Is there any point to me playing video games anymore?

[Lheticus]

Since I was FOUR years old, playing Super Mario World on Super Nintendo, I've considered myself a gamer. And for pretty much all of my childhood, this was perfectly fine. I had plenty of games to choose from that playing the way I like to play, I could beat with only a moderate amount of trouble all the way through the Gamecube area.

Around that era, though...PvP started to become a thing. When, alongside the Wii era, PvP PC games gained prevalence and became a MAINSTREAM gaming thng, I ran into an issue--in PvP, and even in entire genres (most FPS games) the way I want to play didn't really work. I still comforted myself by playing single player games that didn't involve first person perspectives, and everything was at least okay.

From the start of all this, I held to a simple ideal: Statement 1: I play games to have fun. Statement 2: Work is the opposite of fun. Statement 3: If I have to work at having fun, what I'm trying to do to have fun is completely pointless.

Along came Bravely Default. At this point, I had resigned myself to basically sucking at every PvP game that has ever existed, and that at least if I can still leave hundreds of defeated NPCs in my wake, and play the way that I want to play while doing it, I'm still a gamer. However, this has proven utterly impossible when playing Bravely Default. The game is really having me work at beating it, which violates my Principle of Fun.

If I'm struggling to play a game of my favorite genre, JRPGs, when I play the way I want to play (not overly relying on items, never grinding outside of battles I run into anyway, and a few other things) I CAN'T call myself a gamer anymore. If I suck trying to defeat real people, and I suck trying to defeat NPCs, I've got nothing left.

...Maybe I should just sell off ALL of it. :( What do you guys think?

[MLai]

This complaint is weird, because it sounds as if you've never played a difficult game in your life until now.
And that is just weird. Maybe you were just really "lucky" in your selection of Japanese RPGs.

[Lheticus]

I have played a good few difficult games, but the realization of what I'm saying--mostly the part where I play video games against NPCs to dull the pain from being such a royal piece of suckage against PvP PCs, and in fact that probably was only true as of a few years ago at most--and there is just no way for me to get that anymore, it's starting to seem like...Bravely Default is what got that point to hit home.

[The_Jackal]

Look at this comic very carefully: http://dwarffortresswiki.org/images/4/40/FunComic.png

It clarifies the role of challenge in gameplay in terms of how the rewards are enjoyed.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I dunno how hard Bravely Default is, but I'm best when playing JRPGs and ARPGs, and I ran up against a few walls in Dragon Quest IX (especially Goresby-Purrvis, my style just didn't work for him so I had to spend some time changing it up). So unless the death penalty is bad, the bosses are kinda meant to just be bounced off of until you figure out how to do it (or just grind up some levels).

[Jimorian]

It's simple. Play what you like, don't play what you don't. When it comes to your entertainment, you don't HAVE to do anything, ever. And you get to define whether you feel like a "Gamer" or not, so whatever other people say about who is and isn't doesn't matter.

[Lheticus]

It's simple. Play what you like, don't play what you don't. When it comes to your entertainment, you don't HAVE to do anything, ever. And you get to define whether you feel like a "Gamer" or not, so whatever other people say about who is and isn't doesn't matter.

Well, that would be the ideal solution but...I was 100% convinced Bravely Default would be "what I like" and it's not really proving itself to be that. I paid good money for the game, and with the elimination of video game rentals other than online services that require subscriptions, something that I'm not in a position to do, there is no way I can make such a determination anymore without major spoilers, it seems.

[GolemsVoice]

Well, most video game magazines I've read have the courtesy of not spoilering too much. so rad up on any game you want to sink your money into, watch some videos, or ask around on the internet.

[Domochevsky]

Also, if need be set the game difficult to less than Normal. It takes a bit of getting over yourself to go for "easy", but ultimately your time and entertainment is more valuable than whatever "gamer pride" you may have.

If it takes cruising through a game on a easy to find it fun then go for it. (It's what I do with the King's Bounty games. On normal that thing just kicks my half-commited ass.) :smallsmile:

[JustPlayItLoud]

I've been playing video games for close to 25 years (and I'll turn 27 in two months) and now between downloadable demos and countless thousands of hours logged I can usually tell if I'm going to enjoy a game before I even play it. Sometimes I get a dud (Knights in the Nightmare, Borderlands, Lost Odyssey, Morrowind) but for the most part I'm happy with my choices. When you do spend money on a mediocre game, oh well. We all spend money on lame games, crappy dinners, and dumb movies. That's life. It just makes me enjoy those games I play over and over even more.

The big thing is I've realized that I'm overall still ahead. For example, between Oblivion, Skyrim, and Fallout: New Vegas (total investment roughly $150) I have over 2000 hours of play time. That's less than 8 cents an hour, and I will still play all those games again. I probably have nearly 1000 hours on Chrono Trigger alone.

Some games just don't do it for you. To cite previous examples:

Knights in the Nightmare looked amazing in previews and everything. I still haven't finished the tutorial.

My deep, abiding love of Fallout made Borderlands look like a sure hit. Maybe 20 spread across three different attempts to play it.

I've beaten the other 4 main Elder Scrolls games and Battlespire and have maybe 10 hours total on Morrowind. The controls are terrible, the quests are boring, and the graphics looked terrible then and are only getting worse with time.

They all collect dust on the shelf while I contemplate yet another New Vegas play through.

Do your best to find games you'll like, try to find them on sale, play the good ones over and over, and if you're not having fun just turn it off.

[Kitten Champion]

I think your choice of gaming genre is interesting given that JRPGs are pretty much founded on the ethos of hard work + time = rewarding gameplay experience. It's the principle under which Dragon Quest introduced the concept of grinding XP from random encounters for hours on end, and why many current gamers hate traditional JRPGs.

As I understand it Bravely Default has an Easy Mode and you can adjust the random encounters to the level you want. So yeah, if its not fun, go ahead. I don't know about you, but I mostly play JRPGs to get through the narrative and enjoy exploring the setting. I usually play normal, but if I can't get through a puzzle or defeat a boss I'm totally going online to find a walk-through and just get past it. There is a point where challenging becomes annoyingly frustrating. If you can get through the story, you can say you've gotten the core experience of the game.

As to dud games, I've bought a few. Eternal Poison comes to mind, which I bought because of a lack of restraint with new years money, having anime characters and Atlus on the cover. It was crap. Extremely difficult, poor graphics, terrible voice overs, story I increasingly lost interest in with every game over, and no real fun to be had. I traded it back in for store credit and got less than a 10th of what I paid for it - having bought it just a week after its retail release - only 2 months later.

At least Bravely Default is more viable in the market right now.

[factotum]

The only point of playing video games if for entertainment. If a video game is not entertaining you, stop playing it and find another one! I'm sure it wasn't the first game you've ever played that didn't meet up to your expectations, and doubtless it won't be the last.

Really not sure what all the stuff about PVP has to do with anything--you need to get out of this mindset that you have to be playing against humans to be a "proper gamer". I've been playing games since Space Invaders was a pretty cool thing, and I've never enjoyed PVP in any form--even when I spent over a year playing WoW I only ever used to play PVE. Does that somehow invalidate over 30 years spent gaming as a hobby?

[Balain]

The only point of playing video games if for entertainment. If a video game is not entertaining you, stop playing it and find another one! I'm sure it wasn't the first game you've ever played that didn't meet up to your expectations, and doubtless it won't be the last.

Really not sure what all the stuff about PVP has to do with anything--you need to get out of this mindset that you have to be playing against humans to be a "proper gamer". I've been playing games since Space Invaders was a pretty cool thing, and I've never enjoyed PVP in any form--even when I spent over a year playing WoW I only ever used to play PVE. Does that somehow invalidate over 30 years spent gaming as a hobby?

I can't agree with this more. I have been playing video games since the 70's. I can't stand modern FPS, I rarely play PVP in MMO's. Am I less of a gamer for it?

[MLai]

AFAIC, that's because FPS and MMO multiplayer sux. Yeah, personal opinion. But point is, those aren't the only types of PvP around. Fighting games, racing games, sports games, casual-type vs games, RTS, TBS... what about those?

[Cespenar]

Your favorite genre is JRPG and you dislike grinding.

I'm probably missing something here.

[Balain]

AFAIC, that's because FPS and MMO multiplayer sux. Yeah, personal opinion. But point is, those aren't the only types of PvP around. Fighting games, racing games, sports games, casual-type vs games, RTS, TBS... what about those?

For me something about the original post made me think FPS or MMO.

There are some great PvP. I play sports game and racing games as you mentioned, Fat Princes I love. Things like Heroes of Might and Magic I love, Warcraft 1 - 3 I loved.

[Triaxx]

You've said PvP doesn't work the way you like to play. The question becomes, how do you like to play?

[Cheesegear]

Here's what I read in the OP.

I like JRPGs.
I dislike Bravely Default.
Bravely Default is a JRPG.
I dislike JRPGs.

So, you play one bad game, and now you hate all games? :smallconfused:

That doesn't make any sense.

I like RPGs. However, I dislike convoluted multiple-ending 'choice' games. I dislike Skyrim, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Fallout: New Vegas, etc. I don't like the idea that in a fictional game, that my actions have consequences, and, in choosing certain options over others, I miss out on other choices. Am I going to play the game again? Hell no. I'll just go look up the ending I didn't get on YouTube or read some spoilers. I don't care. However, does that mean all RPGs are bad? No.

Kingdoms of Amalur, Fallout 3, Dragon Age 2, Banner Saga, Final Fantasy, etc. are RPGs that I enjoy*. The 'choices' are essentially 'Get reward, or kill dude and get reward' and barely effect the outcome of the game at all. My actions don't have consequences (or not consequences that I care about), and so I am free to do whatever I want, because it's fiction and I should be allowed to.

If a play a bad game - or even a game that I just don't like - that does not mean that all games in that genre are bad.

[Tengu_temp]

Your favorite genre is JRPG and you dislike grinding.

I'm probably missing something here.

There's a lot of jRPGs where you don't have to grind at all, because jRPG tends to be a very easy genre in general.

I haven't played Bravely Default, but since that game is a throwback to the era of classic jRPGs, I presume its difficulty is ramped up a bit as well.


Look at this comic very carefully: http://dwarffortresswiki.org/images/4/40/FunComic.png

It clarifies the role of challenge in gameplay in terms of how the rewards are enjoyed.

No. This comic is a perfect example of how an arrogant "hardcore" gamer looks down on "casuals" (quotation marks because the difficulty level of the games you play is surprisingly often not a very reliable indicator whether you're a hardcore gamer or a casual one). I like challenge in my video games, but I know a lot of people who don't care about it and just play games to have relaxing fun, or for the story and characters, and who don't give a crap about the challenge. That doesn't make them worse gamers than me. Looking at other people and telling them "you're doing it wrong, stop having fun your way and do it my way", on the other hand, is definitely the sign of a bad gamer.

PS. Dwarf Fortress is not that hard anyway. It just has a steep learning curve.

[tensai_oni]

Look at this comic very carefully: http://dwarffortresswiki.org/images/4/40/FunComic.png




{Scrubbed} They think playing a harder game is more rewarding somehow, that it will "toughen you up". Well guess what - you don't play video games to toughen yourself up. You play them to have fun. There are a lot of people who live stressful, busy lives. The last thing they need is more frustration when sitting down to a game. And it doesn't mean they suck or should only play on easy mode or glorified minigames like Bejewelled or Angry Birds.

