Posted by getbedarded on 3/11/2015 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Group hug time!

A continuous group hug has been going on for far too long now.

The only time this board gets truly exciting is when a Diablo, colonels, or he who shall not be named comes along. One went out in a blaze of glory, one was reformed, and one chose death over exile (like a retarded socrates...in a fulfillment of irony that only etta himself could accomplish). And if you really think about it, the true nature of those events had relatively little to do with HD itself.

I understand this argument conceptually - that "fun" is often an individualized preference derived from the importance placed on various factors - but personally, I have to side with all_in_the_b.  Like everyone else, I mean no "hostility", just weighing in on a concept that I find interesting.  

Like others have said, I don't understand how winning can be fun when every effort has been made to ensure it.  Destroying console games by putting them on the easiest setting can be sorta entertaining, but how can the "winning" feel good when anybody with the motor skills of a 4-year old could have done it?  By that logic, why not play NBA 2K on two player mode? Take your extra controller and set it as the opposite team.  That way, every time you score, they'll get a 5-second call, and every time you miss and they accidentally get a rebound, they'll get an 8-second call?  You'll destroy them every time!  Shutouts!  

I guess what I look for in playing this game, and basically any competition, is the satisfaction that comes with winning because I was better/smarter or even luckier! This victory is also acknowledged and respected by others because to thrive within a level playing field can be appreciated by all who play.  Victory, without the threat of defeat, just kinda seems hollow.  To Nacho's point about this, "contrarian viewpoint inverting the masculine paradigm of competition", I'm not sure it's exactly that.  Rather, I think some of us view this as simply deviating from the actual definition of "competition".  Saying that you make things as easy as possible in order to win all the time - that's cheating at worst, and going-through-the-motions at best.  It can be fun, sure, but it's not "competition" and deriving satisfaction from winning in such a setting seems confusing.  You couldn't lose.  Plus, let's be honest, Achilles woulda still found a way to be a badass even if Hector had been a chump.

I think one of the best things about WhatIf is that we get to compete with other people who all have their own styles and skills and philosophies etc.  Winning at this game feels good to me.  I get a sense of accomplishment despite that at it's heart its an algorithm that can occasionally spit out obscure and strange results (albeit, real life can do the same).  If this was just each of us versus sims...I would have lost interest a long time ago.  Definitely would have lost interest in paying $$ to play.  Anyways, I think this is an interesting topic because bistiza isn't the only person I know who has this philosophy, I just feel like maybe a lot of it gets lost in the wording.  The "process" of destroying easy opponents can be sorta fun, but maybe not the "winning."  And if I'm wrong about that then I guess I really just don't understand haha.

Fair enough, I'm just surprised at the amount of discussion that has been generated. If he had said "I like bud light" would there have been as much questioning into why he likes bud light?

Posted by acn24 on 3/11/2015 3:42:00 PM (view original):
Fair enough, I'm just surprised at the amount of discussion that has been generated. If he had said "I like bud light" would there have been as much questioning into why he likes bud light?

Bahahaha nobody "likes" bud light. They just drink it to get hammered. 

Posted by teamvip on 3/11/2015 2:25:00 PM (view original):
I understand this argument conceptually - that "fun" is often an individualized preference derived from the importance placed on various factors - but personally, I have to side with all_in_the_b.  Like everyone else, I mean no "hostility", just weighing in on a concept that I find interesting.  

Like others have said, I don't understand how winning can be fun when every effort has been made to ensure it.  Destroying console games by putting them on the easiest setting can be sorta entertaining, but how can the "winning" feel good when anybody with the motor skills of a 4-year old could have done it?  By that logic, why not play NBA 2K on two player mode? Take your extra controller and set it as the opposite team.  That way, every time you score, they'll get a 5-second call, and every time you miss and they accidentally get a rebound, they'll get an 8-second call?  You'll destroy them every time!  Shutouts!  

