Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@Sidstyler.
EVERY gamer prefers well defined intuitive rules that lead to well defined and ballanced game play, dont they?

A great rule set allows players to choose the level of competitivenes and narrative they want to use.

A poor rule set limits the game play drasticaly.(Eg play the way the developers do, or the game just fails to deliver.)

A purley narrative game is senario driven.BUT having good game ballance allows the gamers to acuratley define how imballanced the senarios are.

A competative game should be elegantly and efficiently written, to allow narative to added, easily and creativley if the gamers want to do so.

A poor rule set has very little in the way of balance, and has too much complication to allow naturaly flowing narrative.(40k is a prime example of 'double poor' game development.)

helium42 wrote:

Eilif wrote:[

mrondeau wrote:I don't usually post, but I keep seeing the same misconception and it's driving me crazy....
Competitive gamers do not care about winning. Winning is irrelevant to competitive gamers.

I don't buy this for one second.

Why can it be so hard to believe that some competitive players prefer having a competitive game more than winning? The favorite game I have ever played was a game that I lost. It was very close and came down to a couple things happening that could either win it or lose it for me. I would rather lose every game like that than win a bunch of games that weren't very competitive, that were decided on turns two or three.

I don't disagree with you, (especially with the part I bolded). I lose alot and have a great time doing so, and I'm sure there are competetive gamers who feel the same way.

However, Helium 42 didn't just say what you did. They took the giant step beyond by making the ridiculous blanket statement that "Competitive gamers do not care[u] about winning. Winning is irrelevant[u] to competetive gamers".

That's what I don't buy.

Winning may not be the only thing that most competitive gamers care about, but every competitive gamer I've met cares about it and I've yet to meet a competitive gamer who thinks it is "irrelevant".

Eilif wrote:

helium42 wrote:

Eilif wrote:

mrondeau wrote:I don't usually post, but I keep seeing the same misconception and it's driving me crazy....
Competitive gamers do not care about winning. Winning is irrelevant to competitive gamers.

I don't buy this for one second.

Why can it be so hard to believe that some competitive players prefer having a competitive game more than winning? The favorite game I have ever played was a game that I lost. It was very close and came down to a couple things happening that could either win it or lose it for me. I would rather lose every game like that than win a bunch of games that weren't very competitive, that were decided on turns two or three.

I don't disagree with you, (especially with the part I bolded). I lose alot and have a great time doing so, and I'm sure there are competetive gamers who feel the same way.

However, Helium 42 didn't just say what you did. They took the giant step beyond of saying that "Winning is irrelevant to competetive gamers".

That's what I don't buy.

That habit, by some, of basically responding to "I like X" by "no, you don't, you like Y" is, frankly rather annoying.
You can tell me what part of the game you like, but you can't tell me what part of the game I like.

Yes, I don't care about winning. That's not the fun. I play the game, so I'm trying to win. Otherwise, I'm not playing, I'm trolling the other player.
That does not mean that I care about winning. I care about the challenge.
An easy win is boring. A challenging loss is fun.
I don't want to win, I want a challenge.
I won't hesitate to field an underpowered unit that I like, but I have, literally and often, decided not to field some units because I thought that they were overpowered.
All competitive players I know fell the same.

Given your posts, you either think that I'm lying or that you know what I think better than I do.
Which one is it ?

I'm objecting to the blanket statement and it's patent disconnect from reality and logic.

Some folks are taking my statements to mean things they don't. I'm not lableling anyone a WAAC, or that guy or even saying that all they care about is winning. I'm not saying any of those things.

I'm saying that Competitive players compete and and you can't compete if you don't care at all about winning. If you aren't playing with the objective to win, you aren't competing (see the recent badminton kerfufle for real-world implications of this)

It's just a simple matter of logic that for a player to be competitive, winning has to be one of the things they care about.

There's nothing wrong with caring about winning, but let's not kid ourselves by endorsing the logical fallacy winning is irrelevant to competitive gamers.