Also, in the history of gaming there has been roughly zero times when someone brought up the casual vs hardcore divide for reasons other than putting themselves on one side, and people they disagreed with on the other. Zero times. And of course the other side was the "wrong" one. There's no such thing as a casual or hardcore game. It's an artificial us vs them divide.

[Terraoblivion]

I couldn't agree more with the pair of Japanese mythological creatures. Trying to feel superior for your preference for difficult entertainment is just plain rude, as well as kinda hollow since it's ultimately just about entertainment and not something with substantial impact. It's really just a rude attempt to establish dominance over a group, so please don't do it.

Beyond that, running into a hard game or a bad game in your favorite genre isn't the end of things. There are lots of different games in any given major genre out there and not only will most of them probably be bad, difficulty will also generally vary greatly due to multiple different demographics playing different genres. So don't feel bad about not enjoy this one game for being too hard, from the sound of it I wouldn't either and I'd probably call JRPG my favorite genre.

I would recommend overcoming the kind of gamer biases I argued against in the first paragraph, though, and simply focus on playing what is fun for you. Or not playing if you find some other activity works better for you, for that matter. The great, big gamer pissing contest is toxic and one of the biggest problems with the fandom as far as I'm concerned.

[factotum]

I like RPGs. However, I dislike convoluted multiple-ending 'choice' games. I dislike Skyrim, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Fallout: New Vegas, etc. I don't like the idea that in a fictional game, that my actions have consequences, and, in choosing certain options over others, I miss out on other choices.

Don't know why you're including Skyrim on that list--it ought to be the poster boy for an RPG where your actions don't have serious consequences; heck, you can be an evil vampire who drains the blood of innocent children for sport, and so long as no-one actually *sees you do it*, you'll still be accepted just fine by all and sundry. The number of questlines where you actually *can* choose a different road is fairly minimal, all told.

[Knaight]

If I'm struggling to play a game of my favorite genre, JRPGs, when I play the way I want to play (not overly relying on items, never grinding outside of battles I run into anyway, and a few other things) I CAN'T call myself a gamer anymore. If I suck trying to defeat real people, and I suck trying to defeat NPCs, I've got nothing left.
It's not about being "a gamer" - the point of the games is not that they bestow some sort of identity upon you when you are good at them, it is that they are an enjoyable end to themselves. If they still are that, and they aren't getting in the way of the rest of your life they might still be worth pursuing. If not, that's still fine - it's good to have some way to unwind, and presumably videogames work best for that when not also spending time with people, but books, movies, academic articles, etc. do the same thing.

With that said, purging your entire collection because you don't feel you identify as "a gamer" any more is silly. I can tell you right now that I don't identify as "a gamer". I play the occasional video game* and the substantially less occasional board game or RPG, but I would never identify as "a gamer". Yet I feel absolutely no need to get rid of my videogame and RPG collections on account of this - and I somehow suspect that mine would be easier to replace than yours, given that I have one level on a book shelf in which all of my non-digital RPGs and video games fit, and few enough board games that I can basically just keep then as a single unsupported stack.



From the start of all this, I held to a simple ideal: Statement 1: I play games to have fun. Statement 2: Work is the opposite of fun. Statement 3: If I have to work at having fun, what I'm trying to do to have fun is completely pointless.
Here's your ideal, as you put it. Being "a gamer" isn't in there at all. You've also implied fairly heavily that the fun for you is in the winning itself and not in the process of winning, and that having to focus too much on the process detracts from that**. You've also basically stated that the problem game with modern games having a trend in which the process tends to be brought in focus.

This suggests two easy fixes.
1) Play on Easy mode. You want to do things easily, this just makes sense.

2) Play older games. You say you liked up through the gamecube era - have you played, for instance, Baten Kaitos, a JRPG on the gamecube? It's not like there's some obligation to keep up with the modern state of the industry. Sure, there are people who will try to claim that "you're not a real gamer" if you don't keep up with the industry. I think my previous points on the relevance of being a gamer make my opinion on this pretty obvious. I'd also note that there is some motivated definition spinning involved here. The whole "real gamer" concept is basically a way to a) attach value to being "a gamer" b) attach said value in such a way that the more exclusive the group is the more valuable it is and c) spin the definition to conveniently include you and somehow not include people who spend a lot of time playing games and consider it part of their identity. As such, that particular complaint can shove it, even if it is irrelevant to begin with.


* Even the occasional single player video game, from time to time.

** Though the process having an obnoxious tendency to be tedious in RPGs probably doesn't help here.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Look at this comic very carefully: http://dwarffortresswiki.org/images/4/40/FunComic.png

It clarifies the role of challenge in gameplay in terms of how the rewards are enjoyed.
That comic doesn't mean what you think it does.

You're missing some valuable context. (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2012:Losing)

As with anything Dwarf Fortress, the tongue is planted firmly within the cheek.

[erikun]

Take a look at some of the other video games you enjoy, and see if you still enjoy them. Maybe your tastes have changed. Maybe it's just the one game. Maybe you're not interested in jRPGs anymore, but still like the platformers and puzzle games.

I don't think there's much value in getting rid of all video games just because you dislike one, or because you dislike one genre. Reevalutation your priorities in games can be good, but there's no sense in tossing out the ones that you still enjoy at the moment.

[The_Jackal]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} They think playing a harder game is more rewarding somehow, that it will "toughen you up". Well guess what - you don't play video games to toughen yourself up. You play them to have fun. There are a lot of people who live stressful, busy lives. The last thing they need is more frustration when sitting down to a game. And it doesn't mean they suck or should only play on easy mode or glorified minigames like Bejewelled or Angry Birds.

Also, in the history of gaming there has been roughly zero times when someone brought up the casual vs hardcore divide for reasons other than putting themselves on one side, and people they disagreed with on the other. Zero times. And of course the other side was the "wrong" one. There's no such thing as a casual or hardcore game. It's an artificial us vs them divide.

I feel as though you're reading a subtext in my message that I didn't intend. Of course you play games for fun. That's what they're for. And while I've not played Bejeweled or Angry Birds to any great length, I think that it's fair to say that they also present their challenges. If they didn't, they wouldn't be games, they'd just be chores. I abhor game snobbery as much as the next person, possibly even more than most people. The OP asked why keep playing hard games, and I gave my answer. The gratification of mastering a harder game IS the point of playing harder games.

[Knaight]

The OP asked why keep playing hard games, and I gave my answer. The gratification of mastering a harder game IS the point of playing harder games.

This varies. I personally quite like the DROD series, which are a set of absolutely brutal near-perfect information puzzle/micro-tactics games. It's not the gratification of mastering them that I enjoyed - though it was nice to finally clear out a room that had been difficult - it was the struggle itself.

[Godskook]

@OP, I think this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-b91BWzLigs#t=931) contains a lot of interesting commentary on hard games that I think is relevant.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} They think playing a harder game is more rewarding somehow, that it will "toughen you up".

1."Hardcore" games simply are more rewarding than casual games. Its not that playing one way or the other is 'wrong', its that hardcore can offer every rewarding aspect of casual games and then offer other things that casual games can't. Which is to say, achievement. Casual games can't offer you real achievement. I will admit that hardcore games are less good at offering 'recovery' than casual games, but they do offer it.

2.Trying to play Hardcore games will actually toughen you up over time and offer you a wider variety of enjoyable games to satisfy your gaming desires with.


Well guess what - you don't play video games to toughen yourself up.

You're right in that this is not the normal reason to play video games. You're wrong in that some of us actually do play them for that purpose. Case in point myself with Osu!, which is a spectacularly fun game.


You play them to have fun.

Work and fun aren't actually mutually exclusive. Back to Osu!, a game I play solely to 'work at it' as a practice mode for LoL. I have a decent amount of fun playing it, but I also have to work at it to earn that fun.


There are a lot of people who live stressful, busy lives. The last thing they need is more frustration when sitting down to a game.

People who want a casual game to come home to play after work are *NOT* wrong for wanting it. That's a perfectly fine desire and nobody(I repeat *NOBODY*) in this thread has said otherwise thus far. That's also not the topic of this thread either. This thread is about the OP's conundrum, in which he's finding it harder and harder to find games that cater to his particular definitions of "casual".


And it doesn't mean they suck or should only play on easy mode or glorified minigames like Bejewelled or Angry Birds.

Nobody said any of this nor implied it.


Also, in the history of gaming there has been roughly zero times when someone brought up the casual vs hardcore divide for reasons other than putting themselves on one side, and people they disagreed with on the other. Zero times. And of course the other side was the "wrong" one. There's no such thing as a casual or hardcore game. It's an artificial us vs them divide.

1.The OP brought up the divide, and for a purpose other than to put people he disagreed with on the other side.

2.Ignoring that, there's still plenty of other instances where people bring up casual vs. hardcore without trying to cause division amongst people. Some of us actually live on both sides of the divide, depending on genre or mood, and discuss casual vs. hardcore for the sake of knowing what we want.

[Knaight]

Which is to say, achievement. Casual games can't offer you real achievement. I will admit that hardcore games are less good at offering 'recovery' than casual games, but they do offer it.

It's a video game. There's no real achievement regardless.

[Winterwind]

I can only agree with the previous posters - while plenty of people derive their main satisfaction from mastering a game, spending time and effort to learn of and think about its intricate strategies and mechanics - which pretty much requires the game in question to be difficult in order to provide that kind of strategic depth - that does not in any way make anyone who prefers to play video games purely for relaxation and gain the thrill of self-improvement from other, non-video-game-related sources, less of a gamer, nor does it make his choices any less valid or right. I feel one should give a try to the other side - just so one can be sure that, in fact, after a little effort investment, one wouldn't actually have more fun with the other approach - but after ascertaining that, don't let anyone tell you what you should or shouldn't do what it comes to your own taste.

As for finding a game you expected to like to be less fun than anticipated, well, that's always going to happen some time or another. No reason to assume it's going to happen the next time as well. If you want to improve your chances, I guess you might want to find some reviewer or another whom you trust, or spend some time asking your friends or people on forums or such, but I really don't see any reason to worry just because you have stumbled upon a game you liked less than you thought you would.


It's a video game. There's no real achievement regardless.Given that hundreds of thousands of people were watching the teams playing for a million dollars in the last League of Legends world championships, or that StarCraft has been played in front of large stadium crowds and broadcast in television for well over a decade - as far as public recognition and possible monetary gain goes - and the complexity and required effort to get to that level within said games - I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. There's just as much achievement to be had in video games, and just as much work and determination required to achieve it, as in any sport or other activity that requires a lot of practice and analysis to be mastered.

[Kitten Champion]

Achievement is always going to be a subjective thing, if you accomplish something which is important to you I would find it particular crass if someone else said it wasn't a "real achievement" simply because it's insignificant to them.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Given that hundreds of thousands of people were watching the teams playing for a million dollars in the last League of Legends world championships, or that StarCraft has been played in front of large stadium crowds and broadcast in television for well over a decade - as far as public recognition and possible monetary gain goes - and the complexity and required effort to get to that level within said games - I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. There's just as much achievement to be had in video games, and just as much work and determination required to achieve it, as in any sport or other activity that requires a lot of practice and analysis to be mastered.

