Poll: What Do You Think About "Playing To Win"?

[Xyphon]

I like to win, but not all the time. In Battlefield: Bad Company, I used to get together with my friends a lot and fuck around. Knifing each other, chasing each other down in tanks, seeing who could crash the heli into the most enemies. We had the most fun by all going special ops, getting a jeep, and laying down all of our C4 on one side of the truck. We made that jeep fly all the way across the map once.

As for cheapness, I complete and utterly DESPISE button mashers in fighting games. ESPECIALLY Street Fighter IV. Whenever I go up against a button masher, I'll send him the message "Learn to play" and leave. I am NOT going to waste my time on them. However, when I get someone that actually uses combos, I say good game and have a rematch.

P.S: The guy that wrote the article was so full of himself that I felt nauseous.

 

[ryai458]

whats the point of playing a game if you arent trying to win? ill do pretty much anything to do except mods thats not fair, ill do anything everyone can do so if they lose it is because i am better not that im handing out 40 dollars to mod my controller.

 

[Strategia]

Option 2 and 3, but for myself I generally play to have fun more than to win. Especially because I'm generally not skilled enough to actually win

 

[D_987]

Do you at least understand the difference between such a call being made by experts, and by people who don't understand the game?

Self-proclaimed experts...

Besides which this guys argument is flawed because he claims that having "fun" is the same to everyone. I enjoy playing to win; I've played in my fair share of Gamebattles and online games against wanna=be pro teams. In my experience its really not that fun - your entirely stressed out over winning - dying holds a far greater consequence than it did and as a result your extremely immersed in the game. It may be fun when your easily killing people in public matches but for me playing to win is a chore.

He's also extremely egotistical and pretty much your average douchebag - I doubt his skill simply because he is no arrogant. I find the best players are not arrogant, or are willing to accept others are not as good as them. This person, also seems to be discussing some fictitious gamer. I doubt anyone here mashes buttons in a fighting game or doesn't use tactics in an FPS. Sure we may not care as much in a public game whether we win or lose, but we still use the tactics he is discussing to certain degrees.

In short, this guy isn't an "expert" at all - I can understand where he's coming from if he was discussing matches against other like-minded individuals, but he is effectively claiming spawn-camping is ok because you'll win that way. Yeah - it may be ok if your playing against like-minded individuals, but when your playing in a public game against people that do not care is pathetic. Those rules are there for a reason.

Its also interesting to read him discussing game design without offering any explanation whilst maintaining the idea he's an expert. Ok, so what truly gives a multi-player game depth? Something he doesn't answer.

He consistently contradicts himself; its ok to abuse bugs but using an over-powered character is not ok...you just said that using bugs to increase your damage over the opponent was ok now your claiming, possibly because it doesn't suit you, that this character should never be played...

There are a few very good replies in the comment section that rip his article to pieces; and his replies are so obviously desperate attempts to stop them. A flawed article at best.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

If it ain't fun, why play it?

Victroy is nice too, though, and it's not like losing is all that fun, so I at least play for the win, but if it's not fun getting there then I'm not interested.

 

[Drunken Jedi]

Obviously the objective of playing a game is to have fun. Personally, I have a lot more fun when I'm playing a game to the best of my ability, so I'm (almost) always playing to win.

I just want to pick up on your example of rushing in rts games.
Basically in an rts game there are short term investments (like combat units) and long term investments (like economy or tech). The correct strategy in a 1on1 game is usually to either invest a little bit less into short term (and thus a little bit more into long term) than your opponent does; that way you will probably be able to defend against an attack (because the defender usually has some advantages like having his production buildings closer or pulling off workers to help fight) and you will be stronger than your opponent in the long run.
Or you invest a lot more into short term gain, thus enabling you to destroy or at least cripple your opponent before his long term advantage starts kicking in.

If you by some agreement remove the first option, you remove a huge amount of strategical depth, because then only builds that focus heavily on economy and/or teching are viable and the early game essentially becomes just boring filler material while you wait for the actual game to start.

 

[7moreDead_v1legacy]

I'm a fairly competitive player...I like to or at least try to be the best, I also like to poke fun at players I deem un-honourable...But I don't do it too the point that it isn't in obvious jest.

