On "Competitive Games" and "Fun".

[Caliostro]

(Note: Competitive game - any game where 2 or more people compete against each other.)

I've gathered you here today to discuss one of gaming's most controversial expressions: Fun.

First of all I think we can all agree that "fun" is a completely subjective concept. What's fun for me may not be fun for you, and vice versa. I'm ok with that. Some people think first person kill-a-thons are all the rage, others think racing games are swag and a half, etc.

My problem, however, starts when this nearly meaningless term is used in defense of an otherwise indefensible game or position. Usually to justify or defend randomness and/or what I'd consider, for lack of a better word, "low skill" play. This problem seems exacerbated as the term is usually leveraged against people who play to win (extensively the quintessential objective of pretty much every competitive game ever), instead of playing towards some arbitrary and undefined goal of "fun".

"That game looks pretty stupid due to this, this and this mechanics because of this."
"Well... it's FUN!"
"Why?"
"Because... FUN!"

"This weapon in this game is objectively worse than this other one, because of this and that."
"But...FUN!!"

"You're just using one move/tactic!"
"Yeah, because it's working, because you're not doing the incredibly obvious counter."
"BUT THAT'S NOT FUN!"

I've often been accused of not playing games "for fun" because I utterly destroy the competition. Or because, in an attempt to help them improve, I demonstrate that their tactics are unreliable or objectively inferior to other available tactics. Words like "Try hard" are often used online in an attempt to, my best guess, emotionally wound someone for, god forbid, actually trying to achieve the objective of a competitive game - to win, and being extensively successful at it.

Apparently, if you're not playing a stupid random game, with stupid random tactics without trying to win, you're not playing for "fun".

See, I always thought I extensively played games for fun. Like, every single time ever. In fact, that was the whole reason I played games. I thought I derived my fun from successfully completing the objectives of the game. Which is why I chose to play those games, because completing these goals seemed like fun. I played competitive games because I found it fun to compete against other players to see who is the best. This seems to be the entire essence of voluntary competition. If you don't find it fun to pitch your skill against another player's, why would you play competitive games? If you're not playing a competitive game to win, why are you playing it at all?

This leads me to a few questions:
Why do you play competitive games if not to win?
What is this mythical "fun" property I've yet to see defined?
What makes a game "fun" for you?

Mic is on your side. Take it away folks.

 

[DoPo]

Why do you play competitive games if not to win?

Well, sometimes I play them just for the hell of it, and to feel awesome. If I win, then that works too, but it's not my main motivation. So, I suppose the answer those times is "for fun". However, you (and I) can have as much fun when tackling the system and finding the best ways to use it against our enemies. Or in other words, to win. Fun and win aren't really exclusive, it's just doing what you define as fun and how you approach it.

What is this mythical "fun" property I've yet to see defined?

See above. It's just what you think it's fun. Say, I may want to play DotA just because I want to use the goblins to mine the shit out of things and blow stuff up. My main goal isn't to win, since I'll be satisfied even if we lose. Or playing Worms isn't about beating the other player(s) - it's about the lols to have on the way. I've played against friends and we even give suggestions to each other how to make the most hilarious kills, even if we're in a "serious" battle (as opposed to, "let's try to make the most over the top explosions and stunts).

What makes a game "fun" for you?

Depends on the game and depends on my mood. Sometimes it's winning, sometimes it isn't. There is no "correct" way to play a game.

 

[Don Savik]

I just got out of one of the worst League of Legends matches I've ever done. Our team was HORRIBLE. Just absolutely getting destroyed by the enemy team. I tried the entire game to turn it around, but I knew that no matter what happened our team was just not going to win. One person on my team however, a raging troll of the worst kind (and racist because he kept calling our team "-explicit- americans"), would not chill out despite me telling him to just have fun and stop freaking out because we aren't going to win this.

His response? "how can you have fun? This game is made to win" (yes terrible engrish)

I can't possibly fathom how he thinks. I play to win because, yes, its a competitive game, but its still FUN. I like killing minions and getting ganks with awesome champions using awesome abilities. I don't understand why you would give yourself an ultimatum of FUN or WINNING when I can have both very easily with no effort involved.

Because if a game wasn't fun, then why would I play it? If this troll didn't find the game fun then he wouldn't be playing it either, despite what he said. I don't think people know what "fun" means. Fun doesn't mean dicking around like an idiot, it means enjoyment.