Aye. And old EverQuest had achievement after a fashion too. Due to game mechanics and the way the community worked, players became known on their servers for doing certain things. The 666th Devil Dogs have become famous in Planetside for coming up with tactics like the MAX Crash. And it's not just MMO communities and e-sports. With YouTube, Twitch, and other services, you can show the world something you did in a game that was really tough.

And it's also a sense of personal accomplishment. Saying there's no real achievement in beating a hard game is like saying there's no real achievement in becoming chess champion, which is so heavily abstracted that it's tough to apply to a real situation (especially since it plays more like politics than warfare).

[Grinner]

Achievement is always going to be a subjective thing, if you accomplish something which is important to you I would find it particular crass if someone else said it wasn't a "real achievement" simply because it's insignificant to them.

I'm inclined to think that an achievement is an achievement. If someone can accomplish something that most without practice cannot, you've just made an achievement. The real question, and the place where subjectivity applies, is whether that achievement is really worth anything.

It has been expressed that video game achievements aren't worth anything. That's a fine opinion to hold, but I've wondered similar things about sports, where professional athletes are given multibillion dollar contracts. Have they really accomplished anything but proving their limited superiority? No, but that doesn't stop them from raking in cash from the fans.

[Hiro Protagonest]

It has been expressed that video game achievements aren't worth anything. That's a fine opinion to hold, but I've wondered similar things about sports, where professional athletes are given multibillion dollar contracts. Have they really accomplished anything but proving their limited superiority? No, but that doesn't stop them from raking in cash from the fans.

Yeah, I was going to say something about sports, but I held my tongue since that is athletic in nature. But sports players are massively overpaid for the job of being board pieces for the guys who actually own the teams.

[Tengu_temp]

I don't like pro-gaming. It's about taking something that was meant to be played for fun and sucking all fun out of it. It's all about finding the most optimal strategies in a system that often wasn't made with total balance in mind, and mind-numbing repetition as you slowly polish your skills, and first and foremost, winning. Winning is all that matters.

I hold similar views about most professional sports.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I know exactly what you mean by not caring for PvP games. I only ever really like playing cooperative games, if anything with other players (many cooperative games still have someone who knows what they're doing better than the other player(s), and thus, aren't necessarily any better for this phenomenon). So I think I might be in the same situation as you.

I have a solution that works for me at least. Play less. Indulging in other things instead for a while and coming back to gaming can make the more frustrating aspects of gaming (grind, difficulty, etc..) less bothersome. It's not a guarantee by any means, but playing no games for a few weeks, before choosing to start on some new game can be a fun diversion. It also helps if you don't go for a marathon gaming session. If you're having fun, sure, keep playing for 12 hours or something on a weekend, but if you're starting to find it dull, turn it off for a while and do something else.

Also, while this may not work for everyone, I have a friend I usually snark at games with. He generally doesn't like most games, but he does like seeing them. Usually, we just sit around and make fun of the more stupid aspects of the game/story. The sort of things that make no sense. (I owe almost a full playthrough of Skyward Sword to this, to give one example.)

[Seatbelt]

At some point in my gaming career I started playing games on hard. I realized that I enjoy overcoming a challenge through skill and that normal wasn't cutting it anymore.


That said, Halo on easy is hella fun. Maybe the OP needs to just start playing games on easy, and enjoy being awesome.

[Hiro Protagonest]

PS. Dwarf Fortress is not that hard anyway. It just has a steep learning curve.
Obviously, that comic represents the learning curve. :smalltongue:

There's no such thing as a casual or hardcore game. It's an artificial us vs them divide.

So all games are the same difficulty? Is that what you're saying?

It's also less "casual and hardcore" and more "casual, core, hardcore".

[Psyren]

Look at this comic very carefully: http://dwarffortresswiki.org/images/4/40/FunComic.png

It clarifies the role of challenge in gameplay in terms of how the rewards are enjoyed.

For this comic to be even close to accurate, all three ending panels should be showing the "diner" with the same level of enjoyment. Anything else is elitist bullcrap masquerading as truth.

[Kish]

*pokes at the wiki, particularly at the numerous links to the word "fun"*

I think the joke is that Dwarf Fortress players use the word "fun" ironically to mean "PAIN."

[Psyren]

*pokes at the wiki, particularly at the numerous links to the word "fun"*

I think the joke is that Dwarf Fortress players use the word "fun" ironically to mean "PAIN."

I don't give a rat's rectum how the wiki intended it. The comic itself, as a stand-alone work, is quantifying the "fun" of being brutalized by the game repeatedly as somehow being superior to that of the other two paths. This is evident in both the ecstatic expression of the diner in path 3 and the numerous boxes of "fun" behind his throne, where the other two only get one. Further, the "casual" path has its practitioner stop smiling in the final panel, as though his fun was fleeting and therefore wrong.

If they didn't want the comic to stand alone, they should either rename "fun" in the image to what they really mean, or include a footnote explaining that they're using "fun" to mean something else. So yeah, elitist bullcrap, like I said.

[GloatingSwine]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} They think playing a harder game is more rewarding somehow


Err, playing a harder game is more rewarding.

The reward is in the form of catharsis, and the catharsis is more intense the more frustration is experienced in reaching it. Succeeding at something that took effort and frustration feels better than succeeding at something which didn't.

Easy games produce the opposite effect, they produce abnegation, something to drift off into without having to put in any particular effort, usually for the purposes of relaxation. These games aren't rewarding, but reward isn't the point of them, relaxation is.

Of course, Dwarf Fortress isn't hard, it's just got an absolutely terrible interface which means that you generally have no idea what's going on and what any of it means or what options you have as a player to do anything about it until you've lost five times and read the wiki twelve.

(PS: also, you might not like competitive gaming, but some people do, because winning is fun)

[Hiro Protagonest]

If they didn't want the comic to stand alone, they should either rename "fun" in the image to what they really mean, or include a footnote explaining that they're using "fun" to mean something else. So yeah, elitist bullcrap, like I said.

Well, like I said, I think that comic just represents the learning curve, since that's what's hardest about the game, and then once you get past it, the game has a lot of things you can do.

But yes, the fact that you have to get past that learning curve is not a good thing. If the dev made a better interface, it would be easier to learn and just as fun once you got past the initial curve.

Still, I agree more with GloatingSwine than you. Getting what you want after working for it is more rewarding, although it may not be more fun. It also is definitely not for everybody, since I like my TV shows to just be fun so I can see how that would apply to games too.

[Kudaku]

I read that comic as an observation on how dwarf fortress gamers approach fun (harder games are more fun/fulfilling), not as a comment on gamers in general. Just look at the context (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2012:Losing).

[Psyren]

Err, playing a harder game is more rewarding.

The reward is in the form of catharsis, and the catharsis is more intense the more frustration is experienced in reaching it. Succeeding at something that took effort and frustration feels better than succeeding at something which didn't.

Easy games produce the opposite effect, they produce abnegation, something to drift off into without having to put in any particular effort, usually for the purposes of relaxation. These games aren't rewarding, but reward isn't the point of them, relaxation is.

The glaring flaw in your premise here is that you either believe that abnegation cannot be considered a reward, or that if it is, it is somehow less of one than catharsis. Reward simply means "positive outcome" - and both catharsis and abnegation can fall under that umbrella.

Furthermore, achieving catharsis is dependent upon overcoming the challenge, which is simply not a possibility for some people, and for others is equally simply not worth the massive frustrations endured in overcoming the challenge to get there. If you drive your blood pressure through the roof doing anything frustrating (including playing a game), then simply succeeding at that thing will not magically undo the damage and stress to which you have subjected mind and body.

[GolemsVoice]

I don't like pro-gaming. It's about taking something that was meant to be played for fun and sucking all fun out of it. It's all about finding the most optimal strategies in a system that often wasn't made with total balance in mind, and mind-numbing repetition as you slowly polish your skills, and first and foremost, winning. Winning is all that matters.

I hold similar views about most professional sports.

Well, yes, but winning is fun. So when these people play to win, they play to have fun. There's also enjoyment to be found in being good at something, no matter what, from cooking to football, and, yes, even in being BETTER than somebody else.

Winning, in the end, is overcoming a challenge, and without any sort of challenge, there would be no game. Or much fewer games, that is. If you figure out the riddle in an adventure game, you win the puzzle. If you beat the dragon, you won the encounter. If you shoot the other dude in Call of Duty 4000, you win. The challenges are different, but in the end, the fun is derived from beating these challenges.

[VanBuren]

I don't give a rat's rectum how the wiki intended it. The comic itself, as a stand-alone work, is quantifying the "fun" of being brutalized by the game repeatedly as somehow being superior to that of the other two paths. This is evident in both the ecstatic expression of the diner in path 3 and the numerous boxes of "fun" behind his throne, where the other two only get one. Further, the "casual" path has its practitioner stop smiling in the final panel, as though his fun was fleeting and therefore wrong.

If they didn't want the comic to stand alone, they should either rename "fun" in the image to what they really mean, or include a footnote explaining that they're using "fun" to mean something else. So yeah, elitist bullcrap, like I said.

If they rename "fun" in the image to what "they really mean", then you sort of lose the entire joke about how Dwarf Fortress players interpret the word. So... I'm kind of glad they didn't take your advice.

[Psyren]

If they rename "fun" in the image to what "they really mean", then you sort of lose the entire joke about how Dwarf Fortress players interpret the word. So... I'm kind of glad they didn't take your advice.

The creators of this... piece don't have to do anything, so long as they don't mind being seen as elitist jerkwads.

And renaming wasn't the only problem I had with it anyway. I also dislike the portrayal of the casual gamer as though their fun wasn't really fun.

[Godskook]

I don't like pro-gaming.

That's perfectly fine.


It's about taking something that was meant to be played for fun and sucking all fun out of it.

No the hell it isn't. I don't try to tell you what you find fun; don't try to tell me I can't find fun in what I find fun.


It's all about finding the most optimal strategies in a system that often wasn't made with total balance in mind,

1."Total Balance" is a *VERY* difficult thing to achieve.

2.League of Legends, MtG, Starcraft, CoD and many many others are designed and built with pvp in mind. I can agree that pvp in games like WoW or KoL is ill-placed(MMOs in general, actually), but that's only a subset(and likely a rather small subset) of pvp games.


and mind-numbing repetition as you slowly polish your skills,

All the greatest pursuits in life have moments of "mind numbing repetition"(including raising children and all of art), so I have trouble taking that as fair critique. On top of this, part of the pull of pvp games is that each game is fairly unique, especially in ones with matchmakers, such as LoL. There's similarities, but ultimately, each game is a unique experience.


and first and foremost, winning. Winning is all that matters.

1.What else could "matter" in a game of that nature? Serious question, here. I mean, I can think of at least "self-improvement" or "fun" but judging by your post, I don't think you think those exist in a pvp game(they do, but that's besides my point).

2.Do you just not play games you can win?


I hold similar views about most professional sports.

Can we drop the "negative things about pro-sports" guys? Its utterly useless to the OP, primarily, but secondly, most of the responses I could give are just as valid for E-Sports anyway, where at least the conversation might interest the OP.

[NeoVid]

As for myself, I hate challenge. Nothing kills my interest in a game faster than having to spend a lot of time and effort doing things other than what I came there for. This also means I hate being competitive...



(PS: also, you might not like competitive gaming, but some people do, because winning is fun)

With the possible exception of the game with the slogan, "Losing is Fun!" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/DwarfFortress?from=Main.DwarfFortress)

However, losing is another thing I hate.

