On "Competitive Games" and "Fun".

[Vegosiux]

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.

The moment the word "skill" starts flying around, I get a little snide. Twitch gaming and reflex-depended gaming have nothing to do with skill. You don't train your reflexes, you condition them. Just like Pavlov conditioned a dog to drool when he hit the bell.

Also, "skill" has nothing to do with the metagame, either. After all, who has to show more "skill", a player who munchikns his way though by min-maxing, or the player who takes their own, sub-optimal route?

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.

Okay, so you're awesome, and exceedingly successful at winning. Good on you, why am I getting the feeling that you only made this thread to show off how you're playing games "the right way" as I read further and further down?

Incidentally, do you ever call other people who you percieve worse as you names or lol at them? Because that's no different really.

See, the problem is that speaking in such a fashion, you come across as a little self-centered, as if you consider yourself a superior breed or something, and as if you want to look like you're somehow better at life than the next guy.

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

Or maybe that's just a silly misconception on your side, stemming from the fact that you need to validate your own approach to gaming as the "right" one"...or that you simply don't (or don't want to) see how anyone could have a different motivation.

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.

So you no longer think so? Why? I'd think some comments from random noobs you crushed under your awesomeness wouldn't be enough to hit a nerve and make you question whether or not you're actually having fun.

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?

Silly answer: So you have a question to ask.

Serious answer: Not sure I could give you a satisfactory answer here. There was a local archery contest around my place. I took part, even if I knew I'm not likely to score too highly, and winning is out of discussion. But what the hell, I still wanted to shoot some arrows, so I went.

I also took part at a local Warcraft 2 contest-kind-of thing years ago, and I spent most of that time just doing my own thing, stirring up some trouble here and there, and generally not giving a rat's ass whether I win or lose the game. Seriously, I even played humans simply cause I liked their character quotes better.

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

It has something to do with how time spent on an activity feels good, and you've been entertained for the duration.

What makes a game "fun" for you?

Absence of self-absorbed, high-and-mighty egotistical gits is a factor that contributes quite a lot. Incidentally, I'm not a big fan of multiplayer games.

Other than that, if I'm having a good time, I'm having a good time.

And this is coming from someone who has played "competitively" in the past, has also been very successful at several games, mind you. I sometimes still go into a game of something with mainly winning in mind (rarely, because of my aversion towards those gits that seem to be plaguing every community lately), but sometimes I prefer to enjoy the walk as opposed to the destination.

Your average competitive gamer, though, I can't stand that guy. When he loses he'll rage, when he wins he'll gloat. I prefer people who are pleasant company, and pleasant opponents.

 

[aattss]

For one thing, what does it matter? You gain exp and whatnot while they enjoy theirselves. Why complain?

Oh, and as you see, people play competitive games because.... Sometimes they play because an actual human is more clever than robot players, not to mention they're funner to play against. Sometimes they like helping eachother out. Sometimes they like seeing a well-planed plan or trap fall into place, like the time in kag when I put two team doors above two trap bridges and some spikes, so the enemies digged through the doors from above and fell through the trap bridges into the spikes, where they died.

 

[The Wykydtron]

Well I just went through one of the worst League of Legends games ever. The entire team was AD, Master Yi left 5 minutes in and everyone had the bright idea that my Sona should go solo mid because hey why the fuck not?

Wait she's a support? And works best when supporting friendly champions? Oh nooo, that's- nooooo!



It was still kinda fun in a morbid "it'd be interesting to see how badly we're gonna fail" type way. Sona is always fun to play though, at least for me. Hanging around the back of the team just throwing heals, movement buffs and freakin' double damage autoattacks (Power Chord + Lich Bane FTW) is just fun to me. I love me some spin2win Katarina action on the side though XP

I've recently stopped giving a shit about my rank in UMVC3 and have gone through a complete overhaul of my team. I've never had so much fun in this game ever.

Jill, Vergil, Morrigan. Fucking. Yes.

This team has seen me from 7th Lord all the way back to 9th Lord, Look at all the fucks I give, none! The characters are just fun. Especially Morrigan. Dat Drill Kick.

Jill is technical as fuck but soooo awesome! That Spinny Gunfire Hyper doesn't get enough credit. It's basically an easier to use Weapon X Prime (courtesy of X-23) it seems to go through almost anything.

