Games shouldn’t satisfy people who just crave winning no matter what.
It’s as absurd as saying that some people want art to be beautiful, some want it to be meaningful, and some want it to just be boobs, and that you should satisfy all of them.
Games should have a point, and winning is not a point on its own. People who focus on winning are typically and almost exclusively the ones that make games become shittier and shittier. And not just games but anything that can remotely have a “win”.
I’d argue there’s room for both - however, the real enemy is capitalism as any game could have a well-balanced casual and competitive modes, but they take time and care which costs money and most games forced to extract money not support fun at the behest of boards, shareholders and c-suites.
But any close examination will reveal that the experts are having a great deal of fun on a higher level than the scrub can imagine.
Uh, citation needed.
I don’t like that this article seems to be written by a Type-A 22-year-old whining that none of his friends want to play Settlers of Catan with him anymore.
There is a point to be made here about people having a self-improvement mindset, about not letting their frustrations take over, about not jumping to conclusions regarding which game tactics are unfair or not in an obvious bid to cover for some self-made injury to their self-esteem. And I would love to make that point.
But, there is something really important that seems to be missing from this discussion entirely: sportsmanship.
Dominating the board with move choices that are optimal but which do not respect the other players, their time, or the spirit of fair-play
Is rude.
This is sort of fine in an online context where anyone who doesn’t like you can find another lobby, but you would really struggle to do things like “gain a minor lead and then run out the timer” every match in the living room with six of your cousins, and you know exactly why.
Anyway, I strongly disagree with this article, even though we might come to a lot of the same conclusions about the… pragmatism of tournament rules, or whatever.
Games shouldn’t satisfy people who just crave winning no matter what.
It’s as absurd as saying that some people want art to be beautiful, some want it to be meaningful, and some want it to just be boobs, and that you should satisfy all of them.
Games should have a point, and winning is not a point on its own. People who focus on winning are typically and almost exclusively the ones that make games become shittier and shittier. And not just games but anything that can remotely have a “win”.
Why not? Is wanting to win not a valid motivator to play a game?
It is, but if it is your only motivator, the games shouldn’t cater to you.
I’d argue there’s room for both - however, the real enemy is capitalism as any game could have a well-balanced casual and competitive modes, but they take time and care which costs money and most games forced to extract money not support fun at the behest of boards, shareholders and c-suites.
Yes they should. Playing competitively and with a focus on winning is just as good as any other reason to play games.
Here’s an alternative perspective.
Uh, citation needed.
I don’t like that this article seems to be written by a Type-A 22-year-old whining that none of his friends want to play Settlers of Catan with him anymore.
There is a point to be made here about people having a self-improvement mindset, about not letting their frustrations take over, about not jumping to conclusions regarding which game tactics are unfair or not in an obvious bid to cover for some self-made injury to their self-esteem. And I would love to make that point.
But, there is something really important that seems to be missing from this discussion entirely: sportsmanship.
Dominating the board with move choices that are optimal but which do not respect the other players, their time, or the spirit of fair-play
Is rude.
This is sort of fine in an online context where anyone who doesn’t like you can find another lobby, but you would really struggle to do things like “gain a minor lead and then run out the timer” every match in the living room with six of your cousins, and you know exactly why.
Anyway, I strongly disagree with this article, even though we might come to a lot of the same conclusions about the… pragmatism of tournament rules, or whatever.