[Hiro Protagonest]

...Seriously? :smallsigh:

It is basically stating that once you learn Dwarf Fortress (the really tough part of it), you have way more fun than with any other game. While it is true that Dwarf Fortress probably has more fun to dig up than casual games because of the amount and diversity of content, and the same with many other core/hardcore games like the Paradox grand strategy games, having a more accessible interface wouldn't make it worse.

[Psyren]

{self-scrubbed}


"Total Balance" is a *VERY* difficult thing to achieve.

It's not even all that desirable. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w)

[VanBuren]

It is basically stating that once you learn Dwarf Fortress (the really tough part of it), you have way more fun than with any other game. While it is true that Dwarf Fortress probably has more fun to dig up than casual games because of the amount and diversity of content, and the same with many other core/hardcore games like the Paradox grand strategy games, having a more accessible interface wouldn't make it worse.

And as someone pointed out, there's probably more than just a little bit of a tongue-in-cheek element.

I mean, that or it's a complete tonal shift from everything else on the wiki, but I fully expect Psyren to go ahead and tell me what the correct answer is.

[Hiro Protagonest]

And as someone pointed out, there's probably more than just a little bit of a tongue-in-cheek element.

I mean, that or it's a complete tonal shift from everything else on the wiki, but I fully expect Psyren to go ahead and tell me what the correct answer is.

Well yeah, I'd take it about as seriously as the 1d4chan page on Terraria, or Minecraft, or Dwarf Fortress, or anything that's not a Warhammer 40k page really, but apparently there are people who don't.

[Kudaku]

Did I stutter?


If they didn't want the comic to stand alone, they should either rename "fun" in the image to what they really mean, or include a footnote explaining that they're using "fun" to mean something else. So yeah, elitist bullcrap, like I said.

The comic does not stand alone - it is displayed on a website that specifically talks about how Dwarf Fortress players consider "losing=fun".

It's like complaining that a poster stating "negroes are not human" is in bad taste and that there should clearly be a footnote stating "this statement is untrue" underneath it when the poster is displayed in a museum exhibit of slavery.

Context matters.

[Pie Guy]

Well yeah, I'd take it about as seriously as the 1d4chan page on Terraria, or Minecraft, or Dwarf Fortress, or anything that's not a Warhammer 40k page really, but apparently there are people who don't.

You take the 40k pages seriously? :smalltongue:

[Hiro Protagonest]

You take the 40k pages seriously? :smalltongue:

Actually, only the ones that are about army-building, really. :smalltongue: But things like the Reasonable Marines are an interesting read.

I do wonder how good that 40k ruleset they made as a rebellion against 6e works, though...

[Godskook]

For this comic to be even close to accurate, all three ending panels should be showing the "diner" with the same level of enjoyment. Anything else is elitist bullcrap masquerading as truth.

Why should all 3 panels show the same level of enjoyment? All 3 do not show the same level of time expenditure(the "hardcore" panel is cut short as he's not even done with his first 'portion' of fun), or are you being an elitist casual who thinks that a minor amount of time spent playing a casual game is more fun than the *MASSIVE* amount of time one can spend playing DF?(As implied by the "..." in the comic).

Casual gaming, by its nature, has significantly less replay value than more hardcore styles. What I mean is that since the emphasis is on things such as exploration and discovery, once you've done everything in the game, you can't actually "redo it" like a hardcore player can. It won't ever be your "first time" again. Therefore, the initial consumption is all you get. They also don't cost you anything, which makes them a superior choice for people who want to relax and abnegate.

Now take that and apply it to the comic, since the comic isn't talking about the entire style of casual or hardcore or DF gaming, but rather just individual "games". A single casual game is going to be very short, have very little(if any) effort required to enjoy it, and then its over without really much in the way of fanfare(portal 2 was like that for me, even if some might consider it challenging). A hardcore game represents challenges to overcome, and as the last panel implies, there's usually more fun you can squeeze out of them even after you're 'done' with them. And then there's how the comic perceives DF, as a game with massive amounts of options in which to keep yourself entertained for a long enough time to warrant "...".

You might not agree with the comic's view of DF, but I don't think its trying to say that any particular style of gaming is better than another style.

[Psyren]

The comic does not stand alone - it is hosted on a website that specifically talks about how Dwarf Fortress players consider "losing=fun".

For the third time, the definition of fun in the context of the comic is not the only problem I have with it. It also meaninglessly goes out of its way to crap on the casual player by depicting their enjoyment as both diluted and fleeting. Repeatedly blaring "context!" does not explain or justify that negative portrayal.

Secondly, when the comic was originally linked in this thread, it was the image itself rather than any explanatory articles that might go with it. ".png" is an image, not a webpage.

And finally, I don't have a problem with believing "losing = fun." I have a problem with believing "losing = more fun."



In short, as I originally posted, the comic could have gotten its point across just as easily without showing any of the three paths as having less fun in the end than the others. That childish "nyah nyah we're better than you" mentality adds nothing to the definition they are trying to convey. The piece consciously chose not to do that, and I'm condemning it for that reason.

[Godskook]

Did I stutter?

Y'know, can you keep the unjustified vitriole pointed at the pictures instead of your fellow posters?


It's not even all that desirable. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w)

Heh, that's actually exactly the video I was thinking about when I said that.

[VanBuren]

For the third time, the definition of fun in the context of the comic is not the only problem I have with it. It also meaninglessly goes out of its way to crap on the casual player by depicting their enjoyment as both diluted and fleeting. Repeatedly blaring "context!" does not explain or justify that negative portrayal.

Secondly, when the comic was originally linked in this thread, it was the image itself rather than any explanatory articles that might go with it. ".png" is an image, not a webpage.

And finally, I don't have a problem with believing "losing = fun." I have a problem with believing "losing = more fun."



In short, as I originally posted, the comic could have gotten its point across just as easily without showing any of the three paths as having less fun in the end than the others. That childish "nyah nyah we're better than you" mentality adds nothing to the definition they are trying to convey. The piece consciously chose not to do that, and I'm condemning it for that reason.

Looks like we're at an impasse. I think you're being unreasonable and unwilling to listen, and you clearly don't see things from my perspective either. There doesn't seem to be much to gain from continuing this line of discussion.

[Hiro Protagonest]

For the third time, the definition of fun in the context of the comic is not the only problem I have with it. It also meaninglessly goes out of its way to crap on the casual player by depicting their enjoyment as both diluted and fleeting. Repeatedly blaring "context!" does not explain or justify that negative portrayal.

Secondly, when the comic was originally linked in this thread, it was the image itself rather than any explanatory articles that might go with it. ".png" is an image, not a webpage.

And finally, I don't have a problem with believing "losing = fun." I have a problem with believing "losing = more fun."



In short, as I originally posted, the comic could have gotten its point across just as easily without showing any of the three paths as having less fun in the end than the others. That childish "nyah nyah we're better than you" mentality adds nothing to the definition they are trying to convey. The piece consciously chose not to do that, and I'm condemning it for that reason.

But Dwarf Fortress does have more replayability, and more replayability = more fun. This is also true of Crusader Kings II, Dark Souls, and various other grand strategy/strategic simulation games and RPGs. There are also games which get the increased quantity of fun by having lots of things to do despite not really having different playthroughs, like Planetside 2, Company of Heroes, and various other shooters and RTS games.

There is fun in playing Bejeweled, Cut The Rope, and Angry Birds. I myself played through Cut The Rope, and it was certainly fun. But it doesn't have as much fun in it as more challenging games do. That is not to say that challenge = fun, there are plenty of hard but bad games, usually flash games that are touted as being hard, because those flash games are hard for the sake of being hard. But there is more you can do with a more challenging game.

[Kudaku]

It (...) meaninglessly goes out of its way to crap on the casual player by depicting their enjoyment as both diluted and fleeting.


The creators of this... piece don't have to do anything, so long as they don't mind being seen as elitist jerkwads.


For this comic to be even close to accurate, all three ending panels should be showing the "diner" with the same level of enjoyment. Anything else is elitist bullcrap masquerading as truth.


That childish "nyah nyah we're better than you" mentality adds nothing to the definition they are trying to convey. The piece consciously chose not to do that, and I'm condemning it for that reason.

You are taking a light-hearted joke commenting on Dwarf Fortress players far, far too seriously. With all due respect, I think you either have past experiences coloring your interpretation, or an axe to grind.

Either way, I agree with VanBuren. No point arguing this further.

@Thread headline
It seems to me like there might not be a point in you playing that game, but I don't think that's reason to give up gaming entirely.

If I really really enjoy playing tennis but I had a horrible tennis game against my neighbor, I would probably stop playing tennis with my neighbor - not give up tennis entirely. Hm... Bit of a forced analogy :smalltongue:.

Okay, better example: I really enjoy playing RTS games. However I hate playing RTS games in multiplayer mode, I typically only play them for the single-player and/or campaign story.

If Creative Assembly were to release an TW game that only supported online gameplay, I probably wouldn't enjoy it. That doesn't mean I can't still enjoy Shogun, or Rome, or Medieval, or one of their other games.

Don't drop a hobby because you had one bad experience with one specific game. Drop the game instead. :smallcool:

[Psyren]

To be clear, I'm not knocking Dwarf Fortress itself. I have no problems with the game or its fans. I just feel like the comic is going out of its way to flame or misrepresent other playstyles to make DF players seem somehow better.

Put it this way - if the comic had consisted of nothing other than the third column of panels, it would still make sense, would it not? It certainly would to me. So what merit is there in showing the casual player's fun ending in the last panel of that track?

Regardless, I'll just say I'm firmly with tensai_oni/Tengu_temp on this issue and stop there.

EDIT: And lastly, if an artist's comic needs important context from outside the comic to not be misconstrued, then that artist has no one but themselves to blame if it goes on to be misconstrued. Especially when people can do exactly what Jackal did, and link the comic by itself.


Y'know, can you keep the unjustified vitriole pointed at the pictures instead of your fellow posters?

I apologize if I came across as hostile to anyone but when someone responds to you with "seriously?" they are clearly not interested in actual discussion either.

I mean, obviously what I wrote was my opinion, it would be pointless to write something that wasn't my opinion, so that question adds nothing to the discourse.

In the interest of civility I'm editing my previous post.

[Seatbelt]

{self-scrubbed}



It's not even all that desirable. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w)

This was really interesting and thank you for posting it.

[Kudaku]

Y'know, can you keep the unjustified vitriole pointed at the pictures instead of your fellow posters?

In Psyren's defense my post wasn't exactly the height of diplomacy either. Said post has been deleted.

[druid91]

Also, if need be set the game difficult to less than Normal. It takes a bit of getting over yourself to go for "easy", but ultimately your time and entertainment is more valuable than whatever "gamer pride" you may have.

If it takes cruising through a game on a easy to find it fun then go for it. (It's what I do with the King's Bounty games. On normal that thing just kicks my half-commited ass.) :smallsmile:

General speaking, on games with stories, I don't play on anything but easy until I beat the story first.

Then I go back and try things at harder difficulties and go in for the crazed inventory/resource management.

[NeoVid]

But Dwarf Fortress does have more replayability, and more replayability = more fun. This is also true of Crusader Kings II, Dark Souls, and various other grand strategy/strategic simulation games and RPGs.

...The previously linked comic would work just as well for Dark Souls as it would for Dwarf Fortress, wouldn't it?