"You're outta luck! Target sighted!" *brakka brakka*

The overuse of the taunt button still enrages me though. If I see Wesker's taunt animation one more time i'm going to fucking punch my TV.

Still so hype about Persona 4 Arena. Gonna end up throwing matches away just to land the instakill to finish dem bitches. XD

So Aigis, Swagtagonist, Chie or Naoto?... Mitsuru can be considered also XP

"Adieu!" *Le poke*" K.O. Such a cool instakill.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Some people enjoy shooting the opposite colored dudes, some people enjoy jumping in the moat to their death repeatedly. Which is better? Neither. The reason we play games is to have fun. Now lots of people get competition and fun mixed up mostly because winning is fun. They are separate things though as you can win and be bored and have fun while losing (notably losing while in the company of friends). Now when people are losing, usually repeatedly, they get frustrated and start saying dumb things and we get terms that are vapid and pointless like 'try hard' and people get their feelings hurt. That is a separate issue from analyzing fun in games, that's an issue of people being frustrated and inappropriate venting their rage. They clearly are not having fun. A more serious issue is griefing where someone has fun by making others not have fun. Unfortunately such actions benefit one group but are detrimental to the other and as such are discouraged in game hopefully netting an overall increase in the enjoyability, i.e. fun, of the game.

Now if you want to understand your fellow gamer you must understand that not everyone is playing to be competitive and not everyone finds competition fun, and that if you are good and other people tend to lose a lot, they will get frustrated and not have fun because of you. Having fun is not directly related to a display of 'skill' for everyone. 'skill' is also a poorly defined category and some people have different notions of what makes up skill and thus different ideas of what display of skill is fun. In short, as a general rules, not everyone thinks like you and some people lash out saying dumb things when frustrated. I think that covered some of your general issues, and unless you'd like to give specific context, I hope that is a valid response to your thread.

 

[SageRuffin]

"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!"

If you play a lot of fighting games, you catch this argument by a lot of people who either don't play as much, or simply are as good a player as you may be. I play [insert playstyle here] with [insert character here] from [insert series here] for my enjoyment, not yours.

This leads me to a few questions:
Why do you play competitive games if not to win?

A friend of mine once had a difficult time understanding this concept. Above all, I'm going balls out to win. Learning what to do and where is a byproduct of that process.

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

I think this is one of those "eye of the beholder" kinda situations. I like shutting up shit-talkers in MK9 (I despise rage-quitters, but hate-mail doesn't bother me that much for some reason...)

What makes a game "fun" for you?

Like I implied earlier, I play a lot of fighting games. I don't mind losing, but I don't take very kindly to "curb-stomps" (mainly Perfects, unless you really are that much of a beast). On the flip side, I don't like playing against "scrubs" either, because it's not fun if my abilities aren't being pushed.

That's about the best answer I can give without going off on a wild tangent, so hopefully this will suffice.

 

[TehCookie]

People have different ways they like to play, you may want to help them improve but some people want to figure it out for themselves and don't care if they suck. Some may not like the better play styles, I play fighters I mash buttons and see what happens, memorize combos isn't fun to be. Not to mention you sound like a jerk when you tell people how to play. And now time to be a hypocrite and if you're not having fun playing a game you're doing it wrong.

Also when it comes to game mechanics people have different opinions, I like turn based combat but a lot of people don't. If you say a game is bad because it has turn based combat I would disagree. Unless you mean an objectively broken part of the game, but then you could just be seeing the dirt on a white dress and not looking at the whole thing.

Also worse weapons can be more fun, if you have a gun that shoots bullets and does 100 damage and a gun that shoots dead raccoons that does 30 damage knocks over the enemy it may be weaker but it could just be funny to use. Not to mention a kill with the joke weapon would be a lot more difficult and satisfying than the normal one even if they lose the match.

As for the last one it really depends on whether you're looking at the journey or the result.

 

[Winthrop]

Not sure if you are only talking online or not. Split screen or system link, I mean there are a lot of ways to have fun beyond winning. Its just spending time with friends. Sometimes the way to have the most fun is to just run in a room with a machine gun and try to Rambo everything to death. Its a silly little thing and if you get a kill doing it it can be really fun. Sometimes, the joke weapon or whatever is fun too. I once played a round of Halo Reach with 300% speed and I got all of my kills by using evade to ram into people. It was a good time. My friends and I all found in funny and had a good laugh. I don't play with my friends to win, I play to enjoy the time I have with them be it by having a legitimate match or by playing jokingly. Whatever will bring me the most entertainment is what I do.

