Poll: Have gamers lost touch with "playing for fun?"

[Saelune]

While I do think so, I dont agree with your view on your example. While they may not be doing it right, their theory makes sense. I only use practice mode for testing stuff I am unsure of.

 

[mjcabooseblu]

The official goal of a poster in a topic such as this isn't to get the OP to concede that they're wrong; as he has aptly demonstrated, he will never do so. The real goal is to wait until he's too ashamed to come back.

Wtf man.

Saying that someone is right or wrong here is like asking who won the San Fransisco earthquake.

Um. No. Not at all. It really isn't anything like that. I don't know where you even got that analogy. And I'm pretty sure that it's a general consensus in this thread that the one who's forgotten how to have fun is you. You're what's known to most people as the Stop Having Fun Guy.

 

[Kohake]

I see this debate has gone on way longer than I think should be nessecary, so I'll jus tpost my thoughts and hope it helps:

It seems that "mjcabooseblu" main idea is:

Bullshit. Playing the game their way isn't being close-minded. Also, maybe consider the fact that whereas you went to learn combos and lost a lot (by your own admission!) they were spamming and losing a lot, but HAVING FUN! Little skill required for great entertainment? They're clearly doing something right.

And

I'm going to point out again what I've already said: THEY'RE. HAVING. FUCKING. FUN. Not wanting to take time OUT of fun to do something NOT fun when they could keep having fun like a normal person is not being narrow-minded. What they are doing is exactly what playing for fun is!

And that would make sense if they were actually having fun. But they probably aren't because they, as written in the OP, they are "getting frustrated".

So yeah...

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

i will agree that alot more gamers these days play for the bloodlust of just winning to show off e-penis, and not even exaggerating that, just go on HoN or dota and you will see what i mean..(i know a few people in real life who admitted to playing games for the pure competitive part of it, they aren't having fun if they aren't competing)


while all in all hey if thats the way you have fun, then you have fun, but good god some people..it just gets ridiculous when you aren't playing the game because its a game, your playing the game because making your epenis bigger is all that matters. that's when i disagree with them and think its wrong.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

Everyone has their own reasons for playing a game, but to me fun is the first and foremost. When a game stops being fun, it stops being worth playing. Now, what people deem as "fun" in the game is perceived in many different ways. Personally, achievement grinding and 100%ing games for me gets waaaay to tedious, and I prefer not to waste my time on it. I actually get off more on seeing myself evolve as a player, being able to master better combos, driving skill, timing, or just more skilled in general. But there are a lot of people who get their kicks from doing different things. That's all that's important really, hell that's why there are so many different kinds of games out there (from long and grindy, to quick instant gratification, to casual, and all in between).

 

[mjcabooseblu]

I see this debate has gone on way longer than I think should be nessecary, so I'll jus tpost my thoughts and hope it helps:

It seems that "mjcabooseblu" main idea is:

Bullshit. Playing the game their way isn't being close-minded. Also, maybe consider the fact that whereas you went to learn combos and lost a lot (by your own admission!) they were spamming and losing a lot, but HAVING FUN! Little skill required for great entertainment? They're clearly doing something right.

And

I'm going to point out again what I've already said: THEY'RE. HAVING. FUCKING. FUN. Not wanting to take time OUT of fun to do something NOT fun when they could keep having fun like a normal person is not being narrow-minded. What they are doing is exactly what playing for fun is!

And that would make sense if they were actually having fun. But they probably aren't because they, as written in the OP, they are "getting frustrated".

So yeah...

But apparently, getting frustrated and using the same approach is their idea of "fun."

Full sentence. You seem to have recently experienced a logical phallacy.

 

[Kohake]

The official goal of a poster in a topic such as this isn't to get the OP to concede that they're wrong; as he has aptly demonstrated, he will never do so. The real goal is to wait until he's too ashamed to come back.

Wtf man.

Saying that someone is right or wrong here is like asking who won the San Fransisco earthquake.

Um. No. Not at all. It really isn't anything like that. I don't know where you even got that analogy. And I'm pretty sure that it's a general consensus in this thread that the one who's forgotten how to have fun is you. You're what's known to most people as the Stop Having Fun Guy.

I think what he is trying to say that in this topic, just in the San Fransisco earthquake, there is no "official goal" like you sugested. This topic is a question, not a debate. Thus you can not "win" this topic. Because it's not a competition to begin with.

Now, I'd like to ask you, what are you trying to prove? Really? That it's okay to not "play to win" and that it's narrow minded to try forcing poeple to do otherwise? Well, I think everyone agrees on that, and if that is what you're tying to proe, then you have probably missunderstood the OP.

 

[mjcabooseblu]

The official goal of a poster in a topic such as this isn't to get the OP to concede that they're wrong; as he has aptly demonstrated, he will never do so. The real goal is to wait until he's too ashamed to come back. (sarcasm, dude. look it up.)

Wtf man.