Dark Souls, by the way, is another example of the wrong sort of game for me. If I'm intimidated by a game, I'm better off not playing.

[druid91]

For this comic to be even close to accurate, all three ending panels should be showing the "diner" with the same level of enjoyment. Anything else is elitist bullcrap masquerading as truth.

Not really. And it's not elitist unless you assume that's all they do.

It's a simple thing, with the first you put in minimal effort, and get minimal return.

With the second you put in more effort and get more.

The third you put in a truckload of effort and eventually have a truckload of fun. Whether or not you find dwarf fortress itself to be that sort of game is irrelevant to the fact that the more time and effort one puts into any activity, whether it's a game or work, the more satisfaction one is likely to gain from it.

[Rodin]

I vehemently disagree with this. There are a bunch of casual games that I can just replayy over and over again (the giant time vortex that is Peggle comes to mind), and it's not the difficulty that makes that the case. Peggle has some extremely difficult Challenge modes in it. Guess what? 90% of my time playing Peggle wasn't invested into those Challenge modes - I did it once for 100% completion, but future play-throughs of the game were just straight play-throughs of the standard game or perhaps some of the more interesting (read: not frustrating) Challenges.

Take a "hardcore" game like Dark Souls. The most difficult portions of that game are not the points I enjoy most - quite the opposite. I go out of my way to avoid Blighttown, "that section of Anor Londo" is greeted by an "Oh THANK GOD" rather than any sort of catharsis or enjoyment.

And how do hardcore games have a greater sense of exploration? That has zero to do with anything - an easy game can quite easily be massive (see: Skyrim, Oblivion, etc.) while an extremely difficult game can be downright tiny (Bullet-hell shooters).

That you think casually playing a game involves a small amount of time with no fun shows who is being elitist, I would say. I personally enjoy both "hardcore" and "casual" games. And when I'm having fun, I don't distinguish degrees - fun is fun. If a game is too difficult, I am not having fun. If a game is too easy, I'm also not having fun. There's a butter zone in there.

Suffering beforehand does not increase the level of enjoyment. I reject the idea utterly that "easier means less time spent" and "harder equals better quality of fun".

[druid91]

I vehemently disagree with this. There are a bunch of casual games that I can just replayy over and over again (the giant time vortex that is Peggle comes to mind), and it's not the difficulty that makes that the case. Peggle has some extremely difficult Challenge modes in it. Guess what? 90% of my time playing Peggle wasn't invested into those Challenge modes - I did it once for 100% completion, but future play-throughs of the game were just straight play-throughs of the standard game or perhaps some of the more interesting (read: not frustrating) Challenges.

Take a "hardcore" game like Dark Souls. The most difficult portions of that game are not the points I enjoy most - quite the opposite. I go out of my way to avoid Blighttown, "that section of Anor Londo" is greeted by an "Oh THANK GOD" rather than any sort of catharsis or enjoyment.

And how do hardcore games have a greater sense of exploration? That has zero to do with anything - an easy game can quite easily be massive (see: Skyrim, Oblivion, etc.) while an extremely difficult game can be downright tiny (Bullet-hell shooters).

That you think casually playing a game involves a small amount of time with no fun shows who is being elitist, I would say. I personally enjoy both "hardcore" and "casual" games. And when I'm having fun, I don't distinguish degrees - fun is fun. If a game is too difficult, I am not having fun. If a game is too easy, I'm also not having fun. There's a butter zone in there.

Suffering beforehand does not increase the level of enjoyment. I reject the idea utterly that "easier means less time spent" and "harder equals better quality of fun".

They don't. TIME SPENT. Equals quality of fun. Some things are designed to encourage time spent. These are hardcore games.

In my view, Metal Slug that ludicrously difficult sidescrolling shooter can be played casually.

Something that's frustrating and stupidly hard is just annoying, and has no bearing on the argument of casual or hardcore.

[Psyren]

Not really. And it's not elitist unless you assume that's all they do.

It's a simple thing, with the first you put in minimal effort, and get minimal return.

With the second you put in more effort and get more.

The third you put in a truckload of effort and eventually have a truckload of fun. Whether or not you find dwarf fortress itself to be that sort of game is irrelevant to the fact that the more time and effort one puts into any activity, whether it's a game or work, the more satisfaction one is likely to gain from it.

This is False Cause fallacy: effort certainly can, but does not necessarily always, translate to reward or return. For example, if you are born (or adopted) into an extremely wealthy family, you have received tremendous benefit for no effort on your part.

As a counterpoint, go look at just about any AVGN review. Most of the games he covers are rage-inducingly difficult, largely due to poor design. While you can defeat most of them with "a truckload of effort," this unfairness causes only a very rare few of them to be "a truckload of fun" as a result, or at least they are fun for only a small number of people.

In short, there are people who derive hours of enjoyment both from things that you would find mind-numbingly easy and soul-crushingly difficult; it is their preferences that matter, not the difficulty of the act itself. If you feel your time is well-spent, it doesn't matter whether that time is spent on Dark Souls, Angry Birds, Solitaire or anything in between.

[Tiki Snakes]

I vehemently disagree with this. There are a bunch of casual games that I can just replayy over and over again (the giant time vortex that is Peggle comes to mind), and it's not the difficulty that makes that the case. Peggle has some extremely difficult Challenge modes in it. Guess what? 90% of my time playing Peggle wasn't invested into those Challenge modes - I did it once for 100% completion, but future play-throughs of the game were just straight play-throughs of the standard game or perhaps some of the more interesting (read: not frustrating) Challenges.

Take a "hardcore" game like Dark Souls. The most difficult portions of that game are not the points I enjoy most - quite the opposite. I go out of my way to avoid Blighttown, "that section of Anor Londo" is greeted by an "Oh THANK GOD" rather than any sort of catharsis or enjoyment.

And how do hardcore games have a greater sense of exploration? That has zero to do with anything - an easy game can quite easily be massive (see: Skyrim, Oblivion, etc.) while an extremely difficult game can be downright tiny (Bullet-hell shooters).

That you think casually playing a game involves a small amount of time with no fun shows who is being elitist, I would say. I personally enjoy both "hardcore" and "casual" games. And when I'm having fun, I don't distinguish degrees - fun is fun. If a game is too difficult, I am not having fun. If a game is too easy, I'm also not having fun. There's a butter zone in there.

Suffering beforehand does not increase the level of enjoyment. I reject the idea utterly that "easier means less time spent" and "harder equals better quality of fun".

Generally speaking, I agree.
I think sometimes there is a trend towards justifying difficulty for it's own sake in things by claiming that Difficulty innately makes eventually success more worthwhile.

Admittedly, I'm also pretty sure that there are people out there who really do require difficulty, maybe even punishing difficulty in order to truly have fun. But the difference is that it is about personal choice rather than some universally applicable truth.

All too often, difficulty either gets in the way or is only there in the first place to artificially inflate play-time. Dark Souls in particular, is a ten hour game inflated to a 100 hour epic purely by the difficulty.

[Hiro Protagonest]

All too often, difficulty either gets in the way or is only there in the first place to artificially inflate play-time. Dark Souls in particular, is a ten hour game inflated to a 100 hour epic purely by the difficulty.

Maybe for a blind run, but Dark Souls is... easy. Too easy for much of the fanbase. Unless you're really bad at it, you're not going to die so many times it takes ten times the normal amount, even when playing blind (unless you're literally playing blind).

What makes Dark Souls last a hundred hours is the builds. Want to play a good sword-and-shield with medium-weight armor for your first playthrough? You can do that. You know where the Great Scythe is, so now once you get out of the Asylum you want to play the entire game using that while wearing an appropriate-looking light armor so you can be the reaper? You can do that. You want to be a spellsword who uses the magic weapon and magic shield spells? You want to be a cleric knight with an assortment of healing and attack miracles? You want to grab the Uchigatana in Undead Burg and fight like a bushi? You can do that. And then there's starting level runs, and starting level with starting gear runs...

Dark Souls isn't perfect. Blighttown is a mess, the Bed of Chaos is a terrible boss, Hellkite Dragon cheats. But it's just a few things that are bad about it.

[warty goblin]

On actual topic, if you don't enjoy playing a particular game, don't play that game. If you find you no longer enjoy playing games, or don't enjoy them enough to bother with finding them, making time for them, etc, then don't play games. I don't think there's really any more to it than that.


But Dwarf Fortress does have more replayability, and more replayability = more fun. This is also true of Crusader Kings II, Dark Souls, and various other grand strategy/strategic simulation games and RPGs. There are also games which get the increased quantity of fun by having lots of things to do despite not really having different playthroughs, like Planetside 2, Company of Heroes, and various other shooters and RTS games.


I would like to comment on this, since for me at least it's rather missing the point of replayability. If I enjoyed playing a game once, I am likely to continue playing it. This is true of strategy games, action games, what-have-you. If I reach the end of a game I enjoyed, I am pretty likely to start playing it again at some point in the future - even if it's completely linear, choice free and I'll be doing exactly the same thing the second time through.

This can have the paradoxical effect that some games which are supposed to be replayable end up being less enjoyable for me, so I don't finish them even once. Random maps are a good example of this, since aside from some sorts of strategy game I find handmade terrain vastly more interesting than a procedural generation algorithm and a call to a random number generator.

[Tiki Snakes]

Maybe for a blind run, but Dark Souls is... easy. Too easy for much of the fanbase. Unless you're really bad at it, you're not going to die so many times it takes ten times the normal amount, even when playing blind (unless you're literally playing blind).

What makes Dark Souls last a hundred hours is the builds. Want to play a good sword-and-shield with medium-weight armor for your first playthrough? You can do that. You know where the Great Scythe is, so now once you get out of the Asylum you want to play the entire game using that while wearing an appropriate-looking light armor so you can be the reaper? You can do that. You want to be a spellsword who uses the magic weapon and magic shield spells? You want to be a cleric knight with an assortment of healing and attack miracles? You want to grab the Uchigatana in Undead Burg and fight like a bushi? You can do that. And then there's starting level runs, and starting level with starting gear runs...

Oh sure. If you know what you're doing, the difficulty evaporates and you're left with...a vaguely underwhelming game with some interesting visuals. I've watched part of that one and a half hour quick-run, it's embarrassing.

The underlying game is really quite basic and clunky. I mean, this is a game in which fighting an enormous dragon is a choice between dodging it's endlessly repeating attack sequence or standing a few meters back with a large sack of the cheapest crossbow bolts you can find and wedging something on the fire button.

EDIT - I was originally playing blind, actually yes. I put in quite a few hours and was making pretty decent progress despite that. I stopped at the, uh, is it Ormstein and something or other? That fight. Between region-specific netcode problems and unavoidable PvP complicating things, it hammered home just how close to work actually playing the game really felt.
So I stopped, because what little fun I had so far been able to squeeze out of the process simply wasn't worth any further investment of time.

[MLai]

There is no argument to be had. The truth is "More effort invested = More fun."
All games and forms of athletic/cerebral challenge are defined by the above. You derive more fun and sense of achievement if you play a sport (that you're good at) with peers of equal skill. You may also derive fun from playing that sport with your kindergarten son and his pals, but that's derived from spending time with your son. When you want to play that sport (that you're good at) for the sake of playing that sport, you go call up your club buddies, not your kindergarten son.
Video games are not special in being exempt from this.