I constantly play with the worst weapons/race/class/spec etc and get joy from beating the more powerful/popular choices...Back in the day I was a survival hunter raiding 40 man Molten Core when it was Marksmen or die, and I was beating the other hunters in the dps. PvPing against Grand Marshals with nothing but my Ice Barbed Spear/Bow of somekind a belt and a russet hat...And being top horde - Too me that is fun.

Likewise for fps (well mainly cod 4 theses days) - You'll find me using silenced m14's, mp44's unmodded uzi's and g36 etc...And I will hop flop camp rush my way to victory...So it's possible to play like a hardcore nut job and have fun!

Yeah wall o' Text.

 

[Krantos]

In my opinion it boils down to this:

If you're playing a competitive game, then you should strive to win, but not get too worked up about it. The main draw in a competitive game is matching two (or more) people against each other, both seeking victory for themselves. The fun comes from the intervening exchange, not the end result. However, any disparity between the two parties can quickly drain the fun out of it.

Playing against someone who only cares about winning usually isn't any fun, but playing against someone who has no interest in winning and is only faffing about can be equally annoying.

Likewise, playing against someone of significantly different skill level can get boring as well. Sure, beating the pulp out of someone less skilled than you can be giggles for a while, and, quite frankly, I even get a laugh out of getting my ass handed to me sometimes, but after a while the game loses it's appeal if you already know who's going to win right from the get go.

Basically, I think that you should play to win, but be just as happy if you lose, otherwise the actual game, just becomes a chore.

 

[nash_clovis]

The whole article basically says "if you're playing and having fun, you're doing it wrong", something I completely disagree with. Games should be fun, not some second job.

This.

Playing to win is cool and all when you're playing for a title or money or something, but if you aren't playing seriously, you should just play for fun.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

I generally play to win, but I dislike it when the opponents have a big (dis)advantage. Especially in teambased games.

The best teambased matches i've ever played were against teams that were of comparable skill to our own. It made every fight an epic all-out battle. You had to struggle for every inch you gained and only the most focused players that worked best as a team could pull through.

Utterly pwning others is fun for about five seconds, but after I prefer something more challenging.

 

[patronscorn_v1legacy]

If every gamer were the same we wouldn't have the big variety of games we have today.
Because people are shit, but we are unique kinds of shit. Many will play to win and many will play to have fun.

This is why I espesially like the Xbox Live system. you can choose how you want to play.
Recreation
It's not whether you win or lose, but that everyone enjoys the game.
Motto: "Kick back, relax, be considerate, and have fun."
Pro
You aren't going to settle for anything less than first place, but you respect the game and your competitors.
Motto: "Play clean, play hard, play to win."
Family
You want a zone you and your kids can enjoy. No mature language, no trash talk, no super-competitive egos.
Motto: "Fun for the whole family!"
Underground
If you aren't afraid of trash talk, the Underground is for you. Not for the faint of heart.
Motto: "Take no prisoners!"

*EDIT*
I personally play on pro, because I want to win, but have fun doing it!

 

[Pimppeter2]

I guess whatever floats your boat. I'd lie if I told you I never played to win. Mostly on games Im good at. I mean if you have fun by trying to win, who am I to preach at you?

Anyway. I would consider cheap things over the line. I mean, if you want to win, you could at least try to earn it

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

Live to win, 'till you die, 'till the light dies in your eyes
Live to win, take it all, just keep fighting 'till you fall
Day by day, kickin' all the way, I'm not cavin' in
Let another round begin, live to win
Live to win
Live to win
Yeah, live, yeah, win!!

Seriously though, play for fun.

RRRRRRR!!!!

Death to the infidels!! And steamroll the n00ewbz!!

I don't find pleasure in losing. Unless it's a fair fight, of course, when I see that both sides gave their best. I also don't find any fun in an easy win - what's the point of playing, if you didn't even put any effort into winning?

Exactly. I take pleasure in a win. If you don't play to win in a competitive game, then you're playing the wrong type of game. However I try as much as I can to not use things I consider to be cheap (Camping, exploits, even steamrolling, I move to the losing teams to attempt to balance it out) I have a friend who has no qualms with using the cheapest moves or tactics in games, but it means that me beating him makes the victory that much sweeter.

