Game recommendation wanted (oh for crying out loud not this again)

[Winterwind]

Playing a game for the primary sake of playing a game isn't something that I easily accept when there's other people involved.

Then how does you participating in those Warhammer/M:tG groups work? Those are essentially the same, after all.

Also, what 's the problem with playing a game for the primary sake of playing a game, and how does the involvement of other people or lack thereof even begin to enter the equation?

and I'm just too annoyed at the concept of a "hit or miss" roll with a d20 to consider a great many popular ones, so it can be a challenge to even look. Don't get me wrong, I could be trying harder, but with Tabletop RPGs there's a lot of uncertainty about there not being something in the mechanics that I will view as pure BS.

Well, you know, tabletop RPGs don't actually need any sort of dice - I stand firmly by my statement that of all the many RPGs I've played, combat was simultaneously the most realistic, the most fun and the most exciting by a huuuuge margin when not using any system at all, only freeform. Though I'll admit that making freeform work requires an excellent GM, and those can be hard to find.

Still, avoiding implausibilities and "pure BS" is rather easily done with the right descriptions and dice result interpretations, and that does not require an excellent GM, merely an adequate one.

That thing people do where they just "hang out" without anything resembling clear purpose or direction? I DO NOT DO THAT. I quite frankly don't see the bloody point.

If I may suggest a point? Talking about all sorts of things. Like, for example, the questions and problems you come with to these threads. Every single thing that's been said in every single one of these threads you could have learnt in discussion with your friends, except faster, because talk is faster than typing and reading, and better, because your friends know you better than we do.

[Lheticus]

Then how does you participating in those Warhammer/M:tG groups work? Those are essentially the same, after all.

Also, what 's the problem with playing a game for the primary sake of playing a game, and how does the involvement of other people or lack thereof even begin to enter the equation?

The short answer is well...I'm a really competitive guy. I wouldn't know about Warhammer, I am NEVER going to play that. It's outrageously expensive to the point where even if I could afford it I still wouldn't want to blow that freaking much dinero. As for MtG...I feel a correction is needed. My issue is not playing a game for the primary sake of playing a game, my issue is with playing a game for the sole sake of playing a game--as in there is not the barest possibility that I will get anything out of my decision to play the game other than having played the game. In FNM drafts, this is not the case because they follow Swiss tournament formats, are structured and organized, and offer store-credit prizes. Even if they DIDN'T offer prizes they would still qualify because the fact that it's a tournament structure alone makes even just the "bragging rights" palpable enough to qualify. But getting together at someone's house or wherever else to just play and do whatever does not.

One could argue that there are intangible inherent benefits of playing a game in that sort of scenario, and one would be right--social activity in general carries benefits. But unless I specifically want them, I'm not going to go get them. As for where involvement of other people or lack thereof comes in, I would say it comes down to a sense of achievement. PvE has as much capacity for victory as PvP--it's just that in PvP, if there's no structure to the game it doesn't feel like I'm really "winning" anything.

If I may suggest a point? Talking about all sorts of things. Like, for example, the questions and problems you come with to these threads. Every single thing that's been said in every single one of these threads you could have learnt in discussion with your friends, except faster, because talk is faster than typing and reading, and better, because your friends know you better than we do.

I may be reading way more into this than I should here, but it seems to me you believe I have WAY more friends than I actually do. Considering people not related to me that I really truly consider to be a friend, I would say seven. Heck, family only really adds two, maybe three more to that list. As for KNOWING me? There are many possible degrees of knowing me, and I would say on the non family list only one person reaches the highest possible degree and only one more when adding in family.

And another thing--people DON'T like talking to me. I tend to only go to them when I have a problem that's REALLY legit, because if I start going on about this sort of stuff or anything else I'm just thinking a lot about but isn't that critical, they get fed up with talking to me way before I'm done--and that's if they even have any bloody idea what I'm talking about in the first place!

The ENTIRE reason I love this forum so much is that I can always, always count on it for intelligent discussion virtually no matter what the topic. I CAN'T rely on my friends for that, and so I rely on GitP. Capeesh?

[Winterwind]

The short answer is well...I'm a really competitive guy.

That statement is incredibly at odds with everything else you've said in this thread. Thinking back to other threads, I can kind of see how you probably mean it... but it still strikes me as odd.

I wouldn't know about Warhammer, I am NEVER going to play that. It's outrageously expensive to the point where even if I could afford it I still wouldn't want to blow that freaking much dinero. As for MtG...I feel a correction is needed. My issue is not playing a game for the primary sake of playing a game, my issue is with playing a game for the sole sake of playing a game--as in there is not the barest possibility that I will get anything out of my decision to play the game other than having played the game. In FNM drafts, this is not the case because they follow Swiss tournament formats, are structured and organized, and offer store-credit prizes. Even if they DIDN'T offer prizes they would still qualify because the fact that it's a tournament structure alone makes even just the "bragging rights" palpable enough to qualify. But getting together at someone's house or wherever else to just play and do whatever does not.

One could argue that there are intangible inherent benefits of playing a game in that sort of scenario, and one would be right--social activity in general carries benefits. But unless I specifically want them, I'm not going to go get them. As for where involvement of other people or lack thereof comes in, I would say it comes down to a sense of achievement. PvE has as much capacity for victory as PvP--it's just that in PvP, if there's no structure to the game it doesn't feel like I'm really "winning" anything.

But... doesn't that all amount to you not valuing having fun as valid enough reason to play games? And if you don't... why do you even want to play games at all?

EDIT: I mean, I realize of course that finding that out is the ultimate purpose of those threads, but I always sort of assumed having fun was the underlying reason and you were trying to find out what "having fun" actually meant for you...