This is not a knock against casual games. Because you may not wish to play that sport competitively ALL the time (see above example) and come home all muddy and bruised.

Also, "casual games" != no challenge. Tetris, for example.
3D graphics with a gun or sword on the screen != Hardcore.

[Psyren]

There is no argument to be had. The truth is "More effort invested = More fun."

The truth is "strawberry ice cream = best flavor!"

[MLai]

The truth is "strawberry ice cream = best flavor!"
Your problem is you're thinking of this dichotomy purely in the form of casual vs hardcore computer games, with all the social stigmata associated, and feeling offended by elitist player cultures. That has nothing to do with the fundamental psychology behind games and challenges to humans.

Stop thinking of "online computer games" and think of all challenging past-times ever devised by humans. Go read some developmental psychology articles.

[Rodin]

This is not a knock against casual games. Because you may not wish to play that sport competitively ALL the time (see above example) and come home all muddy and bruised.


This is really where I take exception to the idea that more effort ALWAYS equals more fun.

If I don't want to play the game very competitively that day, I am NOT going to have more fun by playing the game very competitively. I will have more fun by just having a laugh and relaxing into the game. It applies a constant, objective standard to something that is entirely subjective.

[Seatbelt]

Your problem is you're thinking of this dichotomy purely in the form of casual vs hardcore computer games, with all the social stigmata associated, and feeling offended by elitist player cultures. That has nothing to do with the fundamental psychology behind games and challenges to humans.

Stop thinking of "online computer games" and think of all challenging past-times ever devised by humans. Go read some developmental psychology articles.

Just a nitpick but you mean social stigma. Stigmata is a very different thing.

[MLai]

Just a nitpick but you mean social stigma. Stigmata is a very different thing.
Yeah I think you're right. I was just misthinking that it's the plural form of stigma.
I WAS NOT COMMENTING ON RELIGION. IT WAS A TYPO.

[Godskook]

Dark Souls, Angry Birds, Solitaire or anything in between.

I strongly suspect that Solitaire is the hardest of the three.

[Godskook]

There is no argument to be had. The truth is "More effort invested = More fun."

As much as I agree with your overall perspective in this tangent, you're hurting your own position with this statement. I suspect the issue is that you're subconsciously running on the assumption that this effort is being spent on "things that will be fun to do", which tidily brings you back into a defensible position, I think(don't quote me on this).

[BeerMug Paladin]

They don't. TIME SPENT. Equals quality of fun. Some things are designed to encourage time spent. These are hardcore games.

In my view, Metal Slug that ludicrously difficult sidescrolling shooter can be played casually.

Something that's frustrating and stupidly hard is just annoying, and has no bearing on the argument of casual or hardcore.
I was under the impression that good games encourage time spent. Is Animal Crossing a hardcore game by your metric?

I never really see much distinction between hardcore games and casual games. Sure, it's easy to draw a distinction between things 'like' Angry Birds and other things 'like' Skyrim. There's some real distinction between the two you can discuss. And any given game might be more like one or the other (for an example, I'd say Borderlands is closer to being Skyrim than Angry Birds).

As far as I can figure, the hardcore/casual divide just means the nature of the time investment of the game. Is it meant to be enjoyed as a long, continuous experience like a movie, or is it meant to be easily subdivided into many shorter play times, a fun, momentary diversion? Is something like Toki Tori (a puzzle game) a hardcore game or a casual game? It's probably closer to the middle of the divide as many of the puzzles require some thought and experimentation to work through, but the game is composed of many small stages.

Are tournament fighter games casual games? They're usually meant to be played in brief rounds that reset every few minutes. They're pretty similar to Angry Birds in that regard, they just have more than one player.

But generally, I don't see much use in the casual/hardcore distinction for games. And that's precisely because the concept is more deserving of a spectrum to represent its fundamental idea, not an exact divide. Maybe a third category is needed somewhere in the middle, to place things like Animal Crossing? Even so, a third category won't change the fact that the words are talking about a fuzzy idea, and so, the placement of games into these categories will be a little subjective and ultimately have widely varying (and possibly little) utility in determining how 'fun' it is.

[druid91]

I was under the impression that good games encourage time spent. Is Animal Crossing a hardcore game by your metric?

I never really see much distinction between hardcore games and casual games. Sure, it's easy to draw a distinction between things 'like' Angry Birds and other things 'like' Skyrim. There's some real distinction between the two you can discuss. And any given game might be more like one or the other (for an example, I'd say Borderlands is closer to being Skyrim than Angry Birds).

As far as I can figure, the hardcore/casual divide just means the nature of the time investment of the game. Is it meant to be enjoyed as a long, continuous experience like a movie, or is it meant to be easily subdivided into many shorter play times, a fun, momentary diversion? Is something like Toki Tori (a puzzle game) a hardcore game or a casual game? It's probably closer to the middle of the divide as many of the puzzles require some thought and experimentation to work through, but the game is composed of many small stages.

Are tournament fighter games casual games? They're usually meant to be played in brief rounds that reset every few minutes. They're pretty similar to Angry Birds in that regard, they just have more than one player.

But generally, I don't see much use in the casual/hardcore distinction for games. And that's precisely because the concept is more deserving of a spectrum to represent its fundamental idea, not an exact divide. Maybe a third category is needed somewhere in the middle, to place things like Animal Crossing? Even so, a third category won't change the fact that the words are talking about a fuzzy idea, and so, the placement of games into these categories will be a little subjective and ultimately have widely varying (and possibly little) utility in determining how 'fun' it is.

That's because you're trying to take a categorization for gamers and place games into it. It doesn't fit.

[VanBuren]

There does seem to be a correlation between the difficulty of something and the resulting sense of accomplishment. Such as illustrated by the diagram in this section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29#Conditions_for_flow

Now, this model is not without criticism as the article shows. BUT.

You can see that a high level of skill, combined with a high level of difficulty leads to a state of flow (a sense of "being in the zone") which is what I imagine a lot of the hardcore gamers are defining as fun. At the same time, a lot of people are not necessarily playing for a flow-state. Or they're playing for one at one time, and for another at a different time.

So, people are arguing at cross-purposes. I think the people arguing that hardcore games reward with more fun, are trying to articulate that sense of high from the state of flow as compared to a more relaxed state.

Any thoughts? Or am I coming at this from the wrong direction?

[factotum]

I'm not convinced by this more effort = more fun mantra, to be honest. Some of the most fun I've ever had playing a video game is when I played Just Cause 2, and believe me, that game is not exactly difficult and doesn't take much effort to play--it's just great fun to play regardless. Being able to lassoo onto a jet while it's taking off, ride it up to max altitude, then parachute down to the sea below, steal someone's boat, and ram it into the nearest military base--this stuff is all fun regardless of the effort involved.

Somebody earlier in the thread said something interesting--they said that winning is intrinsically fun, which is how pro gamers have fun with what they do. However, that's contradicting the losing = fun mantra of the Dwarf Fortress players, and is also simply not true for most people. Sure, getting past a difficult section of a game may bring a sense of achievement, but I contend that all the frustration up to that point is certainly *not* fun, and the sense of achievement itself is more from relief that it's over than satisfaction in a job well done.

[Todasmile]

I'm not convinced by this more effort = more fun mantra, to be honest.

More effort does not = fun.

A game which relies solely on effort or difficulty for its appeal is not fun. It may be addictive, like Flappy Bird, and there are always cases where it is fun, outliers, but it is not what one would traditionally call fun. However, one aspect - NOT the entirety - of fun comes from possibilities.

To the Dwarf Fortress player, that is their primary fun. The comic is illustrating the Dwarf Fortress mentality, as is clearly shown in the comic itself. More work = more possibilities = more fun. To get through Dwarf Fortress, which is seen as their pinnacle of fun, there is a huge skill ceiling to reach.

The comic is subjective and shouldn't be taken as anything but an amusing gesture. The fact that the "simple" game is shown as simply fleeting is a reflection of the subset of person who does take their enjoyment from the complexity and depth of their game. The comic utilizes the contrast to form humour. It is definitely not something worth getting worked up over. I personally hate DF, and my favorite games tend to be more brainless actiony fare - though sometimes with a good degree of skill, such as W101.

To answer the OP's actual question: There is a huge realm of games that you don't seem to have explored. While RPGs can often resemble actual work, a lot of games which are a challenge can present a great experience without any such requirements. Look for games which reward lateral, rather than vertical, thinking, and/or provide a decently cinematic experience. These include GOOD action games, strategy games - either turn-based or a less challenging RTS - platformers which don't belong to the Meat Boy subset, and a smattering of other games from other genres. Decent RPGs are unfortunately hard to come by these days.

[Winterwind]

I don't like pro-gaming. It's about taking something that was meant to be played for fun and sucking all fun out of it.I'm with Godskook here. This claim is not only not true, it is actually a prime example of "looking at other people and telling them "you're doing it wrong, stop having fun your way and do it my way"", which, just a few posts before, you yourself were attacking as "definitely the sign of a bad gamer" (which I fully agree with). Only this time, rather than a "hardcore" gamer telling a "casual" gamer that they are having fun wrong, you're doing it the other way around. Which does not make it in any way better.

As for how it's not true, for one, you can look up interviews with actual progamers. One thing that is pretty much universally common to all of them is that they keep stating (and sounding genuine while doing so) that they have fun playing the game itself; they play it even if they do not actually have to practice, and keep on playing it even if they drop out of the progaming scene. The ones who stop having fun with the game in question pretty much all retire instantly.

Two, there are plenty of people (myself included) who derive quite a ton of fun from both trying to understand the depth of strategies and mechanics in a game, coming up with new ones and mastering the mechanics on one hand, and watching those executed to perfection - both to perhaps learn something one might use oneself and just to admire what amazing things other people can do - on the other. That last part being critical to the point at hand.

Back when I was playing StarCraft: BroodWar more intensely, I would not just play for hours, I'd also read up on long articles for strategy analysis - not so much to straight-up recreate them, but to find things I could creatively incorporate into my own tactics - read up on all the game mechanics (I'd memorized every single stat for every single unit in the game - that's well over a hundred numbers), play special games designed solely for practicing certain in-game skills, watching my own replays to see what I did right or wrong, discussing the game and possible strategies with friends who also played it this way, and watching replays and videos of progamers playing. These days, I spend quite a lot of hours every week watching the League of Legends Championship Series, just because watching what those people can do and what intriguing strategies they can come up with is awesome. All of this I did and do for fun, and for me, this is the most fun way to enjoy these games by far. I am pointing this last fact out not to say that this is the most fun way for everyone or to say that this way of having fun is superior to others, but to emphasize that your claim that there is no fun to be had from the progaming scene is most definitely wrong for myself, wrong for the other hundreds of thousands of people who watch the LCS weekly, wrong for the 32 million people who watched the last League of Legends world championships (http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/19/32-million-people-watched-the-league-of-legends-championship-series-season-3-world-finals). I really hope your intention is not to tell me and all of those millions of people that we are having fun wrong. :smallwink:


It's all about finding the most optimal strategies in a system that often wasn't made with total balance in mind, This is true for every game, at least when using most definitions of what a game is. All that changes is how much effort is required for that. It takes just a few seconds to figure out the most optimal strategies in Tic-Tac-Toe, it may take years to do so for StarCraft, but ultimately, figuring out the optimal strategies is what both of them come down to.