Now thats different in Online games (provided its not a private match with friends in which case I treat it like split screen). If I'm with randoms, I try to do well to not ruin there time. That said if the team is doing poorly I don't want a guy screaming at everyone in chat. Because when that happens, no one is having fun. The screaming guy is upset that he is losing and the people getting yelled at have there time ruined by the angry guy. And when people take it that seriously, its hard for me to believe they are having fun.

 

[Muspelheim]

I'm a fan of a particular kind of "fun" myself.

http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2012:Fun

It's odd, but sometimes, failing miserably can be more fun than obliterating the obstacle and "winning" the game. Winning/victory is fun, too, but you know you're on to something as a developer when even a stinging defeat is still a wonderful experience.

Just to give an example; while setting up an undefeatable, stable and clean fortress in DF could be considered the goal, it's rather more fun to manage a starved, half ruined fortress with layer after layer of abandoned or barricaded tunnels and shafts with a population so close to the very edge that they make leather thongs out of each other at the slightest disturbance. Winning and being awesome isn't really than fun compared to the charm of something just barely holding together.

But that aside, I see your point. Failing in multiplayer but still having fun? Lovely, it's good to have fun. But don't drag the team down, practice to get better. It'll be even more fun when people aren't calling you a dickdildo all the time.

 

[WanderingFool]

Well, I dont usually play MP games for "fun". I play mostly single player games, or atleast MP games which dont have a strong focus on PvP (like Borderlands or ME3's Co-op) for fun.

Games like COD... well thats actually odd, as by in large, I hate COD, yet I still get drawn into playing the MP parts of it (I did good this time, I dont own MW3, so im not raging from it) dispite the fore knowledge that im gonna end up quiting because of bullshit. I dont find COD fun at all, so I can only see my constant return to it as being drawn to the competitive nature of the game. I never play a game like COD for fun, its always to win. And I hate it...

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

This leads me to a few questions:
Why do you play competitive games if not to win?

I play competitive games because I find them fun. Not too unlike our SF III and AE 2012 matches, I go in expecting that I haven't invested the time, effort, or skill to be able to play functionally with you. You're going to stomp me, but I'm going to try and take a round with Dan Hibiki, because it's fun to do quarter-circle forward taunt supers.

I don't think I'm going to win. When I play MvC2 online on PSN, my goal is to connect with all three characters' Raging Demon-style super. I expect I'm not going to do as well as the best, but I'm going to give it my fullest in-game effort when I'm playing, and poke fun at myself in-between.

I don't think I'm going to spend hours and hours out of an online match learning frame-counting, combos, and adjustments for characters' ranges, armor-breakers, and punishable frames. I'm not even certain I'd care enough to watch tournament-level play for extended periods. Instead, I try hard when I'm in-game, but I'm not interested enough in taking the Excel spreadsheet-level of commitment, because to me, that's not fun.

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

It varies from person to person. The way I tend to look at it is like books. To me, we'll single out FPS titles as the competitive genre of choice because it's the one with which I'm most familiar. So, for the sake of this analogy, all first person shooters are books. We'll say that the more high-speed, high damage titles like Call of Duty are like Tom Clancy novels. They're technical and scaled to understanding of knowing weapons, sidearms, and movement and aim speeds.

And games like Unreal Tournament are a little more popcorn-y, able to be picked up and read through on an airplane. There are some depths and high-low moments and dynamics, but for the most part, it can be a bunch of people flailing on the keyboard with flak cannons and still be fun.

I like games that are a combination of the two, which I'll go ahead and single out as sort of urban fantasy-style FPS titles, like Battlefield or Blacklight: Retribution. Games like these are a little technical, a little popcorn-y, and my favorite genre to poke around with. I like urban fantasy novels for the depths and the popcorn. I prefer games like these. I enjoy derping around, but still making an effort to play well.