 

[Kahunaburger]

That's why I like TF2 - sometimes you want to wreck face with a perfectly placed pipebomb, sometimes you want to run around slapping dudes with a fish. Generally (in contrast to, say, CoD) players who are having fun doing the latter don't whine about players who are having fun doing the former.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

That's why I like TF2 - sometimes you want to wreck face with a perfectly placed pipebomb, sometimes you want to run around slapping dudes with a fish.

This for me too. You can play tf2 and be as competitive as you like, unless you want to be spy and there's already three on your team, but you can also muck around to a ridiculous extent.

 

[Aircross]

There are games designed to play competitively like Dota 2 and there are games designed to play casually like League of Legends.

I play competitive games to do my best. Win or lose, if I performed well I'm happy.

 

[skywolfblue]

(Note: Competitive game - any game where 2 or more people compete against each other.)

I've gathered you here today to discuss one of gaming's most controversial expressions: Fun.

First of all I think we can all agree that "fun" is a completely subjective concept. What's fun for me may not be fun for you, and vice versa. I'm ok with that. Some people think first person kill-a-thons are all the rage, others think racing games are swag and a half, etc.

My problem, however, starts when this nearly meaningless term is used in defense of an otherwise indefensible game or position. Usually to justify or defend randomness and/or what I'd consider, for lack of a better word, "low skill" play. This problem seems exacerbated as the term is usually leveraged against people who play to win (extensively the quintessential objective of pretty much every competitive game ever), instead of playing towards some arbitrary and undefined goal of "fun".

"That game looks pretty stupid due to this, this and this mechanics because of this."
"Well... it's FUN!"
"Why?"
"Because... FUN!"

"This weapon in this game is objectively worse than this other one, because of this and that."
"But...FUN!!"

"You're just using one move/tactic!"
"Yeah, because it's working, because you're not doing the incredibly obvious counter."
"BUT THAT'S NOT FUN!"

I've often been accused of not playing games "for fun" because I utterly destroy the competition. Or because, in an attempt to help them improve, I demonstrate that their tactics are unreliable or objectively inferior to other available tactics. Words like "Try hard" are often used online in an attempt to, my best guess, emotionally wound someone for, god forbid, actually trying to achieve the objective of a competitive game - to win, and being extensively successful at it.

Apparently, if you're not playing a stupid random game, with stupid random tactics without trying to win, you're not playing for "fun".

See, I always thought I extensively played games for fun. Like, every single time ever. In fact, that was the whole reason I played games. I thought I derived my fun from successfully completing the objectives of the game. Which is why I chose to play those games, because completing these goals seemed like fun. I played competitive games because I found it fun to compete against other players to see who is the best. This seems to be the entire essence of voluntary competition. If you don't find it fun to pitch your skill against another player's, why would you play competitive games? If you're not playing a competitive game to win, why are you playing it at all?

This leads me to a few questions:
Why do you play competitive games if not to win?
What is this mythical "fun" property I've yet to see defined?
What makes a game "fun" for you?

Mic is on your side. Take it away folks.

Trying to be analytical and technical about it kinda misses the whole point of "fun".

Fun is a simple, and highly subjective reaction that a player has to something. It's not a laundry list of criteria, it's a spur of the moment feeling. Trying to categorize it ends up putting you into a situation where "X has all the criteria I have listed, therefore I must find it "fun" even though I hate it".

People don't have to "Win", or even be very good at a game at all, but they can still have fun.

 

[Strain42]

Because some people just have fun doing different things.

I don't play any FPS games online because I don't find them fun.
I don't play fighting games against other players because I don't find it fun.
I don't play Pokemon against other...you know where this is going.

The point is even if I love all 3 of those things by myself, I might not find them fun against other people. I enjoy them in my own way, and I should respect people who want to enjoy the game their own way.

To use an argument that I know everyone on The Escapist loves and can relate to, sports.

When you have sports, there's gonna be a winner and a loser. That doesn't automatically mean the losing team isn't going to have any fun.

If you're gonna question why people find certain video games fun in different ways, you might as well ask why anyone has fun doing something you don't get, and if you're gonna start questioning the very concept of why people have fun...you might want to get a hobby, so you can have some fun of your own.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I have to agree with the OP. While I don't expect everyone to play a game the exact same way I do, when the explicit goal of a game is to win, the fun for me comes from striving to reach that goal. In a fighting game, I'm not having fun unless I'm trying. That doesn't, contrary to the belief of some, require that I win every match. In fact, I've had extremely enjoyable sets where I'm getting stomped a decent amount of the time. It's the learning and growing. It's the mind games and the technical advancement. It's starting to read your opponent and counter what they are doing. That's where the fun is found.