And, I fail to see why you describe this as a bad thing. Finding strategies is where all the creativity and intellectual challenge lies, whether it be figuring out where to move which piece in chess, figuring out what to build where in Settlers of Catan, which card to play when in Munchkin or Magic, or which units to send where in StarCraft. In quite a lot of games, it's pretty much all there is to the game; heck, even Tetris is mostly about figuring out where to place which block at the time for optimal effect. As far as I'm concerned, you might pretty much as well be saying "Games suck, they are all about gameplay!", which just doesn't make any sense at all (hence I do not think that's what you actually meant, but I am confused what you meant instead. Clarification please? :smallsmile:).


and mind-numbing repetition as you slowly polish your skills,While intense practice is required to get one's mechanical skills up to par, it is hardly mind-numbing, simply because the actual individual game keeps being different every time. Sure, you will want to know what exactly the timing and build-order is for that 9-pool or 2-stargate-rush or whatever, and keep doing that until you get it just right, but the opponent's strategy and execution thereof will make what actually happens then different every time and quickly force you to improvise; at the latest after the first battle encounter, all bets are off and it's all wild and new from there on out. In chess, too, you have long and complex openings that a professional player aught to know and memorize, but from there on, it's all improvisation, feints and counterfeints. Same thing.


and first and foremost, winning. Winning is all that matters.I tend to approach just about any game I invest a significant amount in rather competitively - I've already described above what that entails.

I tend to have almost as much fun losing as winning. Because to me, it's not about winning at all, it's about getting better and deriving the enjoyment from watching oneself being awesome. Imagine, if you will, somebody playing some musical instrument and trying to play their favourite song, failing, failing, but trying until they finally start getting it right, and then the euphoria that fills them as they hear themselves play that song, perfectly right. It's the exact same feeling I get from playing games competitively.

Progaming is just the exact same thing, except done by people with more talent and more time to invest into this - so, to keep the analogy going, the band that actually came up with and performed that song originally. It is the beauty of watching feats of amazing dexterity, reflexes and strategic cunning and admiring them for what they are.


I hold similar views about most professional sports.Yeah, because it is inconceivable a football team member might derive actual fun from the game (both the physical and the tactical challenges it presents), the physical exercise, the sense of personal improvement, the camaraderie of his teammates and the cheering of the fans. :smalltongue:

[GloatingSwine]

The glaring flaw in your premise here is that you either believe that abnegation cannot be considered a reward, or that if it is, it is somehow less of one than catharsis. Reward simply means "positive outcome" - and both catharsis and abnegation can fall under that umbrella.


Only if you use a definition of reward that literally no-one else will understand.

Reward, in the English language as spoken by everyone else, means something given in recognition of an accomplishment. A positive outcome is not a reward unless you had to accomplish a specific task in order to achieve it.

And yes, abnegation is not a reward because it is rooted in self denial. If you play an abnegatory game (for instance something like Endless Ocean) it is because you are specifically seeking an experience which does not rely on a challenge/reward structure.

[Avilan the Grey]

There is no argument to be had. The truth is "More effort invested = More fun."

Nope, this is wrong.

The opposite is true though: Fun = More effort invested. Meaning you START by having fun, therefore spending more time with the game you have fun with.

The rest of your statement is more an indication of culture than fact, aka the worship of ambition, success and challenge.


They don't. TIME SPENT. Equals quality of fun. Some things are designed to encourage time spent. These are hardcore games.

Again, you too have it backwards. Fun leads to time spent, not the other way around.

Games like Sims are the obious Hardcore games if we only meassure enjoyment and time spent...

[GolemsVoice]

Somebody earlier in the thread said something interesting--they said that winning is intrinsically fun, which is how pro gamers have fun with what they do. However, that's contradicting the losing = fun mantra of the Dwarf Fortress players, and is also simply not true for most people

I'd say that, while winning is fun, it doesn't mean that losing cannot be fun, too.

I know little of Dwarf Fortress, but I'd say that a DF player dervies fun from times his elaborate magma trap works (a situation where he has "won") and from times his fortress goes to hell in an amusing way.

As somebody else said, there's the Angry Video Game Nerd, who basically plays old console games and rants about how bad they are. Many of them are bad because they are far harder than they could have been, mostly because of bad programming.

When he defeats a game he considers challenging but fair, like Castlevania, he's happy that he has at last mastered such a hard game. When he defeats the other games, he's just glad it's over.

[Tengu_temp]

So all games are the same difficulty? Is that what you're saying?

It's also less "casual and hardcore" and more "casual, core, hardcore".

That's really the impression you got from what he said?

It's not about difficulty. It's about the artificial division between casual games/gamers, and hardcore ones. Whenever it's brought up, its whole purpose is to look down at people who play easier games than you. They're just casuals, not a real hardcore gamer like you! Also this division has the additional effect of putting easy games and simply iPhone minigames together into the "casual" group, as if they were the same thing.


2.Do you just not play games you can win?


It's not my sole purpose of playing games. The destination matters, but the journey is important too.

I think we have different definitions of professional gaming. You're talking about high-rank pvp games. I'm talking about gaming at a level where it's your job. At that point, it's not just fun anymore; it's something you do for a living. Professional sportsmen of all kinds might enjoy their jobs, but it's just a side effect, and they shouldn't fool anyone by saying they do it for fun; they do it for the money. It's not shameful, everyone needs a job; but it's just that, a job.

Anyway, let's not talk about pro gaming, like you requested. Instead:



All the greatest pursuits in life have moments of "mind numbing repetition"(including raising children and all of art), so I have trouble taking that as fair critique.

I don't like those moments and try to eliminate them from my entertainment. If I'm doing something for fun, I have to enjoy myself here and now. If I have to gruellingly practice now so that I will enjoy myself when I do it in a month instead? I drop it. You spend enough time in life doing unfun things already, fun time should be spent on fun.

Am I saying that you shouldn't practice anything? No, go for it, but only if you find practicing this specific thing fun. If it's boring and gruelling for you, it'd be better if you found another hobby, one that you're enjoying all the time.

Example, from my personal experience:
I would really, really like to be good at drawing. I think I have the potential, if only I practiced long enough. However, practicing drawing is completely unfun for me - I hate drawing simple shapes and doing anatomy practices, I want to be able to draw things I like now! However, I cannot, and won't be able to until I go through all this gruelling practice. So I don't bother. A wasted opportunity? Perhaps. But it's not worth it. I like the destination, but not the journey.
On the other hand, recently I got into assembling plastic models. It's a painstakingly slow process that takes many hours of fiddling with tiny pieces, carefully cutting them and filing the nubs. Actual assembly is but a small part of the whole thing. It's the definition of a long-term goal where you have to work for many hours before your efforts pay off. However, I enjoy doing this, so I'm having fun regardless. The journey is as satisfying as the destination.

Tangent, but I think it's pretty on-topic if you think about it. When playing a hard game that requires practice, you have to ask yourself: am I enjoying practicing this on some level, despite dying over and over? Am I motivated to keep going? Or is it boring and frustrating and I'm just doing this to get to the good part?
Different people will have different answers here. All of those answers are right, as long as they're truthful. I spent a lot of time getting semi-decent at playing Spy in TF2, and it was a long process of trying to kill someone, failing, and trying again. But it was enjoyable on some level, so I kept going. But it doesn't have to be enjoyable for you, so if you dropped the game in the same situation as me, I wouldn't blame you.

This is what many people in the "losing is fun" and "challenge always makes it better" camp don't get; different people enjoy overcoming different challenges. What's challenging but fair and enjoyable for me can be a frustrating slodge for you, and the opposite. Neither of us is wrong.

[Winterwind]

*stuff*Alright - now with these clarifications, I find myself pretty much 100% in agreement with you. Great post, too. :smallsmile:

[Godskook]

It's not about difficulty. It's about the artificial division between casual games/gamers, and hardcore ones. Whenever it's brought up, its whole purpose is to look down at people who play easier games than you. They're just casuals, not a real hardcore gamer like you! Also this division has the additional effect of putting easy games and simply iPhone minigames together into the "casual" group, as if they were the same thing.

As I mentioned earlier, there's more than one reason to bring up the "divide"(its really more of a spectrum, but w/e), and many of them are not to condescend.


It's not my sole purpose of playing games. The destination matters, but the journey is important too.

Yeah, agreed, and pvp games and pro-gamers don't disagree with this either.


I think we have different definitions of professional gaming.

Based on the context of your previous posts, you're talking about HotShotGG, Faker and VoyBoy from pro-gaming and Frank Thomas, Michael Jordan and Peyton Manning from pro-sports(to pick examples from each set that are both easily recognizable and ones I'm familiar with). Based on the quote below, you're talking about those faceless guys in the sweatshop who earn WoW gold as a job as "pro-gamers". Given that your posts all try to draw an analog between "pro-gamer" and "pro-athlete", I'm confident that HotShotGG is the correct definition of "pro-gaming", even if you aren't.

The latter group of "pro-gamers"(and I use that term *INCREDIBLY* loosely) are a group I'm largely unfamiliar with, but whom I'm quite confident nobody thinks about when the term "pro-gamer" is said.


You're talking about high-rank pvp games. I'm talking about gaming at a level where it's your job.

Pretty sure Voyboy gets paid to play in the LCS.


At that point, it's not just fun anymore; it's something you do for a living.

Wat?

1.Your statement contradicts *MASSIVE* amounts of actual evidence on the subject.

2.This, my friend, is elitism. You're actively declaring that people must choose between having fun and eating(and other basic needs, y'know, what getting paid allows you to take care of), which again, contradicts *MASSIVE* amounts of actual evidence on the subject(that people can have fun while being paid to have it).


Professional sportsmen of all kinds might enjoy their jobs, but it's just a side effect, and they shouldn't fool anyone by saying they do it for fun; they do it for the money. It's not shameful, everyone needs a job; but it's just that, a job.

You're very cynical, and yeah, some pro-sports players probably *have* stopped having fun playing their game, but I don't think that's true of all of them. Hell, I don't think that's true of most of them. Its sure as hell not true of all of them.


Anyway, let's not talk about pro gaming, like you requested.

I actually, I asked you guys to stop criticizing pro-sports, but y'know, you didn't, so I responded. Cest le vie.


I don't like those moments and try to eliminate them from my entertainment. If I'm doing something for fun, I have to enjoy myself here and now. If I have to gruellingly practice now so that I will enjoy myself when I do it in a month instead? I drop it. You spend enough time in life doing unfun things already, fun time should be spent on fun.

1.If that's your preference, fine.

2.You're missing out on some really really awesome kinds of fun.


Example, from my personal experience:
I would really, really like to be good at drawing. I think I have the potential, if only I practiced long enough. However, practicing drawing is completely unfun for me - I hate drawing simple shapes and doing anatomy practices, I want to be able to draw things I like now! However, I cannot, and won't be able to until I go through all this gruelling practice. So I don't bother. A wasted opportunity? Perhaps. But it's not worth it. I like the destination, but not the journey.

Its very difficult(and arguably impossible) to fully estimate the worth of the path not taken.


Tangent, but I think it's pretty on-topic if you think about it. When playing a hard game that requires practice, you have to ask yourself: am I enjoying practicing this on some level, despite dying over and over? Am I motivated to keep going? Or is it boring and frustrating and I'm just doing this to get to the good part?
Different people will have different answers here. All of those answers are right, as long as they're truthful. I spent a lot of time getting semi-decent at playing Spy in TF2, and it was a long process of trying to kill someone, failing, and trying again. But it was enjoyable on some level, so I kept going. But it doesn't have to be enjoyable for you, so if you dropped the game in the same situation as me, I wouldn't blame you.