I may be reading way more into this than I should here, but it seems to me you believe I have WAY more friends than I actually do. Considering people not related to me that I really truly consider to be a friend, I would say seven. Heck, family only really adds two, maybe three more to that list. As for KNOWING me? There are many possible degrees of knowing me, and I would say on the non family list only one person reaches the highest possible degree and only one more when adding in family.

I don't believe you have more friends than you do, then; judging from what you wrote afterwards (the part I didn't quote), I probably have a WAY stricter definition of the word "friend", though (an American friend of mine who's learning German recently told me their teacher taught them Germans were much slower to use the corresponding word for "friend", and we actually confirmed this by talking about people we both knew, whom he thought I should be considering friends, while I didn't). To me, "friend" implies somebody whom one can trust implicitly, with anything, whom one can talk with about anything, and whom one knows one can 100% rely on to help one if one needs it, no matter what. Developing a friendship takes many years of growing to know and understand each other. I'm, I think, 7 or so years older than you, and over the course of my life I've accumulated seven people whom I consider friends (not counting family). I consider that to be a lot.

As far as the knowing you part goes - be that as it may, they are still going to know you better than a bunch of Internet strangers. Unless you never open up to them, and we really do know you better than they do - but in that case, well... that's not good. Not good at all.

[Lheticus]

That statement is incredibly at odds with everything else you've said in this thread. Thinking back to other threads, I can kind of see how you probably mean it... but it still strikes me as odd.

But... doesn't that all amount to you not valuing having fun as valid enough reason to play games? And if you don't... why do you even want to play games at all?

EDIT: I mean, I realize of course that finding that out is the ultimate purpose of those threads, but I always sort of assumed having fun was the underlying reason and you were trying to find out what "having fun" actually meant for you...

I don't value having fun as a valid enough reason to play PvP games, no. That's what my 3DS 1 player games are for. ;) As for why I even WANT to play PvP games then...your edit is accurate in the regard that figuring out why I do is one of the most major reasons for the existence of these threads.

I don't believe you have more friends than you do, then; judging from what you wrote afterwards (the part I didn't quote), I probably have a WAY stricter definition of the word "friend", though (an American friend of mine who's learning German recently told me their teacher taught them Germans were much slower to use the corresponding word for "friend", and we actually confirmed this by talking about people we both knew, whom he thought I should be considering friends, while I didn't). To me, "friend" implies somebody whom one can trust implicitly, with anything, whom one can talk with about anything, and whom one knows one can 100% rely on to help one if one needs it, no matter what. Developing a friendship takes many years of growing to know and understand each other. I'm, I think, 7 or so years older than you, and over the course of my life I've accumulated seven people whom I consider friends (not counting family). I consider that to be a lot.

As far as the knowing you part goes - be that as it may, they are still going to know you better than a bunch of Internet strangers. Unless you never open up to them, and we really do know you better than they do - but in that case, well... that's not good. Not good at all.

I realized too late that there's another problem aside from what I've already said--out of that list of seven friends, only ONE of them is really a gamer, and generally speaking he's incredibly uber busy so any attempt to contact him is a matter of hit and miss (and mostly miss.) Oh, and he lives in another state now so the only options for interaction at all with him are internet and phone. In fact, this is the case for all except two of my non family friends, and those two aren't really gamers. And another thing--"100% rely on to help one if one needs it, no matter what"? Don't make me laugh. Nobody's that reliable that I've ever met, ever. Everyone has their own drama and own life stuff and own BS that gets in the way of helping others--even friends. The kind of reliability you speak of is an impossibility.

[Hiro Protagonest]

And another thing--"100% rely on to help one if one needs it, no matter what"? Don't make me laugh. Nobody's that reliable that I've ever met, ever. Everyone has their own drama and own life stuff and own BS that gets in the way of helping others--even friends. The kind of reliability you speak of is an impossibility.

It works both ways. They're free to help you with your problems because you help them with their problems.

And yes, that is easier, or can be at least, than both of you trying to solve your own problems.

Perhaps what he said is an impossibility. 100%, no matter what problem. But I think you're focusing on that too much and taking it literally.

[Lheticus]

It works both ways. They're free to help you with your problems because you help them with their problems.

And yes, that is easier, or can be at least, than both of you trying to solve your own problems.

Perhaps what he said is an impossibility. 100%, no matter what problem. But I think you're focusing on that too much and taking it literally.

I tend to do that when a sore spot is hit. Sorry.

[Talderas]

The short answer is well...I'm a really competitive guy.

You aren't competitive. Nothing you've written in any thread has even remotely suggested that you are competitive. A competitive individual seeks to win. If you do not do that you are not competitive. Seeking to win involves studying the game in question to know the intricacies of its rules. It means studying your opponents so you know what they are likely to do and how to best counter it. To use MtG as an example it would mean to thoroughly understand the rules to the game so that you can look at a card and see based on its cost and abilities how to best leverage that card. It also means studying the decks that are currently in power so you know what to do to counter them. It also means using said decks if you cannot figure out a way to counter them.

What you do, as best I can tell from the posts you've made, is to construct a set of limitations and rules that extend beyond the rules of the game and use those as the framework under which you're willing to compete. No one cares about your meta rules and that's why you have such a problem.

I'm going to go back to an earlier statement. Gaming is not a hobby for you because your personality is incompatible with it. You cannot game for the sake of having fun but you cannot game in a form of competition which is acceptable to you.

