The reason I hate when people say "play to win"

[SaintJotun]

I play for fun. And it's fun to win. But I won't sacrifice fun for victory. As an example, I like to play Ike. I played a random FG match against a guy/gal who played Yoshi yesterday. There was a point in the first cycle of the match I could have attempt EG'd him/her with Eruption, but the match was sooo close, I chose to roll back to the center of the map and let him/her recover (to be honest, I wanted more experience against a skilled Yoshi so I could take what I learned into future matches. I have trouble against Yoshi). In a move that boggled my mind, this Yoshi then bailed off the side of the level and killed his/herself. With 1/1 stock left, I ended up losing in a cat and mouse game that I still think is the most fun match I'd played in a while. After finishing, this person sent me a message saying "You totally had me at first, I appreciate the honorable gesture. But, honor never won wars." I don't mind that I lost, because that match was fun. Bonus: I learned a few things in the process. It is difficult to learn if you do not lose.

 

[Yoshi Kirishima]

Well, my original post is concerned with how people misuse the phrase. People around here have this conception that "play to win" is the primary force in the development of a metagame, and that's simply not true. You're right, my examples are extreme, but that is done to show just how ridiculous it would be if "play to win" actually WAS the primary force in the development of the meta.

I'm sorry. I thought falcon punches were pretty fun. Am I the only one that thinks this...?

I'm sorry. In Brawl MK's tornado wasn't very fun. It was 1 dimensional and way too good of a move. I guess it's just that those who are great MK players find tornado very fun, cus sometimes it's used a lot right? It's not to win?

I'm sorry. Are my examples extreme?

 

[Thinkaman]

I'm sorry. I thought falcon punches were pretty fun. Am I the only one that thinks this...?

I'm sorry. In Brawl MK's tornado wasn't very fun. It was 1 dimensional and way too good of a move. I guess it's just that those who are great MK players find tornado very fun, cus sometimes it's used a lot right? It's not to win?

I'm sorry. Are my examples extreme?

3X Apology Combo!

 

[Patrick Ray]

I'm playing to enhance my skills at Captain Falcon. If I'm not winning with him then it does not matter so long as I am gaining ability. I play who I want and winning is a bonus.

 

[Yong Dekonk]

I posted this in another thread, but I think it deserves its own discussion.

There's a certain aspect about the competitive meta that people never acknowledge, and it's that the even some of the most competitive players in the game don't actually "play to win". Playing to win means doing literally the strategy that most assures your victory. M2K played like that in Brawl, and that took the form of planking. Planking - literally the worst phenomenon to ever happen to competitive smash. But even still, there were competitive players that didn't plank, even though it was the best strategy. Do you know why? Because that **** isn't fun. Playing to win means always picking the top tier character, but do you know why people don't always do that? Because that **** isn't fun. Most people still want to have fun, even competitive players. Mango is the perfect example of this. He is the best, hands down. He has shown that he can play using the best characters and best strategies, but he prioritizes actually having fun over winning. That's why he beats people in Melee with ****ing Mario. The motivating force that makes people want to play this game is not a competitive urge to win, it is fun. That's why I hate when people use "play to win" as their ultimate retort to complaints about the meta. Of course people want to win, but people want to have fun even more. I quit Brawl because winning wasn't fun, and I will quit Smash 4 if winning isn't fun.

If you're going to ascribe the "play to win" mentality to the Smash 4 meta, it's beginning to look like we're going to be seeing more time outs. Timing out is the most economical strategy in any game where the defensive options are better than the offensive ones. I can see it already: a person gets a stock lead and then his strategy becomes to repel his opponent with safe, non laggy moves, tacking on enough % so that even if the other guy manages to kill him, he doesn't have to change his strat because he's already tacked on so much % that the guy will never catch up. That's what I think the "play to win" mentality will look like in this game. And if it does, I'm not going to play it.