I guess what I look for in playing this game, and basically any competition, is the satisfaction that comes with winning because I was better/smarter or even luckier! This victory is also acknowledged and respected by others because to thrive within a level playing field can be appreciated by all who play.  Victory, without the threat of defeat, just kinda seems hollow.  To Nacho's point about this, "contrarian viewpoint inverting the masculine paradigm of competition", I'm not sure it's exactly that.  Rather, I think some of us view this as simply deviating from the actual definition of "competition".  Saying that you make things as easy as possible in order to win all the time - that's cheating at worst, and going-through-the-motions at best.  It can be fun, sure, but it's not "competition" and deriving satisfaction from winning in such a setting seems confusing.  You couldn't lose.  Plus, let's be honest, Achilles woulda still found a way to be a badass even if Hector had been a chump.

I think one of the best things about WhatIf is that we get to compete with other people who all have their own styles and skills and philosophies etc.  Winning at this game feels good to me.  I get a sense of accomplishment despite that at it's heart its an algorithm that can occasionally spit out obscure and strange results (albeit, real life can do the same).  If this was just each of us versus sims...I would have lost interest a long time ago.  Definitely would have lost interest in paying $$ to play.  Anyways, I think this is an interesting topic because bistiza isn't the only person I know who has this philosophy, I just feel like maybe a lot of it gets lost in the wording.  The "process" of destroying easy opponents can be sorta fun, but maybe not the "winning."  And if I'm wrong about that then I guess I really just don't understand haha.

Very nice response, I want nothing more than to unpack and/or continue this conversation at this precise moment, but the real world demands my attention for a few hours (how cruel the fates are, given my general malaise towards the board as of late). But I assure you that I will return very soon, and attempt in giving a detailed and concise response, as you have just now.

...I began writing some brief thoughts, but soon realized it wasn't fair to any of us parties involved.

Thanks, looking forward to hearing your response!

Posted by getbedarded on 3/11/2015 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 3/11/2015 3:42:00 PM (view original):
Fair enough, I'm just surprised at the amount of discussion that has been generated. If he had said "I like bud light" would there have been as much questioning into why he likes bud light?

Bahahaha nobody "likes" bud light. They just drink it to get hammered. 

I like Bud Light....I do prefer Miller 64 now that I want to stay just kinda fat as opposed to very fat.

tons of people enjoy comp stomping. most get bored with it relatively quickly, however, but not all. i can't imagine a long term strategy game against anything but a human, at least not while strategy game AIs are so woefully inept. but i do appreciate a good comp stomping here and there, so i can understand bistiza's position. to each their own.

Yes to each their own but ...

I can understand enjoying the occasional curb stomp. But I can't, at least for me personally, understand wanting EVERY game to be like that.

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?

Because I'm not in it for the challenge - I'm in it to relax and enjoy it. Challenge - beyond a modest level at best - makes it LESS fun, because it's frustrating. I deal with frustration all the time, so having to deal with more of it is NOT fun.

It is accomplishment because I am relaxed and not frustrated.

To me, there is no accomplishment worth being frustrated about in a simple game with no real meaning except to have fun.

Posted by bistiza on 3/12/2015 8:26:00 AM (view original):

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?

Because I'm not in it for the challenge - I'm in it to relax and enjoy it. Challenge - beyond a modest level at best - makes it LESS fun, because it's frustrating. I deal with frustration all the time, so having to deal with more of it is NOT fun.

It is accomplishment because I am relaxed and not frustrated.

To me, there is no accomplishment worth being frustrated about in a simple game with no real meaning except to have fun.

And to me there is no fun if the challenge isn't there. I guess that's an irreconcilable difference at the base. To me, if it's that easy ... It's pointless to do. I'll just go find something else to relax, like playing with the pet, reading a book etcetera.

Yah. To each their own ...

? By that logic, why not play NBA 2K on two player mode? Take your extra controller and set it as the opposite team.  That way, every time you score, they'll get a 5-second call, and every time you miss and they accidentally get a rebound, they'll get an 8-second call?  You'll destroy them every time!  Shutouts! 

I want to play the actual game, with real game play. I don't want to turn a game into a shooting drill.

I guess what I look for in playing this game, and basically any competition, is the satisfaction that comes with winning because I was better/smarter or even luckier!