Saying that someone is right or wrong here is like asking who won the San Fransisco earthquake.

Um. No. Not at all. It really isn't anything like that. I don't know where you even got that analogy. And I'm pretty sure that it's a general consensus in this thread that the one who's forgotten how to have fun is you. You're what's known to most people as the Stop Having Fun Guy.

I think what he is trying to say that in this topic, just in the San Fransisco earthquake, there is no "official goal" like you sugested. This topic is a question, not a debate. Thus you can not "win" this topic. Because it's not a competition to begin with.

Now, I'd like to ask you, what are you trying to prove? Really? That it's okay to not "play to win" and that it's narrow minded to try forcing poeple to do otherwise? Well, I think everyone agrees on that, and if that is what you're tying to proVe, then you have probably missunderstood the OP.

The point he was trying to make is that what they are doing is somehow not "playing for fun," unless there's some sort of hidden meaning. If there's no hidden meaning, I'm pretty sure I understood him perfectly fine.

Also, I was trying to be sarcastic with that "official goal" comment; the lack of body language really didn't help that...

 

[Nieroshai]

Too many people I've heard in person moaning about graphics or how the main character wasn't epic (read: broken) enough to believe this generation is pitifully fickle about what makes a game goood. When I ask them if they had fun, they said they never played far enough to tell because the graphics weren't perfect or the character wasn't Duke Nukem.

 

[Nieroshai]

I see this debate has gone on way longer than I think should be nessecary, so I'll jus tpost my thoughts and hope it helps:

It seems that "mjcabooseblu" main idea is:

Bullshit. Playing the game their way isn't being close-minded. Also, maybe consider the fact that whereas you went to learn combos and lost a lot (by your own admission!) they were spamming and losing a lot, but HAVING FUN! Little skill required for great entertainment? They're clearly doing something right.

And

I'm going to point out again what I've already said: THEY'RE. HAVING. FUCKING. FUN. Not wanting to take time OUT of fun to do something NOT fun when they could keep having fun like a normal person is not being narrow-minded. What they are doing is exactly what playing for fun is!

And that would make sense if they were actually having fun. But they probably aren't because they, as written in the OP, they are "getting frustrated".

So yeah...

But apparently, getting frustrated and using the same approach is their idea of "fun."

Full sentence. You seem to have recently experienced a logical phallacy.

Logical phallacy? Well the gamers I know are dicks.
[ba-dum TISS!]

On a serious note, there are a lot of gamers to whom only bragging rights matter, and they ALWAYS make every attempt to get on my nerves.

 

[mjcabooseblu]

Logical phallacy? Well the gamers I know are dicks.
[ba-dum TISS!]

On a serious note, there are a lot of gamers to whom only bragging rights matter, and they ALWAYS make every attempt to get on my nerves.

FUCKING FINALLY somebody gets that joke. I was expecting a million comments about it being mispelled (heehee) in about a nanosecond...No matter where I use that one nobody seems to get it at all.

 

[Kohake]

But apparently, getting frustrated and using the same approach is their idea of "fun."

Full sentence. You seem to have recently experienced a logical phallacy.

Oh yeah? You wanna get technical with me? Really? Well then, I'll play along.

Spoiler

That quote is not a logical phallacy. A logical phallacy is "incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception". That was an informational text, not an argument, which makes it incapable of being a logical phallacy. It could potentially be incorrect, or a paradox, but neither of those makes it logical phallacy. Now, I'm not quite sure if you're reffeing to the quote or what I said, but if the later, then I must still object. Because there is no phallacy in quoting only aportion of the text. You may claim that I'm doing so out of context, but such a claim is rather pointless without also explaining why.

You see, being technicall brings absolutly nothing to the discussion. It just makes things way moe complicated.

Yes, technically he never said they weren't havign fun, but technically I didn't say he said that their. But the text still implies that they aren't having fun when they play against him/her, which was my point.

The point he was trying to make is that what they are doing is somehow not "playing for fun," unless there's some sort of hidden meaning. If there's no hidden meaning, I'm pretty sure I understood him perfectly fine.

If that was the point he/she was trying to make then I agree with you.

Unfortunetly, I don't belive he/she was trying to make that point. I belive you have missunderrstood the OP.

 

[mjcabooseblu]

But apparently, getting frustrated and using the same approach is their idea of "fun."

Full sentence. You seem to have recently experienced a logical phallacy.

Oh yeah? You wanna get technical with me? Really? Well then, I'll play along.

That quote is not a logical phallacy. A logical phallacy is "incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception". That was an informational text, not an argument, which makes it incapable of being a logical phallacy. It could potentially be incorrect, or a paradox, but neither of those makes it logical phallacy. Now, I'm not quite sure if you're reffeing to the quote or what I said, but if the later, then I must still object. Because there is no phallacy in quoting only aportion of the text. You may claim that I'm doing so out of context, but such a claim is rather pointless without also explaining why.

You see, being technicall brings absolutly nothing to the discussion. It just makes things way moe complicated.

