Edit: I have to apologize for the length of this article, plus the fact that I'm making you read another one on top of that. Please bear with me for the time being.
So, I've read an article and it got me thinking. Is it alright to have the mindset of only playing to win when you play video games? Especially when playing against other people. Is there a point where it's too far? (I don't mean hacks. That's always too far in multiplayer) For example, what do you think about people who spam attacks in fighting games, camp in shooters, or rush in RTS games? Is it really necessary to have to absolutely crush the other player because they're not good enough? (This thread is discussing multiplayer. The CPU doesn't care if you are ruthless, but other players might)
For me, I play games to have fun, unwind, and escape from the world at times. I really don't care about the other person's tactics so long as the game is fun. I only really have a peeve about people who incessantly spam attacks in fighting games simply because it's annoying to hear the attack name over and over, and it's mildly annoying that they do nothing else (I'm into Street Fighter IV at the moment). There's no freak out when I lose, and I'd even say "good game" for particularly good plays. I don't call people shotgun or explosive noobs in FPS's. It's fair game, the weapons are there, and they have their own drawbacks. However, the guy in this article seems to care completely about winning and seems completely against the idea of playing for fun. You tell me.
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html
Okay, this guy brings up some good points and there are some things that I disagree with, but that's way besides the point I'm trying to make. The most important thing I think about this article is that he is entirely too arrogant with what he says. Is this a result of what happens when you constantly play to win? Is this guy justified with his mindset or is he taking things way too seriously?
In my opinion, maybe he's right about a player's "sense of honor" or whatever being an obstacle that keeps up from winning. There are times where rules like "no throwing" (fighting games) really do take away from the game and make it less fun (I'm not talking about wacky handicap fights for the hell of it. Those are fun). "Fox only, no items, Final Destination" is the stupidest rule I've ever heard of in a game as crazy as Smash Bros. "Letting the other guy get up" in a tourney has no place. In a tournament, the entire point is to see who can beat everyone else. There is no point for being honorable that way (in a fighting game) unless the other player is unskilled. However, there's nothing wrong with a sense of honor so long as it's in a due place (read some of the comments from Anon in the article page concerning Civilizations).
I'm also really annoyed by his definition of a "scrub." By his definition, then we're all probably "scrubs" because there will be some arbitrary point where a tactic becomes intolerable even to the supposed "pros" (I am definitely talking about the SSF2T Akuma issue he makes). Yes, it is an arbitrary choice to ban Akuma, and we would think that ourselves if we had a higher tolerance to extremely powerful characters (and the extreme "play to win" people then would laugh at our intolerant selves). The choices are "ban him" or "everyone use him because he's the best." He seems to always prefer the latter choice until Akuma comes in, then he and all the other "pros" say it's okay to ban the Akuma character. I've never played the game, but if Akuma is really that powerful then I agree with the ban. However, I still stand by my opinion that it's an arbitrary choice that just took a really broken example have these "ascended scrubs" to use.
What do you think? Whether you play to win or not, tell me why you play and say if you agree/disagree on any points of his article that stick out to you. I'm also curious to know whether all people with a play to win mindset agree with the points that he makes or if you also think that he's taking this too far. (If you read the replies to his article, you'll realize that some of my post sounds familiar. I've already built my own opinion about his article, but other people put it into words more easily that I could so I borrowed some of theirs)
So, I've read an article and it got me thinking. Is it alright to have the mindset of only playing to win when you play video games? Especially when playing against other people. Is there a point where it's too far? (I don't mean hacks. That's always too far in multiplayer) For example, what do you think about people who spam attacks in fighting games, camp in shooters, or rush in RTS games? Is it really necessary to have to absolutely crush the other player because they're not good enough? (This thread is discussing multiplayer. The CPU doesn't care if you are ruthless, but other players might)
For me, I play games to have fun, unwind, and escape from the world at times. I really don't care about the other person's tactics so long as the game is fun. I only really have a peeve about people who incessantly spam attacks in fighting games simply because it's annoying to hear the attack name over and over, and it's mildly annoying that they do nothing else (I'm into Street Fighter IV at the moment). There's no freak out when I lose, and I'd even say "good game" for particularly good plays. I don't call people shotgun or explosive noobs in FPS's. It's fair game, the weapons are there, and they have their own drawbacks. However, the guy in this article seems to care completely about winning and seems completely against the idea of playing for fun. You tell me.
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html
Okay, this guy brings up some good points and there are some things that I disagree with, but that's way besides the point I'm trying to make. The most important thing I think about this article is that he is entirely too arrogant with what he says. Is this a result of what happens when you constantly play to win? Is this guy justified with his mindset or is he taking things way too seriously?
In my opinion, maybe he's right about a player's "sense of honor" or whatever being an obstacle that keeps up from winning. There are times where rules like "no throwing" (fighting games) really do take away from the game and make it less fun (I'm not talking about wacky handicap fights for the hell of it. Those are fun). "Fox only, no items, Final Destination" is the stupidest rule I've ever heard of in a game as crazy as Smash Bros. "Letting the other guy get up" in a tourney has no place. In a tournament, the entire point is to see who can beat everyone else. There is no point for being honorable that way (in a fighting game) unless the other player is unskilled. However, there's nothing wrong with a sense of honor so long as it's in a due place (read some of the comments from Anon in the article page concerning Civilizations).
I'm also really annoyed by his definition of a "scrub." By his definition, then we're all probably "scrubs" because there will be some arbitrary point where a tactic becomes intolerable even to the supposed "pros" (I am definitely talking about the SSF2T Akuma issue he makes). Yes, it is an arbitrary choice to ban Akuma, and we would think that ourselves if we had a higher tolerance to extremely powerful characters (and the extreme "play to win" people then would laugh at our intolerant selves). The choices are "ban him" or "everyone use him because he's the best." He seems to always prefer the latter choice until Akuma comes in, then he and all the other "pros" say it's okay to ban the Akuma character. I've never played the game, but if Akuma is really that powerful then I agree with the ban. However, I still stand by my opinion that it's an arbitrary choice that just took a really broken example have these "ascended scrubs" to use.
What do you think? Whether you play to win or not, tell me why you play and say if you agree/disagree on any points of his article that stick out to you. I'm also curious to know whether all people with a play to win mindset agree with the points that he makes or if you also think that he's taking this too far. (If you read the replies to his article, you'll realize that some of my post sounds familiar. I've already built my own opinion about his article, but other people put it into words more easily that I could so I borrowed some of theirs)
