There was a Twilight Zone episode where a gangster passed away, and "St Peter" told him he could have anything he wanted, so the gangster asked to be able to win at everything... never miss a billiards shot, never lose a sports bet, score with every woman he approached. The gangster loved it, for about a week. Then, his attitude changed... he was going nuts because he had no challenges and got bored. So he found "St Peter" again and said "heaven sucks, I'd rather be in the other place...", to which "St Peter" responded, "this is the other place..."

I may have messed the story up a little, but that was the general plot. If this game wasn't challenging, I'd probably get bored with it, but that's just me.

I remember that episode npb. And I agree completely. There's no fun if there's nothing to lose, at least to me.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 3/10/2015 9:08:00 PM (view original):
Personally, bistiza ... I wouldn't find that even remotely entertaining in the slightest. If I find myself doing that on something like madden, I INVENT handicaps to make it harder. Use non optimal players and try to figure out how to win. Anything to get rid of the "how is this different from just getting up, pressing an 'I win button' and staring at the screen. I enjoy challenge without significant real world consequence - might cost a bit of money, but it's not losing me my job, effecting my paycheck, giving me or denying me promotions, endangering anyone's life, etcetera. Just challenge, without risk. If I lose its an intellectual exercise to figure out WHY I lost and figure out how to not do it the same way again. And I enjoy that. Just like Id view a game of chess against a two year old not entertaining.

I'm fine that your perspective is different than mine.

However, it's important to note that it's more than about winning for me. For example, I get a lot of joy out of racking up amazing stats in NCAA football - and not just scores and team stats, but PLAYER stats. I enjoy distributing the ball to as many guys as I can. I do formation subs and play four different QBs, throw the ball to 6-7 receivers plus three tight ends and at least 2-3 backs, run the ball with 3 HBs, 2 FBs and even some receivers, etc.

I guess I just have enough challenge figuring things out in real life that to do so in a game isn't fun for me. I want a break from all that, a place where things work mostly as I want them to, and I don't have to worry I'll be frustrated for very long.

Yeah, man, this game just isn't for you.

No hostility here. I'm just really curious...

How is it sad or pathetic to want to enjoy something? Or to have fun? Or to do so in a way that is different from the way you apparently do it?

That's why I ask - because it's not an attitude. It's only about what it means to enjoy something and have fun.

Work is a different story - it's not really meant to be fun. Maybe for some very lucky people it is, but I'm not one of them. Work is a necessary evil to earn the money to pay for life. It is a frustrating thing where I have no choice but to be frustrated and continue on despite that frustration.

This is part of WHY I don't want to experience the same thing when I'm trying to enjoy something or have fun. I don't want frustration, I get enough of that already. I want success - that's what makes it fun for me.

Perhaps your situation is different. Perhaps your work and other aspects of your life aren't frustrating to you the way they are to me, so you look for challenges in games. Good for you. But I only seek relaxation, enjoyment, and success in games, because as I said, I've got enough frustration.

Maybe if I didn't have to work full-time and deal with the rigors of a few other key things, I'd decide I need more of a challenge in games or other fun circumstances. For the meantime, games and fun are for relaxation and success, or they serve little purpose for me.

What I don't understand, honestly, is how you can get any enjoyment out of a game with no challenge to it. If a game isn't going to have any challenge, I'll just go watch a movie, or a sunset or go play with the cat or something. With no challenge to it, a game is kind of a really pointless activity. How would accomplishments in a game that had no challenge whatsoever in getting them have any meaning to me?

In essence, how are they really accomplishments?

Posted by a_in_the_b on 3/11/2015 8:20:00 AM (view original):
What I don't understand, honestly, is how you can get any enjoyment out of a game with no challenge to it. If a game isn't going to have any challenge, I'll just go watch a movie, or a sunset or go play with the cat or something. With no challenge to it, a game is kind of a really pointless activity. How would accomplishments in a game that had no challenge whatsoever in getting them have any meaning to me?

In essence, how are they really accomplishments?

Ehh, aren't we really just debating what people find fun? Depending on what movie you go see, I might not understand why somebody would enjoy or pay money to see that. Bistiza might have been a little stubborn about accepting critiques of his team and the gameplan, but unless he's doing something harmful to others, he doesn't really deserve any abuse for how he spends his leisure time. I'm sure we all have something we do for mindless entertainment.

And there is always a challenge, even if the computer opponent doesn't provide it, there is trying to do better than you did the time before.

Yep, all with acn24 on this. Why we play, it's our business not everyone's. He did a good job with his team nonetheless.

I have no problem with him doing it however he wants. It's his money, it's his time. Nonetheless since he's having a non hostile discussion with me, I'm having one back with him. If it seems to turn hostile, I'll end it because I really don't want a hostile discussion. He's the one that inserted the reason he plays into the discussion. Don't want to talk about it, don't bring it up - but if you do put it in, people will respond.

In reality, I don't think it's been hostile at all...well, emy threw around some words that could be read as harsh, but it was for the purpose of making a point, if not to highlight what others were thinking. Acn is right, this is a matter of aesthetics, to which bistiza has never claimed the contrary.

Let's face it, the only reason some people view this conversation as inherently "hostile" and/or "uncomfortable" is because this contrarian viewpoint inverts the overtly masculine paradigm of competition whereby only in the domination of one's opponent  - and most preferably a worthy one, because if Hector was a chump then Achilles wouldn't be a badass - can virtue be accomplished.

The good ole phrase "walk a mile in someone else's shoes" isn't just a literal one in which you must undertake the physical labors of another in order to better understand them...metaphors work on many levels, just like motivations and ideas.

All those big words aside, I think the takeaway is that someone who plays the game for the thrill of crushing opponents and racking up big stats is probably going to have more fun in this game killing sims in empty conferences. He'll be at a disadvantage when it comes time for the national tournament, because experience matters a lot when game planning against teams who want to win as much as he does. But if he's willing to learn, there's no reason he can't adjust his approach a little for the NT, then go back to beating up on the sims next season. I've played most of my career in Allen, prior to this season, in that way.

But playing in a full conference in Naismith has made me a much better coach. And I'm having more fun competing against, and occasionally even beating, some really great coaches. But to each his own. The nice thing about this game is that both paths are viable.

I love rolling around in it, but sometimes it's good to have a trusty ladder to help you climb out...usually the bigger the better.

The fun that is much harder to understand, rather than ours or bistiza's, is the type had by people who are well versed in the game yet still use superclasses, 10 nonconference road games against sims, and crappy conferences to systematically manufacture success. In this light, the path of no resistance makes much more sense then the path of least resistance.

Group hug time!

But seriously, I think pkoop has a good point. You may have more fun in an empty conference as opposed to the CAA, Bistiza. If you wanted the camaraderie aspect,  you could always use the IBA season 'X' board. Something to think about at least.