's best chucked at the earliest opportunity (especially when I'm given limited weapon slots to experiment with weapons), then I'm real slow to pick up on this and end up being overly frustrated by the game's slow-ass combat... it never really occurred to me to go rushing at enemies to gun-butt them in the middle of fierce firefight. Did I play Halo wrong? Probably, but I'm too old and cranky to change my mind now.

 

[Hiphophippo]

Wow I'm really surprised at the poll results. Who are we to judge how a person plays a game?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

That's a tough question. I'm not sure there's really a way to play a game wrong if you're just playing it for enjoyment purposes. If you're playing it as a job (to, for example, give an honest as unbiased as possible appraisal of the game like a reviewer should) then I think you at least owe it to your readers/viewers to think a little outside the box. This is particularly the case when what you're doing seems to actually be making the game less fun than it could be.

In the case the OP stated, there really were significant errors on the part of the reviewer that led to an unfair assessment of the game. If you're not going to really try to review a title for what it offers and instead are just going to recount your personal gripes with it then maybe you should just be writing a blog or doing something less score based and more strictly entertainment oriented (like what Yahtzee does).

You can definitely play in a way that would make the developer slap you in the face, but I don't think there's any way of playing a game "wrong." Unless you're not having any fun, then you should go about and find a different way of doing things.

I obviously voted Yes for the poll but now I kinda think that maybe there isn't a way to play it "wrong" per se. There are just some types of games I don't enjoy like racing sims, and if I were to play a racing sim (especially a NASCAR game) and actually have fun playing, I wouldn't be playing the way it was meant to be played. However, if I was reviewing the game, I would play it the way it was meant to be played and then compared how well it plays to other games of the genre. I can play a game I actually don't like and give it a good review score; I wouldn't call games like Forza or Gran Tursimo bad games just because I don't enjoy them. I definitely think that Jim reviewed Vanquish wrong as Vanquish is a straight up hardcore action game that just so happened to be a shooter (it's not a cover shooter even though it has cover) and that's the audience the game is targeted at. The gamers that bought Vanquish, bought it to play as an action game with guns not to play a cover shooter, and Vanquish should be graded on how good of an action game it is. In my opinion, you should review a game for what it's trying to accomplish, Vanquish was not trying to be a Gears or an Uncharted. You shouldn't knock Vanquish for being a not-so-great cover shooter, you should knock it for being a bad action game if that's what you think. It's just like you can't knock a racing sim for being too in-depth and/or being too tough for casual racing fans; I've heard Gran Turismo is a car nuts wet dream, I'm not a car nut so obviously it's not a game for me.

 

[Katana314]

I completely agree with you, but this is why developers need to learn that the teaching elements are THE most important part of the game. Obviously, the GTA-style "WALK HERE. NOW DO THIS." system is not enjoyed by many, and you need a subtle yet effective guiding hand towards things. But if that hand doesn't work and your player doesn't play things right, you can't blame them.

It's kinda tragic, because I can imagine Vanquish was probably pretty fun if you play it right, but the developers need to have more focus on a constructed learning experience for the player that causes them to realize the right way to play.

 

[Netrigan]

I completely agree with you, but this is why developers need to learn that the teaching elements are THE most important part of the game. Obviously, the GTA-style "WALK HERE. NOW DO THIS." system is not enjoyed by many, and you need a subtle yet effective guiding hand towards things. But if that hand doesn't work and your player doesn't play things right, you can't blame them.

I had a problem with GTA IV doing this, but not because of the thinly veiled tutorial... it was because two or three of the tutorials were functionally useless. One mission demanded I learn how to fist-fight multiple opponents, chase another car, then disarm an armed opponent (without giving me the opportunity to heal up)... and only one of those skills was in any way required during the rest of the game. Another mission had me learning how to throw a brick, which the game never required me to do again, nor do I think it had any real impact on gameplay.

The over-long six hour tutorial was just a case of bad editing. The core game-play mechanics can be introduced in one or two missions. No need to show me how to drive a car by driving Roman home, then showing me how to pick up and drop off someone in another mission. Then showing me how to outrun cops in yet another mission. Yadda yadda yadda.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

If the Vanguish demo is any indication (assuming my memory isn't faulty), part of the problem is the amount of cover you're given. Games have pretty much trained us to go into cover-based-combat mode whenever we see tons of chest-high walls all over the place, especially if you have a magic button that attaches you to said walls. Sometimes the best way to get players to use your new gameplay elements is to take away their security blanket and not-so-subtly tutorialize them into using them.

Familiarity can be a trap and game developers need to realize that. Take the Assault Rifle example. I personally have a hard time with any game that makes the assault rifle fairly useless. In most games, it's a good, solid mid-range weapon and often the most used weapon in the game... so when a game like Halo decides it's the shit default weapon that's best chucked at the earliest opportunity (especially when I'm given limited weapon slots to experiment with weapons), then I'm real slow to pick up on this and end up being overly frustrated by the game's slow-ass combat... it never really occurred to me to go rushing at enemies to gun-butt them in the middle of fierce firefight. Did I play Halo wrong? Probably, but I'm too old and cranky to change my mind now.

