fun or not.

[sander66]

Heyaz all

i've been in a discuss with badboy,
and we were talking about games..
.i told him that we play games to have fun .. he told me that we play games to be the winners and don't care about others..
i want your vote about this..

[thosholm]

uh-oh, very big, very loaded subject.

It basically comes down to co-operation vs. competition.

from Cooperation and Competition in Humans and Animals
Edited by Andrew M. Colman

Cooperation and competition are the very foundation stones of social life. It is difficult to think of any form of social behaviour, whether primitive or sophisticated, simple or complex, that is neither cooperative nor competitive at its most basic level. This is because a person's or an animal's behaviour, if it affects others, is generally calculated either to promote the common interest or to give an advantage to the individual at the expense of others.

Another influence is whether the game you play is made a.) to be won co-operatively, b.) to be won competetively, c.) to be won at all.

Also the culture in which you as a player grow up in, has an influence. The US is mostly far more individually competetive with less stress on societal co-operation, while in Europe it is mostly the other way around.

So a lot of factors come together, and the mix thereof can be very interesting.

[grimjim]

In most computer games all you're playing against are ciphers, computer controlled meaningless sprites.

Even in most online games, you're playing limited battles for points, in competition.

MMOs are different to those, like conventional RPGs there's much more emphasis on group tactics and complimentary characters. They're cooperative rather than competetive by default.

We've seen lately what happens when the competetive meets the cooperative, and things would go a lot more smoothly and nicely for everyone if they thought about other people's fun as well as their own.

There's a lot of Badboys out there though

[marct]

Not a fair poll, I cannot vote, becuase I believe I actually fit into every single one of those categories.

EDIT: Our game is a No-Win/everything is a win game, with many individual games therein. I play to win at small goals, am willing to help others become winners at what they wish, believe in survival of the fittest, believe in teaching those that wish how to become fit and survive, and would likely care less if an ignorant body is evolved out of the game(thus losing and me beating them?)

Noin.

P.S. Look at my sig, I am the last 'Windermeer Male Fashion Champ'. Now that is a small individual victory. Does it make me better than the rest, no. But it makes me an individual.

[gillest]

I say winner/care,
competition is sane for people as long as respect is present.
Olympic games example: Even tho the Baron said: "The most important is to participate", those worlwide champions are here for the title (as well as the emotion I agree).
Leveling/competing to the top is not to step on people to be the topman but participating actively to the race, and for that you need to believe in your chance to win (even tho its just a dream)

[akm72]

Depends on the game of course

Most games are competitive, and there is no point in playing them if you don't try to win. That said, RPGs are slightly different, being more like cooperative storytelling even when the players are enemies in-game.

But there is equally no point in playing if you AND the opposition arn't having fun. If you play in a way that deprives the opposition of fun, don't be surprised if they decide not to play in future.

The best competitive games are those that are close. In which the outcome, whether you win or lose, is in doubt right up to the end. Beating an obviously weaker player is only fun for a***holes, but beating (or losing to) a player that is your equal can be fun for both.

[norvic]

Fun first always and not at the expense of others, but in a situation where there is competion ,ie the temples, then winning is always nice too