Yes, technically he never said they weren't havign fun, but technically I didn't say he said that their. But the text still implies that they aren't having fun when they play against him/her, which was my point.

Well as he said it was their idea of fun, AND he said that's what they were doing, I feel that it is well within my right ot say to your post: Nuh-uh! Read it again. Also I am amazed you actually kept spelling it phallacy. And by the way, being technical is pulling out the direct definition of something and using incorrect reasoning to twist it your own way. Also known as a logical phallacy.

And you are perfectly welcome to say what YOU think the OP's point was.

 

[living4theday]

I agree that gamming has become more about winning than having fun. Sure i don't mind someone bragging about winning but when a group of people just play to win it gets kind of old and annoying.

i miss the days when multi-player was made to kick someones ass for fun not just to win. wheres the fun in a game if its just to win or cheat to win?

this is also the reason i play single player more than multi-player.

please don't tell me my grammar sucks i know it does......

 

[Kohake]

Well as he said it was their idea of fun, AND he said that's what they were doing, I feel that it is well within my right ot say to your post: Nuh-uh! Read it again. Also I am amazed you actually kept spelling it phallacy. And by the way, being technical is pulling out the direct definition of something and using incorrect reasoning to twist it your own way. Also known as a logical phallacy.

Since you mentioned it in one of your earlie posts, I belive you're familiar with the concept of sacasm.

Because he/she said that being frustrated was their idea of having "fun", despite frustration and fun being generally hard to unify, and the fact that he/she put "fun" in quotation marks me assume he/she was being sarcastic.

I kinda thought that was obvious.

Technical stuff:

Spoiler

I'm not a person who spends a lot of time spell checking unless I'm trying to make a good impression, but yeah,t hat was kinda silly. By the way, I think you're missusing the word logical fallacy. Try using this site to make sure: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20antiquitatem

As for your sugestion to add that I think that's what the OP mean: if you re-ead my post you'll find that I never said that the OP mearly that, I was mealy saying that it's likely.

 

[KoalaKid]

I play for fun, what other reason is there?

 

[engeneerjoe]

I agree with you completely, although I have tried oblivion, COD, halo, fallout, all that good stuff, fallout and oblivion stop holding my attention before long because of the style of gear and skill progression, COD is good, but there should be more rewards for prestiege in my opinion, it gets old the third time, halo kind of sucks in my mind, no real gear/skill progression, rune scape, shiver, but wow has a nice little progeression system, leveling is fun, and even if you do four or five toons, there is always another path to follow on the level track, blizz even manages to keep it interesting post 85.

This brings me to my second example, this may be interesting to non crafties also, so bear with me
on my server, there is a guild called warcraftier, they are the top guild on our server, they raid day and night, and only accept the best of the best. i have gotten multiple invitations from them from my proformance in raids with their talent scouts, but i have turned them down for an invite, they run like a military, i do not want to work all day and come home just to work more in my "fun" time, it is a ballance that each person has to find.

In conclusion, just think, what is their fun? what is your fun?

 

[LordOrin]

"I play the game (, and then I learn it)."

This is what my room mate said as he played Mortal Kombat. I'm watching him and some friends play Mortal Kombat's campaign mode, and I suggested (after getting their asses handed to them quite a few times) that maybe they should go into training mode, get a second controller, and learn some new moves/combos instead of button mashing and spamming. But apparently, getting frustrated and using the same approach is their idea of "fun." They say they like to "learn in the heat of battle" but all they're really doing is learning a few attacks/combos and then using those few moves over and over and over...

This kind of narrow-minded thinking upsets me a little. It seems that they aren't playing the game... they're just winning (or losing, mostly); in other words, it's a competition and winning is all that matters. While I've come to expect that from anonymous people playing competitively online, it's kind of hard to deal with now that it's in my face. What's even scarier is that there's no ranking/scoreboard to spur these guys on.

What about you, Escapists? Do you feel that gamers in general, or even some of the gamers around you, have lost touch with "playing for fun" and adopting "playing to win"? What ever happened to playing for fun?

I'd argue that your roommates are "playing for fun" just as much as you are, if not more so. Its just that your idea of fun is to learn to play well, while theirs is to beat the crap out of each other. Both are admirable goals encouraged by the game, you just fall on opposite ends of a spectrum.

I also think that "I play the game (, and then I learn it)" is a good attitude since well designed games should teach their mechanics through the course of play rather than through tutorials or practice modes. If they don't feel it necessary to learn any new tricks, maybe they'll feel differently after you whup their asses a few more times.

 

[DaysBefore]

Yes, surely.

Don't believe me? Gamebattles. I think this conversation is over.

 

[Chromanin]

Combustible lemons.

I seriously don't get why this argument comes up so much. Why do I need to explain what is fun for me? I like pathing out star power in Guitar Hero on Expert. Others like to just play on Medium and hear the music. Who is anybody to say that either of us is not having fun?