[Knaight]

You aren't competitive. Nothing you've written in any thread has even remotely suggested that you are competitive. A competitive individual seeks to win. If you do not do that you are not competitive. Seeking to win involves studying the game in question to know the intricacies of its rules. It means studying your opponents so you know what they are likely to do and how to best counter it. To use MtG as an example it would mean to thoroughly understand the rules to the game so that you can look at a card and see based on its cost and abilities how to best leverage that card. It also means studying the decks that are currently in power so you know what to do to counter them. It also means using said decks if you cannot figure out a way to counter them.

This is a ridiculously constrained definition for competitive. For instance, by this definition someone who plays a game they just found without reading up on it can't be competitive. It doesn't matter if they're trying really hard to win, they didn't study the game in question.

For instance, I play a fair amount of board games. I often don't know them going in, particularly at board game events and similar. I still play to win. I still often do win, even with games I haven't played before. During the game, I'm generally analyzing everything, trying to figure out what strategies work, trying to get the better players positioned weakened, so on and so forth. By your definition of competitive, I'm not playing these games competitively. I don't buy it.

[Talderas]

This is a ridiculously constrained definition for competitive. For instance, by this definition someone who plays a game they just found without reading up on it can't be competitive. It doesn't matter if they're trying really hard to win, they didn't study the game in question.

For instance, I play a fair amount of board games. I often don't know them going in, particularly at board game events and similar. I still play to win. I still often do win, even with games I haven't played before. During the game, I'm generally analyzing everything, trying to figure out what strategies work, trying to get the better players positioned weakened, so on and so forth. By your definition of competitive, I'm not playing these games competitively. I don't buy it.

How is what you wrote any different from what I described? You were competitive with the information at hand. You didn't know what games were going to be played. You had no way to prepare ahead of time. However you certainly took on the competition, didn't seek to avoid it, and learned and adapted on the fly. You also certainly eschew tactics you might have found. Contrast that against what Lheticus openly admits. He is aware of power strategies and actively avoids using them or understanding how to counter them and avoids any sort of gaming format where they might show up.

[Lheticus]

You aren't competitive. Nothing you've written in any thread has even remotely suggested that you are competitive. A competitive individual seeks to win. If you do not do that you are not competitive. Seeking to win involves studying the game in question to know the intricacies of its rules. It means studying your opponents so you know what they are likely to do and how to best counter it. To use MtG as an example it would mean to thoroughly understand the rules to the game so that you can look at a card and see based on its cost and abilities how to best leverage that card. It also means studying the decks that are currently in power so you know what to do to counter them. It also means using said decks if you cannot figure out a way to counter them.

What you do, as best I can tell from the posts you've made, is to construct a set of limitations and rules that extend beyond the rules of the game and use those as the framework under which you're willing to compete. No one cares about your meta rules and that's why you have such a problem.

I'm going to go back to an earlier statement. Gaming is not a hobby for you because your personality is incompatible with it. You cannot game for the sake of having fun but you cannot game in a form of competition which is acceptable to you.

I agree that this definition is constrained--I would say what you are describing here is an effective competitor. I concede that I am largely ineffective as a competitor. However, I have relaxed my practice of "constructing limitations and rules that no one cares about" since this sort of thing was first brought up to me--not 100% entirely, but I'd say a great deal.

In any case, this is all besides the actual point I was trying to make, which was that I don't generally derive enjoyment from playing PvP games when the only thing I could possibly, conceivably get out of playing the PvP game is the experience of playing the PvP game. If this is a totally separate concept from being "competitive", I apologize for my accidental misuse of the term.

[GloatingSwine]

In any case, this is all besides the actual point I was trying to make, which was that I don't generally derive enjoyment from playing PvP games when the only thing I could possibly, conceivably get out of playing the PvP game is the experience of playing the PvP game. If this is a totally separate concept from being "competitive", I apologize for my accidental misuse of the term.

Surely the intrinsic experience of playing the game is the only reason you play a game in the first place?

[Lheticus]

Surely the intrinsic experience of playing the game is the only reason you play a game in the first place?

Seriously? How is that even conceivably the only valid reason? I understand a lot better now how and why you've had, let's face it, a bit of a problem with me sometimes in these discussions if this is your viewpoint. There's at least three possible reasons to play a PvP game other than for the sake of itself I can come up with right off the top of my head for this point: As a method for experiencing human contact with people with like interests, as a way to chase after the wonderful feeling that comes from experiencing a truly epic clash, as a way to "prove myself" in some vague fashion, even.

The "intrinsic experience" of playing a game is the last reason I would EVER play a PvP game! Like I said, that's what my Mario and Zelda games on 3DS are for. For those games and other PvE games, I can be content with the intrinsic experience of playing them. I tend to attempt to dictate just what that experience consists of overmuch perhaps, which has certainly been to my detriment with Bravely Default and other games, but end of day that's really all that can be got from a 1 player game. Not so with a PvP game, far from it indeed.

[Woot Spitum]

Seriously? How is that even conceivably the only valid reason? I understand a lot better now how and why you've had, let's face it, a bit of a problem with me sometimes in these discussions if this is your viewpoint. There's at least three possible reasons to play a PvP game other than for the sake of itself I can come up with right off the top of my head for this point: As a method for experiencing human contact with people with like interests, as a way to chase after the wonderful feeling that comes from experiencing a truly epic clash, as a way to "prove myself" in some vague fashion, even.

If winning (or at the very least coming close to winning) is the only thing you enjoy about a game, it won't be enough to hold your attention for the long run. Not only that, but it will prevent you from getting into any game that you don't immediately have success with.

The "intrinsic experience" of playing a game is the last reason I would EVER play a PvP game! Like I said, that's what my Mario and Zelda games on 3DS are for. For those games and other PvE games, I can be content with the intrinsic experience of playing them.