However, never been a huge fan of Tom Clancy, but I've read one or two of his novels I enjoyed. Same with Call of Duty. I'm not going to exclusively use the top-tier weapon, because I like futzing about SMG-style weapons, even if they aren't astounding. I'm not going to try as hard as I can to always-win-forever, because I have more fun with my submachine monster, even if I'm not going to win. Conversely, some people have fun, to use my previous example, some people find watching combo videos and tournament play really fun. I don't. Different strokes, be you a Tom Clancy fan, or some who enjoys Laurell K. Hamilton.

What makes a game "fun" for you?

For me, enjoying myself. Be that trying my hardest to absolutely win, like in the case of the Soul Calibur series, or using Roll/Servebot/Hayato in MvC2 knowing full well my goal is to prevent a perfect loss. It depends on the game, and how I enjoy it.

That said, I can also understand the basic concept of calling someone a "Try hard," whether or not I agree with it. Trying to play my brother on any 2D fighter isn't fun because he's just so much better. I don't enjoy the games enough to really, really sink my fingertips into the frame-counting, alpha counter, optimal punishment combos in order to be able to play. It's, simply, not at all fun to me. In fact, it feels like both work and punishment in order to pass the "You must be this good to play" bar.

So people like "try hards," despite that I hate the term, genuinely do make games not fun. The sort of people who would learn to count cards and play poker on Saturdays with their work buddies and win every single hand. While it's good that you strive to improve your game, consider your venue when picking your strategy. You wouldn't use years of sleight of hand practice to cheat your coworkers out of 4 hours of Saturday night poker between buddies, in the same vein, you shouldn't use tournament-level play in casual competitive games, especially if the opponent isn't interested.

To come back to my previous example, I wouldn't rewrite 50 Shades of Grey for Lord of the Rings or Dune fans. Conversely, I wouldn't expect a fan younger fan of Harry Potter to likewise enjoy the index-laden Dune novels. It's different strokes, and having an awareness of whether or not you'll like X and Y, or just X or just Y. Playing hardball with casual gamers is as obnoxious as signing up for hardcore fighter tournaments just to master a character that can teleport just to run away and run the timer just to do it. It's about knowing your venue.

Knowing your audience, and playing with them at that speed, can be fun. Likewise, playing a different speed from your opponents either too weak and wasting their (occasionally limited) gametime or too strong and dominating every other player just isn't fun for everyone.

Just my two cents.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

I'm kind of with you OP, if I'm playing LoL and I ask why somebody isn't doing a certain thing that could improve their game and our chances of winning, and they reply with "ITS JUST A GAME, IM HAVING FUN, DONT BE SO SRS", I get kind of confused.

For me the "fun" in games is figuring out/learning tactics, how to win and actually putting thought into the game, rather than just mindlessly spamming abilities/bullets etc. I don't see the fun in not bothering to try up your game and just losing over and over because you insist that playing badly compared to most players if your way of "having fun". (This is all based on competitive games like LoL I might add). I want to know where the fun comes in getting utterly destroyed because somebody can't be bothered to think about the interesting parts of the game, but instead just "has a wild stab" at trying to play it. In my experience its very frustrating to be crushed at a game you know nothing about.

snip

Sorry, but I got kind of annoyed at your post because I can't help but feel you're bringing personal experience of other competitive players to stereotype that OP here, nowhere did he use the word noob, nowhere did he say he enjoys crushing other players, nowhere did he say he likes feeling superior. He said he likes to play multiplayer games how they were designed to be played, and go for the objectives etc.

I get the feeling you've been railed at before for not playing games competitively before and just get really spiteful when anybody questions people not playing certain games competitively.

 

[Joccaren]

\
Why do you play competitive games if not to win?

Honestly, for fun. Winning isn't the only way to fun. If it were, Sports would not be so popular as there is almost always one side that will lose every match, but keep coming back because they find it fun.
I play to screw around with my friends mostly. In BF3 we see if we can do Ludicrous things, like jump the Jeep of Damavand Peak, have it fly, and land it without it blowing up [Success!], perform a successful tank dodge of a bullet flying on a trajectory to directly hit our tank by moving it Sideways [Not driving forwards whilst facing sideways, actually sending the Tank flying sideways compared to the direction its treads are facing. Success], doing Spec Ops drop ins with silenced weapons for a Heli, killing enough people to get to the next Heli, Tank or Jeep, then flying/driving out of there.
I don't find Competitive online BF3 fun because you'll always get the people who only care about their fun, and only think fun is in winning. Grenade spam down Metro, Epic Pro Heli and Jet pilots that are unkillable, People sitting in highly defensible positions with their whole team, unable to lose even a single person. I'd be fine with a lot of this if the teams were balanced, but they are quite often stacked instead. I guess this leads me too...