This is also why deliberately playing poorly just to give the other guy a chance actually makes the experience worse for both players. The higher level player is forced into a position wher ethey are not playing to their peak and aren't learning anything. The lower level player is being handed the victories they are achieving and, as they aren't achieving them honestly, feel patronized and don't get better.

If you don't take a competitive game seriously, that's up to you, but bear in mind that by doing so you're not only deliberately making the experience worse for a competitive player but you're also, in their eyes, actually insulting the game itself.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well like you said mate it is highly subjective, so the play style you do is fun for you but not for others and that is a big hump to climb over and comprehend.

As always in any multiplayer setting you should gravitate toward communities that uphold standards you agree with, just like you decided to join a gaming forum instead of a KKK thing...
Only problem are modern matchmaking games that leave you with no control over what kind of monkeys you end up playing with.

 

[deathninja]

Avid WoT player here, it gets as competitive as hell (even worse when you get nationalists involved...), sometimes it's cheap, nasty and downright abusive when you go 15 vs. 15, but the good matches, with jokes, banter, fun and challenge make it all worth it.

Similar experiences with BF3 (MW3 is too frenetic to get a rapport going), you just have to take the rough with the smooth in these things.

 

[Squidbulb]

Well, for me, winning easily every time isn't fun. Fun is the only reason to play games, and you don't necessarily have to win to have fun. I'll always try to win, but I don't care if I lose. However, I won't go out of my way to complete a task that isn't fun purely for the challenge of completing it. I never go out of my way to get achievements, because I don't need a medal to tell me I'm playing the game right. In fact, I hate the idea of any game telling you how to play it.

 

[getoffmycloud]

I think what the OP is trying to get at is why would you play a competitive game if you are not going to contribute to winning like people who play objective game types but never go for the objective and just try to get kills or doing some other utterly useless thing. I myself have no problem with people using really bad tactics in games or whatever they want as long they are trying to contribute in some way then I'm fine with it.

 

[Space Spoons]

As I understand it, some players play just for the fun of playing the game. Like, the act of playing is fun for them, regardless of the end-result. I can understand that.

Personally, I'm very competitive in games where competition is encouraged, and nothing annoys me more than players who don't try their best to win, but that's just me. I avoid the players who just play for fun, and they avoid me. It's win-win.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

I play competitive games for....fun? Damnit...well, I guess a better answer would be that I enjoy the competitive spirit that comes with fighting games. It's always enjoyable to me to see what people come up with to kick my ass and perhaps eventually figure out their strategy, eventually beating them consistently.

Second question, I think you kinda answered yourself. No one can definitively say what it is since everyone has a different defintion.

So yeah, I play these games because I'm a masochist.




...Just kidding, I play them for the experience of learning and growing as a player. This is strictly referring to fighting games, though.

 

[Belaam]

Different tastes.

One of my best friends and I have noticed an interesting trend: in fighting games, he tends to win 90% of the time, while in sports games, I win about 90% of the time.

We usually play fighting games because I can easily have fun talking trash and working on getting my victory rate up to 15%. Fighting games: fun for both of us. He gets frustrated losing over and over again in sports games. Sporting games: fun for just me.

So we usually play fighting games, or Civ IV or V, where we are pretty evenly balanced.

The key thing for me is the camaraderie and social nature of multi-player games. Which is why I almost never play FPSs online.

TL;DR Losing a game while getting better at it can still be fun. Winning can still fail to be fun if you're listening to people whine.

 

[Terminate421]

If a game can balance competitive aspects extraordinarily well like Halo: Reach, I am one to enjoy the hell out of it.

 

[Goregasm]

The growing popularity of the phrase "tryhard" is actually pretty handy.

It's a simple, 2 syllable phrase that lets you know anything else that might potentially come out of that person's mouth is not worth listening to.

Handy-dandy.

 

[StriderShinryu]

The growing popularity of the phrase "tryhard" is actually pretty handy.

It's a simple, 2 syllable phrase that lets you know anything else that might potentially come out of that person's mouth is not worth listening to.

Handy-dandy.

This is very true. It is just another term that, when used, instantly activates my mental ignore function.