The problem is, when you aren't winning, the intrinsic experience is all you have. To stick with a game long enough to become competitive at it you either have to enjoy the intrinsic experience or simply have enough stubborn determination to suffer through hour after of hour of losing and not enjoying yourself. I can tell you for certain that the second option isn't worth it. To truly become competitive at any game, you have to love playing it. Having a competitive nature isn't enough, because you will only become frustrated with losing and wind up trying something else before you have time to master the game.

I tend to attempt to dictate just what that experience consists of overmuch perhaps, which has certainly been to my detriment with Bravely Default and other games, but end of day that's really all that can be got from a 1 player game. Not so with a PvP game, far from it indeed.

I don't think wanting to dictate overmuch what your experience in a game is simply a problem with single player games, I think it carries over into PvP games and is a big part of your difficulty in finding one that you enjoy. You don't simply want to win, you want to win with style and creativity, right?

[Lheticus]

If winning (or at the very least coming close to winning) is the only thing you enjoy about a game, it won't be enough to hold your attention for the long run. Not only that, but it will prevent you from getting into any game that you don't immediately have success with.

I didn't mention winning in that last post. Not whatsoever. The first example I gave for something derived from gaming other than the intrinsic experience of playing it has completely nothing to do with outcomes, and the second only requires me to not get curbstomped, not to win.

The problem is, when you aren't winning, the intrinsic experience is all you have. To stick with a game long enough to become competitive at it you either have to enjoy the intrinsic experience or simply have enough stubborn determination to suffer through hour after of hour of losing and not enjoying yourself. I can tell you for certain that the second option isn't worth it. To truly become competitive at any game, you have to love playing it. Having a competitive nature isn't enough, because you will only become frustrated with losing and wind up trying something else before you have time to master the game.

"When you aren't winning, the intrinsic experience is all you have." I'm sorry, what? I can't make any sense of this statement at ALL.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I like to win. But in games and in life, it's my belief that it's not if you win, it's what you win. If I get in an epic-awesome MtG game and still lose, I consider that a "win". If I meet someone who I find to be a really great guy, that's a win regardless of which of us wins the dang card game. And if what matters is what I win, then what I'm playing for matters. If I'm going to play, I need something to play for, tangible or not, dependent on the outcome of the game or not (preferably not.)

Playing for the sake of playing is conceptually alien to me.

I don't think wanting to dictate overmuch what your experience in a game is simply a problem with single player games, I think it carries over into PvP games and is a big part of your difficulty in finding one that you enjoy. You don't simply want to win, you want to win with style and creativity, right?

Replace the word "win" with "play" and it's a fair point.

[Woot Spitum]

I didn't mention winning in that last post. Not whatsoever. The first example I gave for something derived from gaming other than the intrinsic experience of playing it has completely nothing to do with outcomes, and the second only requires me to not get curbstomped, not to win.



"When you aren't winning, the intrinsic experience is all you have." I'm sorry, what? I can't make any sense of this statement at ALL.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I like to win. But in games and in life, it's my belief that it's not if you win, it's what you win. If I get in an epic-awesome MtG game and still lose, I consider that a "win". If I meet someone who I find to be a really great guy, that's a win regardless of which of us wins the dang card game. And if what matters is what I win, then what I'm playing for matters. If I'm going to play, I need something to play for, tangible or not, dependent on the outcome of the game or not (preferably not.)

Playing for the sake of playing is conceptually alien to me.



Replace the word "win" with "play" and it's a fair point.

When I say win, I don't mean winning every time, or even most of the time. To me, "not getting curbstomped," means winning at least occasionally (1 out of 10 matches perhaps). As far as playing for the sake of playing, I play video games because they are fun to play. If I find a game that isn't fun, I don't play it (at least not for long). When it comes to fun, I don't make a distinction between PVP and single player. I like games where I can more armies around on tactical maps. I also like games where I can run around shooting aliens. I like games where I can build things. When I find a game that allows me to do these things I usually enjoy it. I may end up doing poorly at it at first, but as long as the core gameplay is solid, I can stick with it long enough to become competitive.

All that being said, I think I am beginning to understand what you want out of a game. Something where tactics are more important than builds. This would require a highly dynamic gamespace, where how you use what resources or characters you have matter more than what resources or characters you have. Personally, I find turn-based strategy games do this the best, although real-time strategy games and MOBA's also do this well.

[Lheticus]

When I say win, I don't mean winning every time, or even most of the time. To me, "not getting curbstomped," means winning at least occasionally (1 out of 10 matches perhaps). As far as playing for the sake of playing, I play video games because they are fun to play. If I find a game that isn't fun, I don't play it (at least not for long). When it comes to fun, I don't make a distinction between PVP and single player. I like games where I can more armies around on tactical maps. I also like games where I can run around shooting aliens. I like games where I can build things. When I find a game that allows me to do these things I usually enjoy it. I may end up doing poorly at it at first, but as long as the core gameplay is solid, I can stick with it long enough to become competitive.

All that being said, I think I am beginning to understand what you want out of a game. Something where tactics are more important than builds. This would require a highly dynamic gamespace, where how you use what resources or characters you have matter more than what resources or characters you have. Personally, I find turn-based strategy games do this the best, although real-time strategy games and MOBA's also do this well.

I'm still a bit confused. Just what exactly IS "fun" by your definition? The closest thing by my definition is what I'd mentioned about chasing an epic clash, experiencing the thrill of a close game--that's the most fun I can ever have gaming PvP. In single player, I mostly derive "fun" from a game's humor, story, and challenge factor. Another way I have fun in 1 player is by supplanting my persona on the game's protagonist or alongside him, imagining myself IN the game, as it were--at least in games where this is possible. What your definition sounds like to me is "fun" is "what you like." I don't "like" any game inherently, I like and dislike certain things ABOUT games on a case-by-case basis.