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

It differs from person to person, and game to game.
I generally find its proper balance in the game so there is enough challenge to hold your attention, but not enough to give you no chance of succeeding.
For example, in your fighting games, imagine if a new character was added that could 1 hit everyone in the first second of the game, but you couldn't use him. You go online, and someone else uses him, and kills you. Its not fun. The guy says you can defeat it 'cause there's this other guy that has an invulnerability he can activate for a couple of seconds, but you never seem to be able to get it up fast enough. Would that be fun? No. It wouldn't. That's what many people feel like when you just ROFLstomp them. Its not fun, as you're not playing fair. Sure, you're not breaking the rules, but you take no consideration of their skill level, and just play to win. I find its generally more fun to play to win, but at least give the other side a chance. A few times in BF3 there has been one stacked team that swapped across one of their best players for one of our worst, and gave us a free base just for a more entertaining fight. It worked for us, as we had some temporary hope that we may be able to win this, and it worked for them as whilst their victory was assured, they got to play the match for longer and have a little bit of challenge, rather than just ROFLstomping us.

What makes a game "fun" for you?
\

In general, balanced challenge. I can play and win if I do well, but I'll lose if I don't. Not I can play and win even if I troll the round, or I can play and lose even if I do the very best I am able to at this time. That's not fun. That's just crap.

 

[Launcelot111]

Fun and multiplayer is a difficult pairing because there are some people who have their fun by winning at all cost, no matter how repetitive or cheap or no fun for anyone else that strategy is.

Personally, I want to win, but it's more important to me that I do it in a way that amuses me. In my Call of Duty days, I got wrecked with every setup I had until I gave up on guns and just ran around and stabbed everyone to death. When I play Halo 3, I do well and win often, but I like to see how successful I can be using nothing but plasma grenades and the alien squirt gun (I don't know what it's actually called but I'm talking about the alien battle rifle equivalent) instead of racking up 25 kills in the back of a Warthog. When I play FIFA, I get less enjoyment from winning than I get from losing with Cameroon. When I play SSBM, my favorite character is Pichu. When I play MvC3, I feel better at the end of the day charging headfirst with She-Hulk right into a Sentinel's lasers than I do when using the Sentinel myself. The fact that whatever random event is happening on the screen makes me happy is of infinitely more interest to me than making sure that I'm following the proscribed method of reaching in-game victory. When those two events overlap is when I enjoy a game the most.

 

[Vegosiux]

Sorry, but I got kind of annoyed at your post because I can't help but feel you're bringing personal experience of other competitive players to stereotype that OP here, nowhere did he use the word noob, nowhere did he say he enjoys crushing other players, nowhere did he say he likes feeling superior.

It's a pattern I sensed. An archetype, if you will. And, uh, I don't see how I could speak from anything but personal experience. I might be wrong, of course, but I'm cynical like that.

He said he likes to play multiplayer games how they were designed to be played, and go for the objectives etc.

I didn't know that multiplayer games were designed to be played in a certain way and anyone not playing that way is doing it wrong.

I get the feeling you've been railed at before for not playing games competitively before and just get really spiteful when anybody questions people not playing certain games competitively.

Nah, I just don't like the "stop having fun" guys [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys]. I think I explained quite clearly why I get cranky in my post, maybe you've read it. Tho I admit I do get railed at, often because I don't own a universal cure for people's stupidity, so their silly antics are my fault or something.

By the way, what was that "personal experience and stereotyping" thing you were trying to chew me out for?

 

[ChildishLegacy]

I didn't know that multiplayer games were designed to be played in a certain way and anyone not playing that way is doing it wrong.

Objective: something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target:
-Dictionary.com

 

[Fanta Grape]

As with pretty much all discussions on video games: It depends on the game.