So I do think there is a line, but play to win. The only time I don't play to win is when I don't know wtf I'm doing or it's against a child or something (I had to play against a kid in an SFIV tournament, it wasn't fun in the slightest).

 

[hermes]

I don't care how good you are... If you managed to reduce something like Street Fighter IV to a tier list, a sheet of data and a graph of moves and counters; the lost is on you.

I play games for fun. Obviously, you will get better the more you play, but I don't want to reduce the experience to a bunch of predefined moves. That is like using a recipe for having sex.

 

[GaM Pancho]

I have no problem with people playing to win, but it's how some people try to win is what gets me, biggest example would be Left 4 Dead, camping in a tiny bottlenecked room until the rescue vehicle arrives? Where's the fun in that? Personally I'd find it much more enjoyable if there's actually danger involved, not only is it boring it's massively unfair on the Infected team in a Versus game

 

[Laura.]

I like to win, but not all the time. In Battlefield: Bad Company, I used to get together with my friends a lot and fuck around. Knifing each other, chasing each other down in tanks, seeing who could crash the heli into the most enemies. We had the most fun by all going special ops, getting a jeep, and laying down all of our C4 on one side of the truck. We made that jeep fly all the way across the map once.

Doing that kind of thing rocks. It's even more fun that playing the game the way it's meant to. I used to do stuff like that in Op. Flashpoint with 4 or 5 friends and we would have a great time. (also in the good old BF1942 )

We all try to win when we play a game, that's the objective, but when someone becomes obsessed with beating everyone else no matter what, things gets boring.

 

[evan573]

you play game to have fun and winning enhances every kind of fun BUT it also makes you have less fun than what you started with if you lose a winning streak. after a while the playing isnt important its the winning.

basically winning in games is like putting ecstacy in your coffee. it makes you feel very good until you lose that buzz then you throw tantrums and rage quit, but you soon come back for more. then it becomes all about the ecstacy and not the coffee. and you become THAT GUY.

Fin

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

Your poll had too many options for my brain to align with. However, here's the explanation. My experience with competitive gaming is that there are 2 types of people out in that world. Those who care and those who don't. Those who don't win, those who do cry about it.

Sorry about that. And please elaborate on your thing about there only being two types of people in the world. What does that make the guy in the article?

And for the record to everyone else: for me, winning is fine and all. I definitely try my best when I'm playing against someone else unless it's like my little brother who is not yet on equal ground as me. However, I'm not so completely into wanting to win that the game isn't fun when I lose (though it's still somewhat annoying if I'm being crushed several matches on end). If I am being crushed in such a way, then I can just come back later when I'm back on form. No frustration.

 

[lordofthepickle]

I was playing a game of Insurgency(first-person shooter, middle east setting) today when I was shot by some talkative German player who when I asked him "what!?" replied in broken English "you were standing still, I like your gun" when team-killing is a part of your plan to win you need to take a break and think why your playing, it cant be for fun. I personally prefer fighting on a disadvantaged team, the urgency is always an extra edge, whether it's sending troops to fill a breach in Total War or regrouping behind vehicles in the aforementioned Insurgency, clawing something back is always more satisfying than ganking an inexperienced team.

 

[Gyrefalcon]

I don't think playing to win in and of itself is bad.

Exhibiting poor sportsmanship and using vicious tactics on new players is.

There is no faster way to insure you will play a game alone than to utterly pound new people into the ground. You have to be able to bump your playstyle down a few notches or allow the other person to play the game on the easier settings and build up.

I feel bad for people who are overly competitive and "have" to win. At everything. All the time. I've seen people who would probably play against a 3 year old just so they could win against yet another person. It is the modern equivalent of stealing candy from a baby.

I don't mind good players. I don't like killjoys. But the article isn't really bad, it is a touch smug but mostly it is saying, "don't complain the engine is broken, work to develop new moves so you can be a better player regardless". And it does bother to remember that we all start off as "scrubs" or new players. The article was okay, but I'm in a good mood right now so I'm not reading much extra into it. ^-^