I freaking swear, if anyone makes a Spongebob reference from this I will throttle them through the internet. <_<

[Winterwind]

And another thing--"100% rely on to help one if one needs it, no matter what"? Don't make me laugh. Nobody's that reliable that I've ever met, ever. Everyone has their own drama and own life stuff and own BS that gets in the way of helping others--even friends. The kind of reliability you speak of is an impossibility.

...yeah, as others said, you've taken that way too literally.

I'm still a bit confused. Just what exactly IS "fun" by your definition? The closest thing by my definition is what I'd mentioned about chasing an epic clash, experiencing the thrill of a close game--that's the most fun I can ever have gaming PvP. In single player, I mostly derive "fun" from a game's humor, story, and challenge factor. Another way I have fun in 1 player is by supplanting my persona on the game's protagonist or alongside him, imagining myself IN the game, as it were--at least in games where this is possible. What your definition sounds like to me is "fun" is "what you like." I don't "like" any game inherently, I like and dislike certain things ABOUT games on a case-by-case basis.

Without having the slightest intentions of presuming to speak in Woot Spitum's or anybody else's name, I'd think the standard definition of "fun" would probably be along the lines of "enjoyment/entertainment derived from an activity, for whatever individual reasons". Which may be the story, humour, graphics, music, social contacts, immersion/escapism, challenge to one's reflexes/tactical skills/strategic skills/dexterity/agility/strength/pokerface/whatever, or any of a myriad other things. When talking about a game specifically, those reasons can be intrinsic to the game in question (all of the things listed before except for social contacts) or not (social contacts, prizes for winning/playing, etc.). Most of the time, "fun" is pretty much synonymous with "what you like in a game".

I'm also pretty sure whenever anybody (apart from you) throughout this thread said something that sounded like "playing a game for the sake of playing the game" to you, what they meant was - again, with no intentions of putting words into people's mouths, and my apologies if I'm misrepresenting anyone - "playing the game for the sake of deriving fun from experiencing the game's intrinsic qualities (such as the game's story, gameplay, etc.)".


Anyhow, here's the thing I don't understand. Why do you apply different rules to single- and multiplayer games? Why can you derive enjoyment from a game directly if it's singleplayer - by directly, I mean the game's story, humour, challenge, etc., all the things you listed above - while in a multiplayer game, you seem to ignore those things for the sake of searching for fun in factors largely outside the game, like whether there are prizes or fame associated with victory? The only thing you list for multiplayer games that even comes close to being a factor intrinsic to the game in question is the search for epic moments - and that is still applying a completely different standard for multiplayer games than singleplayer ones.

So what changes between multiplayer and singleplayer? Heck, let's consider a thought experiment - what if all of the enemies and traps in one of your Mario games were controlled by a human player (who just so happened to be playing at the exact same level, in the exact same manner, as the AI does now)? The intrinsic experience of playing the game would be exactly the same - story, humour, graphics, music, gameplay, they'd all be identical - yet, according to what you said before, you suddenly wouldn't have fun anymore if you were aware of this, unless somebody offered you prize money or some similar external motivation - in spite of it being the exact same game, as far as you as a player are concerned!

[Lheticus]

...yeah, as others said, you've taken that way too literally.

Without having the slightest intentions of presuming to speak in Woot Spitum's or anybody else's name, I'd think the standard definition of "fun" would probably be along the lines of "enjoyment/entertainment derived from an activity, for whatever individual reasons". Which may be the story, humour, graphics, music, social contacts, immersion/escapism, challenge to one's reflexes/tactical skills/strategic skills/dexterity/agility/strength/pokerface/whatever, or any of a myriad other things. When talking about a game specifically, those reasons can be intrinsic to the game in question (all of the things listed before except for social contacts) or not (social contacts, prizes for winning/playing, etc.). Most of the time, "fun" is pretty much synonymous with "what you like in a game".

I'm also pretty sure whenever anybody (apart from you) throughout this thread said something that sounded like "playing a game for the sake of playing the game" to you, what they meant was - again, with no intentions of putting words into people's mouths, and my apologies if I'm misrepresenting anyone - "playing the game for the sake of deriving fun from experiencing the game's intrinsic qualities (such as the game's story, gameplay, etc.)".


Anyhow, here's the thing I don't understand. Why do you apply different rules to single- and multiplayer games? Why can you derive enjoyment from a game directly if it's singleplayer - by directly, I mean the game's story, humour, challenge, etc., all the things you listed above - while in a multiplayer game, you seem to ignore those things for the sake of searching for fun in factors largely outside the game, like whether there are prizes or fame associated with victory? The only thing you list for multiplayer games that even comes close to being a factor intrinsic to the game in question is the search for epic moments - and that is still applying a completely different standard for multiplayer games than singleplayer ones.

So what changes between multiplayer and singleplayer? Heck, let's consider a thought experiment - what if all of the enemies and traps in one of your Mario games were controlled by a human player (who just so happened to be playing at the exact same level, in the exact same manner, as the AI does now)? The intrinsic experience of playing the game would be exactly the same - story, humour, graphics, music, gameplay, they'd all be identical - yet, according to what you said before, you suddenly wouldn't have fun anymore if you were aware of this, unless somebody offered you prize money or some similar external motivation - in spite of it being the exact same game, as far as you as a player are concerned!

To answer this, I'll need to again reference my "three reasons" post. In it, I stated that in single player games, I derive fun from a game's humor--to be more specific I usually mean humorous interactions between characters--from its storyline, from placing myself metaphysically in the world of the game, and its challenge factor.