Same here, except that in an ideal scenario, that's ALWAYS the case.

 Saying that you make things as easy as possible in order to win all the time - that's cheating at worst, and going-through-the-motions at best.

I disagree. The games allow you to have options for a reason - to modify the game as you see fit. Using options isn't cheating.

Also, what you described earlier (playing against an empty second controller) would be going through the motions.

Playing against an always beatable but still slightly challenging actual computer opponent, on the other hand, is sensational fun.

Anyways, I think this is an interesting topic because bistiza isn't the only person I know who has this philosophy, I just feel like maybe a lot of it gets lost in the wording.  The "process" of destroying easy opponents can be sorta fun, but maybe not the "winning."  And if I'm wrong about that then I guess I really just don't understand haha.

The winning is the only thing that's fun for me. The process is merely a means to that end. If I'm not winning, I'm not having fun.

While I realize I won't always win, particularly against humans, I still play because that's the only way to play this game right now. Since there are as you mention others who agree with my philosophy, I wish they'd create an option to essentially play in your own world against all SimAI opponents. If they did, I'd certainly play there, and pay to play there, and probably play as many teams in as many of those worlds as I possibly could. I'd probably stop playing against humans altogether, as the risk of losses is higher.

Posted by arssanguinus on 3/12/2015 8:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 3/12/2015 8:26:00 AM (view original):

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?

Because I'm not in it for the challenge - I'm in it to relax and enjoy it. Challenge - beyond a modest level at best - makes it LESS fun, because it's frustrating. I deal with frustration all the time, so having to deal with more of it is NOT fun.

It is accomplishment because I am relaxed and not frustrated.

To me, there is no accomplishment worth being frustrated about in a simple game with no real meaning except to have fun.

And to me there is no fun if the challenge isn't there. I guess that's an irreconcilable difference at the base. To me, if it's that easy ... It's pointless to do. I'll just go find something else to relax, like playing with the pet, reading a book etcetera.

Yah. To each their own ...

One of the most fun things I can think to do is to play a sports video game and destroy the computer.  While things in the real world often don't work out in my favor and frustrate me, the game doesn't do that. It keeps my frustration to a minimum and always delivers success.  That's the fun. If I want a challenge, I'll try to do something in the real world.

Posted by bistiza on 3/12/2015 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by arssanguinus on 3/12/2015 8:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 3/12/2015 8:26:00 AM (view original):

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?

Because I'm not in it for the challenge - I'm in it to relax and enjoy it. Challenge - beyond a modest level at best - makes it LESS fun, because it's frustrating. I deal with frustration all the time, so having to deal with more of it is NOT fun.

It is accomplishment because I am relaxed and not frustrated.

To me, there is no accomplishment worth being frustrated about in a simple game with no real meaning except to have fun.

And to me there is no fun if the challenge isn't there. I guess that's an irreconcilable difference at the base. To me, if it's that easy ... It's pointless to do. I'll just go find something else to relax, like playing with the pet, reading a book etcetera.

Yah. To each their own ...

One of the most fun things I can think to do is to play a sports video game and destroy the computer.  While things in the real world often don't work out in my favor and frustrate me, the game doesn't do that. It keeps my frustration to a minimum and always delivers success.  That's the fun. If I want a challenge, I'll try to do something in the real world.

"If I want a challenge, I'll try to do something in the real world."

and there's your epitaph.

Posted by bistiza on 3/12/2015 8:26:00 AM (view original):

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?

Because I'm not in it for the challenge - I'm in it to relax and enjoy it. Challenge - beyond a modest level at best - makes it LESS fun, because it's frustrating. I deal with frustration all the time, so having to deal with more of it is NOT fun.

It is accomplishment because I am relaxed and not frustrated.

To me, there is no accomplishment worth being frustrated about in a simple game with no real meaning except to have fun.

Seems like you enjoy WIS challenges, you've been defending your position on this thread for 7 pages now. Maybe if you didn't defend your position so vehemently you'd have more time to gameplan (or recruit perimeter threats), leading to more wins, leading to more fun and relaxation! Or....you could just smoke a j.