I won't really bother to discuss it in detail because I don't play mmo's or fighters, etc, but I will talk about Team Fortress 2. I've got some decent experience with about 1700 hours and pug/scrim experience and it infuriates me to see 4 snipers and 4 spies on each team. I'm here trying to convince one of them to try and go medic so I can be their pocket soldier, or for them to go a power class so I can heal them. Instead, what I get is a bunch of sydney sleeper snipers who really aren't interested in playing to learn and grow, and instead trying to get a high kd without actually helping the team. Remember, TEAM Fortress 2. And then they say, "Just let me have fun," when their ideals of fun is actually having a negative effect on the people around them. A hacker could be using cheats to run around the map and instant kill everyone, and to him, that would be "fun", but that doesn't make it right. Why? Because it's having a detrimental effect on others.

If they were using a unique strategy or an underused weapon, and being SUCCESSFUL with it, or can properly justify their use, or just want to experiment to see the effectiveness, sure. There's absolutely no problem with that. But equipping a weapon because it's an unlock, and therefore better, is what I see as a call of duty mentality that doesn't mesh with Team Fortress 2. I think people should want to get better at the game. My favourite times of playing are when you're working as a well oiled machine and so is the enemy and you're requiring strategy to try and win. I'll be chatting to my friend on skype, having a laugh, but trying to help my team.

And yes, there's times when I'll put on a sticky launcher and caber, but if my team keeps losing immediately without being able to do anything, then I'll switch. The game's a lot about responsibility. Trying to defend yourself by saying, "I'm just having fun and that's all that matters," is not an excuse.

 

[Vegosiux]

I didn't know that multiplayer games were designed to be played in a certain way and anyone not playing that way is doing it wrong.

Objective: something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target:

Hitting me with a dictionary isn't going to make your point, since what is or isn't an objective when a game is concerned is a rather subjective thing. And that's before we even get into the priorities.

 

[aattss]

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/576373

It's not the destination, but the journey.

 

[The Abhorrent]

The issue with competitive players is that they often get too caught up in the idea of "winning is the only thing that matters", and as result tend to think others share the same mindset. Admittedly, it's a very common mindset... but it need not be the only one.

Non-competitive players don't place as much value on winning, though they still enjoy overcoming challenges and completing adventures; they just want to do on their own terms and without having to compare themselves to others, or at least not have the competitive mindset shoved down their throats. Doesn't help that the competitive crowd has a strong tendency to aggressive, tenacious, and demanding. These players can also enjoy playing with others, but still prefer a more relaxed atmosphere.

I guess it's something like trying to explain introversion to an extroverted person - they just don't get it. There might actually be a fairly strong connection right there, come to think of it; competition seems inherently extroverted.

---

Believe it or not, this divide has arguably ruined many games for people; potentially on both sides, but I'm tempted to say the non-competitive crowd has gotten the short end of the stick here. Competitive players are merely annoyed by the other sides more relaxed outlook, while non-competitive players have the very fun of the game sucked out of them.

We don't care if a certain way is best!
We don't care whether or not we're using it!
Winning would be nice, but we don't have to win every time!

We just want to have fun, right now!

---

Online gaming may be a competitive player's heaven, but non-competitive players it may as well be a personal hell... unless your preferrences coindentally match the optimal setups. Even then, a shift in the balance of power (via a patch or whatever) could still lead to the forced removal of what you once enjoyed; being forced into a playstyle you don't enjoy, optimal or not, isn't fun unless you really want to win. That, and it can be hard to stomach the hyper-competitive culture (not to mention it's notorious lack of maturity & civility). While those revelling in it may not notice, but it's far more annoying than the occassional players not being as competitive as you are.

It might be more bearable if the competitive players showed some more sportsmanship, but the online gaming community isn't one I have high hopes for in that respect.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

I didn't know that multiplayer games were designed to be played in a certain way and anyone not playing that way is doing it wrong.

Objective: something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target:

Hitting me with a dictionary isn't going to make your point, since what is or isn't an objective when a game is concerned is a rather subjective thing. And that's before we even get into the priorities.

It's not subjective that the goal for everybody playing something like LoL or DotA is to try and win the game. There is no other way around it, if somebody goes into a game saying "I'm going to have fun by running around in circles all game", they ARE doing it wrong because they are stopping the other 4 people on their team from doing what they want to do (what the game was designed for no less).