Deriving fun from three of these four sources in PvP scenarios is all but impossible. In the PvP mode of virtually any game (with the exceptions of coop games such as Portal 2) the story and game humor is distilled out, and many other things are as well leaving nothing but the gameplay itself. In the case of games like MtG that are DESIGNED for PvP, the backstories in such games are virtually mere footnotes to the game itself, or at the very least players tend to fall heavily on the Doylist side of the Watsonian vs. Doylist perspective. So story, in game humor, and placing myself in the world of the game are all right out.

This leaves nothing left but challenge factor, and frankly challenge factor in a game on its own isn't enough for me to have fun (with occasional exceptions like Cloudberry Kingdom--and I don't play such exceptions very often either and besides, that's not PvP.) I just do not derive enjoyment from challenge on its own, challenge for the sake of it. There NEEDS to be something else offered alongside a game being challenging or my interest will be zero. I came up with three potential things to fill this void: As a method for experiencing human contact with people with like interests, as a way to chase after the wonderful feeling that comes from experiencing a truly epic clash, as a way to "prove myself." It is very possible there are other possible ways to fill my need here that I've not identified, but the fact of the matter is, and to make a long story short (too late) I apply different rules to single player experiences vs. multiplayer experiences because different rules already apply to those experiences. A multiplayer game is in essence for this discussion a single player game stripped down to nothing but gameplay, and a game with just gameplay is just not enough to hold my interest.

EDIT: To Winterwind, if you still want me to address your thought experiment let me know and I will do so through PM.

EDIT 2: And in response to the first sentence, yes, that's why I apologized for it. ;)

[Winterwind]

To answer this, I'll need to again reference my "three reasons" post. In it, I stated that in single player games, I derive fun from a game's humor--to be more specific I usually mean humorous interactions between characters--from its storyline, from placing myself metaphysically in the world of the game, and its challenge factor.

Deriving fun from three of these four sources in PvP scenarios is all but impossible. In the PvP mode of virtually any game (with the exceptions of coop games such as Portal 2) the story and game humor is distilled out, and many other things are as well leaving nothing but the gameplay itself. In the case of games like MtG that are DESIGNED for PvP, the backstories in such games are virtually mere footnotes to the game itself, or at the very least players tend to fall heavily on the Doylist side of the Watsonian vs. Doylist perspective. So story, in game humor, and placing myself in the world of the game are all right out.

This leaves nothing left but challenge factor, and frankly challenge factor in a game on its own isn't enough for me to have fun (with occasional exceptions like Cloudberry Kingdom--and I don't play such exceptions very often either and besides, that's not PvP.) I just do not derive enjoyment from challenge on its own, challenge for the sake of it. There NEEDS to be something else offered alongside a game being challenging or my interest will be zero. I came up with three potential things to fill this void: As a method for experiencing human contact with people with like interests, as a way to chase after the wonderful feeling that comes from experiencing a truly epic clash, as a way to "prove myself." It is very possible there are other possible ways to fill my need here that I've not identified, but the fact of the matter is, and to make a long story short (too late) I apply different rules to single player experiences vs. multiplayer experiences because different rules already apply to those experiences. A multiplayer game is in essence for this discussion a single player game stripped down to nothing but gameplay, and a game with just gameplay is just not enough to hold my interest.

Okay, this all makes perfect sense.

Three things to note, then.

Firstly, what's the problem with co-op games, which, as you said yourself, often avoid the very problems of stripping away the things you like about singleplayer games? Is it that when you are in your "hotblooded" mode, whether you play those or singleplayer games makes little difference, while when you are in your "coldblooded" mode, neither will satisfy you, because your "coldblooded" mode requires PvP - while simultaneously being dissatisfied with even that, if there isn't enough at stake? Is this a fair representation of what's going on here, or am I misunderstanding this?

Secondly, I seem to remember you saying at some point that you beat I Wanna Be The Guy. Given that that's a game that's virtually all challenge (I mean, it has a ton of humour, sure, but there's just so much more challenge, the humour gets totally overshadowed), how did that work? Was that just another one of those exceptions that prove the rule?

Thirdly... I can't help but notice that the things you seem to like about games - story, humour - and which are not traits unique to games, are, to you, much more important than gameplay, which is. Which makes me wonder whether, maybe, a different medium, like movies, might not suit your tastes better. The one trait that you value that is, somewhat, a trait of games moreso than that of other media, is immersion... but even so, I'd expect someone who's actually appreciably into games to place a higher importance on gameplay.

And since you expressed that the very notion of liking a game for its gameplay is alien to you, let me try to explain, as vividly as I can, how that can work (at least, in one specific example, for one specific individual (which is me)), just so there is a chance you do understand how that can work, and to preclude the chance of a misunderstanding in case you actually would derive fun from all of those things and just call them something else.

Spoiler

Show

So let's look at League of Legends. I'm playing some champion in a lane, and there's an enemy champion facing me; streams of minions come from both sides to clash with each other and to be killed by us for the purpose of gaining gold and pushing the lane, in the hopes of eventually taking down the tower on the enemy side.

So then I try to last hit those minions - because you only get gold from them if you deal the killing blow yourself - dancing back and forth, trying to time my attack just right, continuously analysing which ones of them are taking damage how fast, so I know when to time my attack, and whether I'll need to use some of my champion's skills or not in case two of them will drop too low simultaneously. This is engaging; it requires focus, perception, continuous evaluation of the situation, and then it's a test of reflexes, too. That's what makes this fun - it being engaging, challenging. And every time I do it right, I'm rewarded with a nice little batch of gold, which makes it more fun still, and adds satisfaction from many tiny successes, one after the other.