The question to ask is "is the overall payoff of doing this worth the expense of me practicing it out", you don't have to enjoy the practice on a "fun" level if you expect that the fun you'll have on the other side is worth the journey to get it.


This is what many people in the "losing is fun" and "challenge always makes it better" camp don't get; different people enjoy overcoming different challenges. What's challenging but fair and enjoyable for me can be a frustrating slodge for you, and the opposite. Neither of us is wrong.

I'll admit that I don't always get where those lines are for various people, and often step on them by accident, but both I and a great many others are very well aware of the fact that such lines exist.

[Tengu_temp]

This, my friend, is elitism. You're actively declaring that people must choose between having fun and eating(and other basic needs, y'know, what getting paid allows you to take care of), which again, contradicts *MASSIVE* amounts of actual evidence on the subject(that people can have fun while being paid to have it).

You're very cynical, and yeah, some pro-sports players probably *have* stopped having fun playing their game, but I don't think that's true of all of them. Hell, I don't think that's true of most of them. Its sure as hell not true of all of them.

I think that the number of people who have fun with their job is truly miniscule, no matter where they work. There are many people who say they enjoy their job, but they mistake fun for professional pride, or satisfaction from a job well done. It's not the same thing. The latter is about the result alone, fun is about what it took to go there.

For a sports example, I really doubt many sportsmen have fun with their everyday training. It's boring, tiring routine, and most of their job consists of it.

Perhaps I'm bitter because the overlap between things I enjoy doing, things I am good enough at to get money for them, and things that offer you realistic job offers is exactly 0. There's some stuff that covers two of those, but nothing covers all three. The best I can hope for is a slow-paced job that gives me plenty of time to do whatever I want during work hours, or a job which I won't have fun with but which will at least pay well. And I'm pretty sure that's the case for most people.


You're missing out on some really really awesome kinds of fun.

Such as? I heard that a lot, from various people. "You have to try this and that, it's so much fun! You won't know if you like it until you try!", and such. Most of the time, it wasn't fun. Getting to the point where you're actually good at it wasn't enjoyable for me, just boring and/or frustrating. Skiing, drawing, martial arts, learning to play chess on a professional level - none of those were fun. So I ditched them. I don't regret those decisions.


Its very difficult(and arguably impossible) to fully estimate the worth of the path not taken.

The question to ask is "is the overall payoff of doing this worth the expense of me practicing it out", you don't have to enjoy the practice on a "fun" level if you expect that the fun you'll have on the other side is worth the journey to get it.

The worth of something you do for fun is measured by how much fun you have with it. And I'd say that the amount of time spent having fun is much more important than the total amount of fun gathered (how do we measure that anyway?). What's the point of doing something I don't enjoy now, but which I will enjoy after X hours when I get good enough at it, if I can do something I enjoy now which I will also enjoy after X hours, instead? If it was something I do to improve myself, or for the case of someone else, or for work, then I'd understand it. But we're talking about fun time.

[warty goblin]

I think that the number of people who have fun with their job is truly miniscule, no matter where they work. There are many people who say they enjoy their job, but they mistake fun for professional pride, or satisfaction from a job well done. It's not the same thing. The latter is about the result alone, fun is about what it took to go there.

If I limited things I enjoy to things I find fun in the way videogames are fun, my life would be much the poorer for it. Running eight miles in a blizzard as my eyeballs freeze shut isn't fun in that sense at all. It's exhausting, difficult, uncomfortable, joyful, exhilarating and exuberantly alive to a degree I've not found anywhere else.

Same with my work. Figuring out the log likelihood for a zero-inflated Poisson model with random effects isn't fun - it's damn hard work - but I'm happy to do it.

Finding enjoyment in unfun things isn't about making them fun, it's about a certain fierce will to triumph and win through, at least for me. Which is good because I don't want that sort of fun all the time. It breeds complacency, a degeneration of mental agility and physical laziness. Life is better when it has some edge to it.


Such as? I heard that a lot, from various people. "You have to try this and that, it's so much fun! You won't know if you like it until you try!", and such. Most of the time, it wasn't fun. Getting to the point where you're actually good at it wasn't enjoyable for me, just boring and/or frustrating. Skiing, drawing, martial arts, learning to play chess on a professional level - none of those were fun. So I ditched them. I don't regret those decisions.
If I wasn't willing to put up with things that I find legitimately unpleasant, I would be deprived of most of things that make life actually pleasant and interesting. A fair amount of drudgery is involved in all of these, and I think that both acceptable and in fact good. A certain amount of unpleasantness improves life, even aside from any other benefits that may accrue from the drudging.




The worth of something you do for fun is measured by how much fun you have with it. And I'd say that the amount of time spent having fun is much more important than the total amount of fun gathered (how do we measure that anyway?). What's the point of doing something I don't enjoy now, but which I will enjoy after X hours when I get good enough at it, if I can do something I enjoy now which I will also enjoy after X hours, instead? If it was something I do to improve myself, or for the case of someone else, or for work, then I'd understand it. But we're talking about fun time.
I'm open to the existence of things that aren't fun, which I do on my leisure time, and which make my life better for doing them.

[Psyren]

Only if you use a definition of reward that literally no-one else will understand.

Reward, in the English language as spoken by everyone else, means something given in recognition of an accomplishment. A positive outcome is not a reward unless you had to accomplish a specific task in order to achieve it.

And yes, abnegation is not a reward because it is rooted in self denial. If you play an abnegatory game (for instance something like Endless Ocean) it is because you are specifically seeking an experience which does not rely on a challenge/reward structure.

This is utter and complete nonsense. By this definition, there is no reward in relaxing with a good book because there is no challenge involved in doing so. You open the book and sit on your ass. (so hard, many challenge, wow.) And yet, books are one of the most enjoyable pasttimes out there. Even participatory activities like yoga and meditation get thrown out by this tunnel definition.


But we're talking games specifically here right? So I do have something game-focused for you to read. Take a look at this:

http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m633/PsyrenY/WhyGamesAreFun.png

This is an excerpt from the famous MDA study (http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf) ("MDA" stands for Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics) that goes into detail on the reasons why people play and find various games fun. (If that document is a bit long-winded for you, there's a great Extra Credits (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uepAJ-rqJKA) based on it that summarizes the topic as well.) The paper deals with how designers have to start from the game mechanics and try to get to the dynamics (how those mechanics work together) and then to the aesthetics (the experience they want to convey.) Meanwhile players start from the "A" as they experience the complete game, and only after playing for awhile do they start to think about the underlying dynamics and mechanics.

But you may have noticed something important from that excerpt - namely, that Challenge is only one point in the Aesthetics list. Whether you want to believe it or not, there are plenty of other reasons to find games fun besides (or even in conjunction with) challenge, and none of them is any "better" than the others. Which one matters more to you simply depends on the aesthetics you personally value more with your own subjective preferences.

Abnegation games fall largely under the "Submission" bullet - a game that you simply play to occupy your mind during downtime, where you disengage and unwind. No twitch reflexes needed, but the benefits to your mental state are just as salubrious as the visceral rush of overcoming a challenge despite being different.

[GloatingSwine]

This is utter and complete nonsense. By this definition, there is no reward in relaxing with a good book because there is no challenge involved in doing so. You open the book and sit on your ass. (so hard, many challenge, wow.) And yet, books are one of the most enjoyable pasttimes out there. Even participatory activities like yoga and meditation get thrown out by this tunnel definition.

You go read Gravity's Rainbow and then tell me there's no challenge involved in reading a book...



This is an excerpt from the famous MDA study (http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf) ("MDA" stands for Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics) that goes into detail on the reasons why people play and find various games fun.

We weeren't talking about fun in the context of challenge though though, we were talking about reward.

My contention is that games which are not challenging are a sufficiently different type of fun that they are not rewarding in the way that challenging games are.

So, care to run any further with those goalposts?

[Psyren]

We weeren't talking about fun in the context of challenge though though, we were talking about reward.

If I honestly have to explain to you how fun is rewarding then I don't think there's any point communicating with you further.

[warty goblin]

If I honestly have to explain to you how fun is rewarding then I don't think there's any point communicating with you further.

Fun is rewarding, that hardly means all rewards are fun.

[GloatingSwine]

If I honestly have to explain to you how fun is rewarding then I don't think there's any point communicating with you further.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

Being rewarded is fun (and the amount of fun in this type of experience is proportional to how much one believes one deserves the reward, ie. the difficulty of the task one is being rewarded for)..

Not all fun experiences are fun because they contain elements of reward.

[Psyren]

All of the aesthetics I listed above can be considered rewards. After all, if you don't play the game, you don't get them - that's reward, because you took the effort of sitting down to play the game (plus whatever efforts the game itself asks of you beyond booting it up, which vary from title to title.) The mistake you're making is trying to quantify "challenge" as being a higher reward than the others in all cases simply because it is higher/more valuable to you. Yet it is only one of the many aesthetics - core engagements - that people come to games for. It is personal, subjective preference that determines which engagement is most valuable, not merely the level of effort required to access it. (Which itself is subjective, since difficulty is subjective.)

[Tengu_temp]

If I limited things I enjoy to things I find fun in the way videogames are fun, my life would be much the poorer for it. Running eight miles in a blizzard as my eyeballs freeze shut isn't fun in that sense at all. It's exhausting, difficult, uncomfortable, joyful, exhilarating and exuberantly alive to a degree I've not found anywhere else.

Same with my work. Figuring out the log likelihood for a zero-inflated Poisson model with random effects isn't fun - it's damn hard work - but I'm happy to do it.

These sound like things you enjoy doing. You seem to be under the impression that by saying fun time should be spent on things you find fun, I herald effortless instant gratification. That's not true. Fun means "anything you enjoy doing". Simple as that.

And obviously, there's a lot more going on in life than just fun time. Stuff you do for work, for school, for your family; don't ditch it just because you're not having fun!

[warty goblin]

These sound like things you enjoy doing. You seem to be under the impression that by saying fun time should be spent on things you find fun, I herald effortless instant gratification. That's not true. Fun means "anything you enjoy doing". Simple as that.

If we take fun as completely synonymous with enjoyable activity, than yes, running until my eyeballs freeze shut is fun. I don't think this is generally how the word is used however, and is certainly not how I use the term.

For instance, spending all day digging a foundation with a shovel. It's hot, dirty, tedious and exhausting. I enjoy that work on occasion, but I would absolutely not call it fun. For one thing a reasonable portion of the time I'm doing it I'm at least somewhat miserable. I can enjoy being miserable, but there's nothing fun about it.


And obviously, there's a lot more going on in life than just fun time. Stuff you do for work, for school, for your family; don't ditch it just because you're not having fun!
Well duh, the point of my life is hardly to have fun. That's just what I do on the way by when there isn't something more interesting going on.

[Tengu_temp]

Well duh, the point of my life is hardly to have fun. That's just what I do on the way by when there isn't something more interesting going on.

Here we differ. My first goal in life is to enjoy it, and secondary goal is to leave a positive impact on the world.

Also, there are very few things that are interesting but not enjoyable. If a read an interesting text, or watch an interesting sight, than doing so is also fun for me.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for (further) review.