When I saw the first video of Vanquish at last year's E3, I knew exactly what kind of game it was. I saw that the focus of the game was to look as badass as you can while killing Russian robots, and that's how I played the demo and the main game when it came out. Maybe Vanquish should've hinted that it was not a cover shooter a bit more in-game but there was stuff there to insinuate what kind of game it was; you character gets a brand new spanking suit with powers (why wouldn't you try to find gameplay uses for these powers?), the scoring system takes off points for using cover, you get several weapons that are useful close range weapons, etc. I think you should be able to 2 and 2 or 3 and 3 together as you can slide throw the environment rather speedily + you can initiate slow-mo with the suit + you have weapons that are useful up close so one of your first thoughts should be sliding, slow-mo shotgun blast to your enemies face and then work from there. With all of your main character's abilities, why would you play it as a cover shooter?

I hate when shooters have overpowered melee, you're a shooter not a fighting game, shooting should be the focus, and you shouldn't be able to run through gun fire and kill your enemy through melee. It's also an issue with COD and knifing, you shouldn't be able to bring a knife to a gun fight and win unless you playing sneakily and killing from behind.

 

[badgersprite]

You can play games wrong in the sense of failing to press buttons correctly or not understanding the core mechanics (eg thinking Portals only work one way and getting stuck on puzzles).

But I think the sense you're talking about of playing a game in a way it wasn't designed to be played, or isn't particularly enjoyable to play...I guess it depends whether or not your definition of 'wrong' includes a) playing a game without strategy (there are plenty of games you can win without actually learning the mechanics, which leads me to believe wrong isn't the right word), b) having a bias towards a particular play style (again, not necessarily 'wrong'. It may not be the most efficient or enjoyable way of playing, but chances are it is still possible to succeed), and/or c) the game just doesn't get across what it is or what it wants you to do (not always a horrible thing; there are plenty of old adventure games that conceal this information for the sake of difficulty).

I don't know that I'd consider these things playing a game wrong in and of themselves. It's not the best way of winning, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. I mean, for example, I think there are some classes in you can play in almost every RPG that are vastly overpowered and hence being one of them is a surefire way of winning or making the game less challenging, but that doesn't mean that playing without those classes is playing 'wrong'. People often ignore overpowered classes for the sake of making the game more challenging, because that makes the game a greater test of skill.

*shrug* I don't know. It's either a matter of semantics as to how you define wrong or a matter of opinion as to whether you personally think there's a definitively right way of playing a game beyond using the buttons themselves correctly.

 

[2xDouble]

The problem is, the poll question and the OP's gripe are two very different issues, both of which were addressed quite nicely in Jim's video posted in the OP.

Is it possible to play a game wrong? Yes. Unequivocally, empirically, absolutely, yes. You can't play a fighting game like a shooter or a beat-'em-up, can you? They're very different skill sets and viewing angles.

Is that the player's fault? No. It's not your fault if a movie doesn't move you to tears or bring you a smile. It's not your fault if a book or painting or sculpture doesn't make you think. You know instantly what you thought was a romantic comedy is actually a thriller, or a sports movie, or a historical portrayal. If it's a good movie, it'll win you over in spite of that misconception. If not, the movie sucks and the writing/directing/acting/technicals messed up. Same deal with video games. (Exception: It is your fault if you suck at video games. As a professional reviewer, that shouldn't be an issue.)

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Snip

I edited my first post. I now feel there is no way to play a game wrong, you should just play the game in way where you can get the most enjoyment out of it. However, with online games, you should play the game in a way to best help your team win because if you're not, then you're just lowering all the other players' enjoyment. I do think you can review a game wrong though.

 

[FalloutJack]

Yes, you can...by losing. "Game Over" is the sign that you have dropped the ball somewhere. There is no other.

 

[Jack Macaque]

It's a video game people.

I mean when you think about it you can't really do anything in life wrong, unless I start to go through all those demotivational posters on the net.

You play a video game how you play a video game, I saw a kid at EBGames once when I was a kid who played PS1 with the controller backwards, weird but he still had fun.

Since well ya know, most people play games to have fun, I'll play (IMO) boring-same-as-every-year-no-replay-value-at-all-overpriced-can-you-believe-people-still-buy-these-every-year-games like FIFA(or ANY sport game, once again, IMO) with my friends, I get red cards every chance I get, score on my own net, injure as many players on the other team as possible, but I still have fun.

 

[Skoosh]

Wrong? No, I don't think so. You can play poorly and lose, but that's not really playing wrong to me. I think it's on the game to tell us and force us to play it the way it wants us to. Portal has an excellent tutorial, as does God of War. Both give an accomplished feeling and quickly let you know exactly what you'll be doing throughout the game. Wall of text or a booklet is a bad way to tell someone how to play a game.

It's possible to play the wrong game though. Some people just don't like horror, so they shouldn't watch movies in that genre. Likewise, some people don't like RPGs, and really just shouldn't play them. It's not that they are playing them wrong, they simply don't enjoy them. Reviewers should be especially aware of this. Yahtzee shouldn't review pokemon because he hates all JRPGs, good and bad (his reviews are just for entertainment, I know, but you get the idea). I don't like coconut, so I can't say if the coconut cake was good.

 

[II2]

Objectively
Technically speaking, yes:

- You can misunderstand or misuse the controls, failing challenges, getting defeated by obstacles and prevent progression.

- Be an "Anti-User". This is the sort of player who deliberately tries so get the game to glitch or bug out by 'misbehaving' in a way to cause technical graphical or audio artefacts, trigger contradictory Boolean flags, or grief other users in multiplayer.

Subjectively
If you're consciously 'just playing/fucking around' and enjoying yourself, comes down to what flavor of weirdo you are.