Simultaneously, there's the other champion. He's a threat; when I move to last hit minions, I have to be wary of not allowing him to get free hits against me. This adds a tactical component to it; I need to keep evaluating how much I expose myself when I move closer to the minions, try to use my own minions as cover, judge whether going for that one last minion is worth it at all, or whether this bit of gold isn't worth the risk. The tactical challenge, too, is engaging; I have to keep thinking, and that's fun, too.

At the same time, I'm doing the same thing to the other champion; in between last-hitting minions, trying to get him with skills and attacks of my own. Trying to wear them down, so I can force them to leave the lane or even kill them. The other champion is, obviously, trying to avoid it, so now we are having an elaborate dance - a dance that requires utmost concentration and reflexes, because any misstep means taking damage or missing out on opportunites to deal damage. There's constant adrenaline involved. It's great.

Using my skills, I need to watch for my mana, so I'm not too spent when I really need it. Resource-management - a challenge for the mind - further engagement in the game, more fun. And I have to keep watching my health bar, and that of the enemy. His dropped low! A chance - so, spam all abilities, go in, and walk out with a kill. There, right there, you have an epic moment, when you feel really great.

Having pushed the enemy out of the lane (by getting them low or killing them), I get a few shots against the tower. It's slowly crumbling, it's health dropping with every shot I get in - which is quite satisfactory, as it gets my team this much closer to victory (or, at least, securing an objective that will help control the map and win the game eventually).

Sometimes a jungler comes to visit, mixing the whole thing up, adding a constant tension, because the situation in the lane might suddenly change.

And then there's all the strategic concerns - should I push, i.e., try to damage the enemy minions as fast as possible, so that I can get more easily get shots against the enemy tower (but also leaving myself exposed to the enemy jungler, should he attack me)? Or should I play more passively, so that I'm safer? Having to make strategic choices, on the fly, is fun, too.

Later, my team is going to group up, and then it's all about how well we coordinate. How well can I protect this ally, or snipe that enemy threat? How well do we stick together, rather than being picked off one by one? Can we catch the enemy team unaware, and take some important objective or another while they are out of position to do anything about it? How do we improvise if the enemy does it to us? Etc., etc.. There's so much excitement to be had, so many different things tested and challenged - reflexes, knowledge, tactical and strategic decision making, improvisation, teamplay and more. All of them accompanied with many successes, some small, some epic, all over the course of any one game.

And this is how one I derives fun from gameplay.

EDIT: To Winterwind, if you still want me to address your thought experiment let me know and I will do so through PM.

Well, that's all up to you - this thread and everything we discuss here is all for the sake of helping you, after all. If you feel discussing it might allow for some new insight, go for it. If not, don't.

I don't fully understand why it aught to go into PMs, rather than staying in this thread - this all is not for the sake of my personal curiosity, after all, it's for your benefit and that of anyone who wishes to help you and needs to understand you better for that purpose, after all - but, again, if you feel it's for the better that way, then go for it.

Going from what you wrote up there, I'd expect for it not to matter if the Mario-enemies were human-controlled - after all, you said that multiplayer games are usually subject to different standards because, in transitioning to multiplayer, they sacrifice the things you like in singleplayer games, which the game in this thought experiment wouldn't do.

[Lheticus]

Okay, this all makes perfect sense.

Three things to note, then.

Firstly, what's the problem with co-op games, which, as you said yourself, often avoid the very problems of stripping away the things you like about singleplayer games? Is it that when you are in your "hotblooded" mode, whether you play those or singleplayer games makes little difference, while when you are in your "coldblooded" mode, neither will satisfy you, because your "coldblooded" mode requires PvP - while simultaneously being dissatisfied with even that, if there isn't enough at stake? Is this a fair representation of what's going on here, or am I misunderstanding this?

Well...if I'm perfectly honest about it usually my problem with co-op games comes down to mostly a lack of people in my life to co-op with me and to a lesser extent either a lack of truly good, storied co-op games in the world or (as is MUCH more likely) a lack of ability on my part to access them with my limited systems. (I have NO current generation consoles.)

Secondly, I seem to remember you saying at some point that you beat I Wanna Be The Guy. Given that that's a game that's virtually all challenge (I mean, it has a ton of humour, sure, but there's just so much more challenge, the humour gets totally overshadowed), how did that work? Was that just another one of those exceptions that prove the rule?

To explain this, I'll have to go into a way of expressing the whole "stakes in PvP" thing that I hadn't thought of at the time of my last post. The way I see it, every game expresses two stories: The story present in the game and the story created by the experience of the player playing the game. So when the former is severely lacking as is the case in PvP, I can only really enjoy playing a game if the second story, the one I can create through playing it, is a REALLY good story (or at least can be.) In the case of IWBTG, knowing it was a thing was the first time I'd HEARD of the Platform Hell genre, and the guy who told me about it built it up into this legendary, absurdly difficult thing, a game where even getting anywhere NEAR close to finishing it was something not very many people at all could do. That made a really darn good story of my playing it, especially when I beat it TWICE. But now, with Platform Hells being a genre instead of one fabled game (at least in my mind) the impact is greatly diminished. I haven't even played IWBTG in years, actually.

So yeah, the reason I want something to play for other than playing the game itself in PvP games could be said to be I feel that such a thing always vastly improves the story created by me playing it.

Thirdly... I can't help but notice that the things you seem to like about games - story, humour - and which are not traits unique to games, are, to you, much more important than gameplay, which is. Which makes me wonder whether, maybe, a different medium, like movies, might not suit your tastes better. The one trait that you value that is, somewhat, a trait of games moreso than that of other media, is immersion... but even so, I'd expect someone who's actually appreciably into games to place a higher importance on gameplay.