I agree with you about the "play to win" strategy being lame. I refuse to use characters I think are too good like Shiek and Diddy. However I don't have a problem with other people using this strategy because my goal is to beat these try-hards with lower tier characters. Remember when a Zero Suit won Apex against Meta Knight? Someone found a way to beat a character considered S tier and it was awesome. Personally I use DK. I think the preliminary general consensus is that DK is terrible but I can beat a lot of higher tier characters in FG. That's what I find "fun" about smash so I'm glad there are Try-hards out there. Also, I disagree that "timing out" isn't a legitimate strategy as there's nothing exploitative or cheap about it. It's just plain smart tactics and not exclusive to any one character.

 

[hey_there]

No, you kinda missed the point. Winning is not fun of its own right. If that was true, I feel just as rewarded playing checkers or RPS. I have played all the smash games competitively. But playing to win has only ever been fun for me in 64 and Melee, and I find that has been because I found the metagame, fostered by the game mechanics, to be fun. When Brawl came around I could still win if I tried hard enough, but the game mechanics were so boring that the reward of winning wasn't worth trodding through the terrible game design. And I'm getting the same feeling about the new one so far. The mechanics seem so simple and boring that it's not worth my time to learn it when I can just play Melee or P:M. The game has to have potential for fun competitive play before I decide to take winning in it seriously.

No, I didn't miss the point. Like I said, Smash is really fun, and winning is more fun than losing for most people, myself included. Playing to win is the same as playing for fun in this context. If you're not having fun playing to win in Brawl... well there you go, you're not having fun. Some people love the game mechanics in Brawl and they love the challenge of winning in it. What's the problem with that?

It's also clear from your response that you don't care about discussing playing to win as being a toxic mentality in the context of Smash because you said you play to win in Melee and 64. You're a part of the very problem you're complaining about. Unless you're not actually complaining about playing to win at all, you're just here to complain about Brawl and Smash 4, in which case, why should anyone besides you care about whether or not you personally are bored?

Other people really like Smash 4 and are enjoying exploring/creating the metagame and winning. Did you watch the stream for The Come Up? Every match in the top 8 was incredible. Grand Finals saw Donkey Kong vs Mario/Shulk, and it was amazing. If you're bored playing Smash 4, put the controller down, and play something else.

And for the record, there are competitive tournaments of RPS and Checkers.

 

[Yong Dekonk]

No, I didn't miss the point. Like I said, Smash is really fun, and winning is more fun than losing for most people, myself included. Playing to win is the same as playing for fun in this context. If you're not having fun playing to win in Brawl... well there you go, you're not having fun. Some people love the game mechanics in Brawl and they love the challenge of winning in it. What's the problem with that?

It's also clear from your response that you don't care about discussing playing to win as being a toxic mentality in the context of Smash because you said you play to win in Melee and 64. You're a part of the very problem you're complaining about. Unless you're not actually complaining about playing to win at all, you're just here to complain about Brawl and Smash 4, in which case, why should anyone besides you care about whether or not you personally are bored?

Other people really like Smash 4 and are enjoying exploring/creating the metagame and winning. Did you watch the stream for The Come Up? Every match in the top 8 was incredible. Grand Finals saw Donkey Kong vs Mario/Shulk, and it was amazing. If you're bored playing Smash 4, put the controller down, and play something else.

And for the record, there are competitive tournaments of RPS and Checkers.

Could you link me to that stream? I would love to see more competetive DK play.

 

[ZelDan]

Everyone "plays to win" (I don't think people generally go into a competitive match with the mindset of wanting to lose.) What it boils down to is that some people are more willing to use less popular or less flashy strategies to get those wins.

That being said it it isn't entirely fair to bash a person for wanting to use less fun to watch strategies to win. Blame the game that allowed the player to successfully pull off such things, not the player who is understandably doing whatever it takes to win.

 

[kyoskue]

I think that what Mura is trying to say is that if any character or strategy proves to be so effective that it invalidates the viability of all other options that "playing to win" is bad.
The points on Metaknight are valid; if misinformed, and there is some discussion to be had here, but I think that perhaps a different term than "playing to win" would be more appropriate, considering that it seems that Mura is referringto a very specific sub-set of "playing to win".
"Munchkin", maybe?

