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

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I think the difference between "playing for fun" and "playing to win" does not mean these terms are mutually exclusive. Someone who plays for fun could be overwhelmingly good at a given game, but they enjoy beating the crap out of other players. The ones who cry foul on these players are merely the ones who don't have a grasp of the game mechanics on par with the one player who destroys everyone. What they're complaining about is that their fun has been ruined because they stand almost zero chance of being effective against the good player. However, if your "play to win" attitude means that you sulk and pout if you aren't the top player of a match (ragequit!) then I think you've gone over the line from fun into competitive jerk.

For example, I'm really good at Guitar Hero/Rock Band on guitar or bass compared to basically everyone I know. I consistently beat them all in any kind of competitive mode, but I have fun merely because I'm able to play the song at a high level, not because I crushed someone else. If I do happen to lose, I don't throw a hissy fit, because I know there are guys out there who can 5 star Jordan (Dustin, you punk) on Expert.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

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

This would be the ideal situation/tactic if the game were real life, but it's not, so I wonder about players who use strategies like this. Yes, you're basically guaranteed victory, but it seems like the game becomes more of a chore than an avenue for entertainment.

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

Found an interesting page on TV Tropes that seems to define overly competitive players. Meet the Stop Having Fun Guy.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys

 

[dadadahahaha]

Playing to win, but never taking it too seriously. I wouldn't exploit the game either.

 

[SimuLord]

Playing to win is good, since winning feels a lot better than losing does. But there's a limit. In general, if one person's playing to win makes everyone else have less fun in the process (whether it's from cheating, overuse of the words "noob", "fag", and "gay", or otherwise being a total dick), then it's not acceptable. At the end of the game, the winners and the losers alike should feel like the thrill of competition contributed so that even the losers, while stinging from the defeat, want to play again because they had fun in the effort.

Mind you, I can't stand people who don't give a flying crap whether they win or lose---those people are a giant defeat sandwich served to your team, and it's no fun to beat them in individual contests either. Everyone should be trying to win, nobody should be trying to be a gigantic douchenozzle.

EDIT: As an aside, sometimes it's necessary to stomp someone into the ground so completely and utterly that they never dream of playing against you again. My wife is a notoriously poor winner who loves to gloat, so when I played her at Rise of Nations we started on the standard settings and I won the game by Territory Victory before she even had a chance to build her first military unit. The next time we played, she tried the Rush strategy and I built defenses, out-teched her, and nuked all her cities while she was still stuck in the Gunpowder Age. She won't play multiplayer anything with me any more, which is fine by me---I love her, but she's an irritating opponent and no fun to play against.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Playing to win is fine. Playing dirty or overly agressive to win is bad. If your really good, its fine to pwn. But if you use dirty (or nooby tactics such as RPD with grip, stopping power and deep impact) is not good.

 

[AhumbleKnight]

In my opinion, if you stop playing to have fun, something is wrong.

I may be aberrant, though.

Agreed.
I play for fun. Winning is an added bonus. Also, included in the 'fun' aspect is the challenge. I consider a challenging game to be a lot of fun. I would rather loose with skill while having fun than win using some cheap win strategy.

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

The entire point of a game is to be entertained. By its very definition, that's what a game is. Once something is played competitively, it ceases to register as 'fun' to me. Competition is taken too seriously for there to be any kind of enjoyment in it (Smack-talking on the sofa excluded).

 

[Nutcase]

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...

I don't see anything "self-proclaimed" about Sirlin's expert status when it comes to playing to win and competitive game design. You seem to have a bone to pick with him, but he is an expert, period.

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.

It's like we read a different article. Do you see the part where he discusses a scrub who knows all the moves and has a pretty good idea of tactics? The difference is attitude.

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...

Bugs are part of any game. The point you missed was that most bugs do not wreck the game, in fact some of them may eventually make the game better. (Insert examples about Starcraft's muta stack and stop lurker here.) That's why there needs to be careful consideration whether such a bug/glitch needs to be banned. And only the people who know the game well - the experts - can really be qualified to say how the glitch affects the overall balance.

 

[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...

I don't see anything "self-proclaimed" about Sirlin's expert status when it comes to playing to win and competitive game design. You seem to have a bone to pick with him, but he is an expert, period.

Ok, go look up the words self-proclaimed - he himself is claiming to be an expert of said game therefore he's a self-proclaimed expert; your the only person here claiming he is an expert... Your other points are meaningless because I've already addressed them, you just ignored them.

 

[Joshimodo]

It really depends on the game (though no competitive game warrants cheating or cheap tactics).


For example, something like UT 2004, Starcraft or CS:S, it's more focussed on winning than say, Halo or PGR.

 

[The Maddest March Hare]

Playing to win is fine by me so long as you don't go around sabotaging the opponents. Play and have fun, if you're the best there then you will win. If you're not the best you most likely won't win, but if you're playing to have fun as well you aren't missing out on anything. I play to win, in the sense that I play and want to come out victorious. I might not, and I won't feel bad if I don't.

Although, at option 2, I have no problem with campers. If a sniper can sit in one spot for the entire match and not lose, then he's obviously good. If he has been there a while everyone will know where he is and be attempting to take him down. If he can survive that and win without having to leave his post then he deserves that win. I don't like camping on timed survival style matches though, because the person who is camping is hiding to win, not actually taking part, at least the sniper was taking part. I also hate spawn camping, as that is cheap and ruins other's enjoyment. -prepares flame shield to protect from people who hate all forms of camping-

Spamming people, using cheap tactics that undermine the entire gaming experience such as hacking and aim-bots and other things like that are where I draw the line. Aim-bots and hacks aren't fun for you, you're not even doing anything, and they're not fun for others because you're just being a prat. That kind of 'playing to win' is bad.

 

[Cuniculus]

Playing to win, and playing to have fun should be the same thing. Why play if you aren't going to at least TRY to win? Why play if you aren't at least having A LITTLE fun? There are lines. Using exploits, not following the rules, and just plain hacking are wrong. If you can't win by the rules set in the beginning, don't even bother.

Such as, I have no problem with camping. However, if the match starts with a huge banner that says "NO CAMPING" that's a rule you should follow. It was stated very clearly in the beginning.

 

[El Poncho]

I have realized I suck at gaming so I just play for fun

 

[ohgodalex]

I play to have fun. If that means that I win, and my opponents are upset about the manner in which I won, then that's just too bad.
Basically, unless I think I can have more fun by not winning a match, then I will take whatever seems like the most amusing route to victory.

 

[Yutu]

I have an intense hatred and disinterest towards multi-player competitive video games...because since my head is bigger than the moon, I play to win. When I start playing competitive games, I become a whiny as hell, and I constantly start complaining about annoying game mechanics and how irritating the players are.

It usually doesn't change no matter what mindset I take when starting the game. I could have just been paid $1000 and had just attained inner peace, and I would still rage about Ken players doing shoryukens eight hundred times in a row. It's just better that PvP based games stay right where they are, i.e., in the bottom shelf of a closet on Mars.

 

[GuerrillaClock]

Winning's great and all, but I'd prefer to have fun. When someone camps in a corner for an entire match, I often think "are you really having fun?" and I suppose that's where I draw the line.

I don't see any problem with trying to win, but I'd never resort to cheap or spamming tactic because there's really no fun or challenge in it.