And since you expressed that the very notion of liking a game for its gameplay is alien to you, let me try to explain, as vividly as I can, how that can work (at least, in one specific example, for one specific individual (which is me)), just so there is a chance you do understand how that can work, and to preclude the chance of a misunderstanding in case you actually would derive fun from all of those things and just call them something else.

Spoiler

Show

So let's look at League of Legends. I'm playing some champion in a lane, and there's an enemy champion facing me; streams of minions come from both sides to clash with each other and to be killed by us for the purpose of gaining gold and pushing the lane, in the hopes of eventually taking down the tower on the enemy side.

So then I try to last hit those minions - because you only get gold from them if you deal the killing blow yourself - dancing back and forth, trying to time my attack just right, continuously analysing which ones of them are taking damage how fast, so I know when to time my attack, and whether I'll need to use some of my champion's skills or not in case two of them will drop too low simultaneously. This is engaging; it requires focus, perception, continuous evaluation of the situation, and then it's a test of reflexes, too. That's what makes this fun - it being engaging, challenging. And every time I do it right, I'm rewarded with a nice little batch of gold, which makes it more fun still, and adds satisfaction from many tiny successes, one after the other.

Simultaneously, there's the other champion. He's a threat; when I move to last hit minions, I have to be wary of not allowing him to get free hits against me. This adds a tactical component to it; I need to keep evaluating how much I expose myself when I move closer to the minions, try to use my own minions as cover, judge whether going for that one last minion is worth it at all, or whether this bit of gold isn't worth the risk. The tactical challenge, too, is engaging; I have to keep thinking, and that's fun, too.

At the same time, I'm doing the same thing to the other champion; in between last-hitting minions, trying to get him with skills and attacks of my own. Trying to wear them down, so I can force them to leave the lane or even kill them. The other champion is, obviously, trying to avoid it, so now we are having an elaborate dance - a dance that requires utmost concentration and reflexes, because any misstep means taking damage or missing out on opportunites to deal damage. There's constant adrenaline involved. It's great.

Using my skills, I need to watch for my mana, so I'm not too spent when I really need it. Resource-management - a challenge for the mind - further engagement in the game, more fun. And I have to keep watching my health bar, and that of the enemy. His dropped low! A chance - so, spam all abilities, go in, and walk out with a kill. There, right there, you have an epic moment, when you feel really great.

Having pushed the enemy out of the lane (by getting them low or killing them), I get a few shots against the tower. It's slowly crumbling, it's health dropping with every shot I get in - which is quite satisfactory, as it gets my team this much closer to victory (or, at least, securing an objective that will help control the map and win the game eventually).

Sometimes a jungler comes to visit, mixing the whole thing up, adding a constant tension, because the situation in the lane might suddenly change.

And then there's all the strategic concerns - should I push, i.e., try to damage the enemy minions as fast as possible, so that I can get more easily get shots against the enemy tower (but also leaving myself exposed to the enemy jungler, should he attack me)? Or should I play more passively, so that I'm safer? Having to make strategic choices, on the fly, is fun, too.

Later, my team is going to group up, and then it's all about how well we coordinate. How well can I protect this ally, or snipe that enemy threat? How well do we stick together, rather than being picked off one by one? Can we catch the enemy team unaware, and take some important objective or another while they are out of position to do anything about it? How do we improvise if the enemy does it to us? Etc., etc.. There's so much excitement to be had, so many different things tested and challenged - reflexes, knowledge, tactical and strategic decision making, improvisation, teamplay and more. All of them accompanied with many successes, some small, some epic, all over the course of any one game.

And this is how one I derives fun from gameplay.

What it sounds like is that you're getting an incredible rush from this game--that you've caught, with LoL, the "epic" I've been chasing, and that epic is different things to different people. But really, for that I think Super Smash Bros now does the same thing for me. The constant action, moving in and out, dodging, trying to recover and damage, outwitting if he's going to try to shield or grab or not--this stuff can reach like half a dozen subconscious calculations a second, and THAT is a rush for me. At the moment, my not playing Smash Bros is again a problem of access (no Wii U :( so no real access to what is now the greater part of that community. However, this has been mitigated somewhat by recent irrelevant events.)

You stated that immersion is the one trait that games have that books/movies/tv etc doesn't have, and I thank you for that because it helped me to realize that immersion isn't just one aspect of games I enjoy, but the most vital aspect about games that I enjoy. I can derive enjoyment from books, tv, and movies, but I derive much much more from going beyond the role of a mere passive observer in whatever fiction universe I interact with. This has been true literally since the first moment I fell in love with video games. I still remember being four years old with the first game I ever owned, Super Mario World, and thinking something similar to, This is SO COOL. It's like I'M this Mario guy! Thanks for helping this click.

Well, that's all up to you - this thread and everything we discuss here is all for the sake of helping you, after all. If you feel discussing it might allow for some new insight, go for it. If not, don't.

I don't fully understand why it aught to go into PMs, rather than staying in this thread - this all is not for the sake of my personal curiosity, after all, it's for your benefit and that of anyone who wishes to help you and needs to understand you better for that purpose, after all - but, again, if you feel it's for the better that way, then go for it.

Going from what you wrote up there, I'd expect for it not to matter if the Mario-enemies were human-controlled - after all, you said that multiplayer games are usually subject to different standards because, in transitioning to multiplayer, they sacrifice the things you like in singleplayer games, which the game in this thought experiment wouldn't do.

Well, clearly I don't need to discuss the thought experiment any further anyway because you're right on the money here.

Thanks again!