Anyway Mura, "Playing to win" is a MINDSET, and DOES NOT describe any singular way of playing.
For example; if I am better at playing Link than Marth in Melee then my picking Link would be playing to win, whereas for someone else it could obviously just be for ****s and giggles.
The goal of the game is to K.O. the other player via ring out by any means possible, and anything that can be done to further this goal (within reason and without breaking the spirit of fair competition) should be something to actively attempt during play.
Trying new things and seeking greater heights of play builds both the player and the game, and is not something that should ever be discouraged.

 

[KeketheBasedCat]

Just gonna drop this one off here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

 

[T0MMY]

I posted this in another thread, but I think it deserves its own discussion.

There's a certain aspect about the competitive meta that people never acknowledge, and it's that the even some of the most competitive players in the game don't actually "play to win".

Or to sumarize:
"Fun is more important"

Cool, that's an opinion and everyone has one.
But I think if you are going to state reasoning the reasoning itself is going to get rationalized. So here's my understanding of your post. Please note I will be critical, yet polite, as I am a strong proponent of proper argumentative discussion.

Playing to win means doing literally the strategy that most assures your victory. M2K played like that in Brawl, and that took the form of planking. Planking - literally the worst phenomenon to ever happen to competitive smash. But even still, there were competitive players that didn't plank, even though it was the best strategy. Do you know why? Because that **** isn't fun.

That or maybe because there were rules against it.

It's ironic to think that if this were a topic in "Playing to Win", David Sirlin would, I believe, advocate a ban on Metaknight to allow for a deeper gameplay (possibly a ban on IC as well) in a similar fashion to the Akuma and Old Sagat illustration given. To you, this would translate to "That **** is now fun".
"Playing to win" is on your side with this.

Playing to win means always picking the top tier character

No it does not.
Competitive Philosophy (the thinking behind playing to win) would advocate choosing the character YOU (personally) would win with, not necessarily "top-tier".

An example of this would be my choice of R.O.B. against many Pacific Northwest Meta Knights which lead to my winning quite a few Regional championships. Not only was R.O.B. considered a "low tier" character (although I personally was not allowed to play him in a low tier event, haha) but the matchup against Meta Knight was considered "impossible" or kind of a 80:100 range of difficulty. However, all other character choices of mine would not give me any kind of advantage that R.O.B. could because my opponents were much more familiar with Meta Knight dittos than what R.O.B. (especially one of my level) was capable of.
The result was R.O.B. won out (also took top 10 at EVO).

but do you know why people don't always do that? Because that **** isn't fun. Most people still want to have fun, even competitive players.

Granted, this isn't to say I do not agree with you that competitive players do not want to have fun. There is also a kind of sense of duty to adhere to a character one is known for or that feelings of "betrayal" may keep players from switching out of their character and probably worst is a public outcry of "tier *****" when one does change it up to a better character.
There are many reasons for this, but, once again, "Playing to Win" has a section detailing this and how "mental hurdles" limit players.
I'd suggest reading "Playing to Win", especially the introduction where he talks about "fun" and how that is a factor in play but outside the scope of his book. Then I suggest the "Introducing the Scrub" section regarding mental hurdles.

Mango is the perfect example of this. He is the best, hands down. He has shown that he can play using the best characters and best strategies, but he prioritizes actually having fun over winning. That's why he beats people in Melee with ****ing Mario.

Just because he is "the best" doesn't mean he "tries his best" all the time.
There are reasons for not playing at one's fullest in competitions - if someone is up against a player of considerable less skill then playing "for fun" actually puts less stress on the player and reserves energy for the important matches.
This is probably why you don't see Mango playing Mario in grand finals of Evo, don't you think?

The motivating force that makes people want to play this game is not a competitive urge to win, it is fun.

It can be, but that is not to say it is the ONLY reason why people want to win.
Not sure why blanket statements about community members are made, I try to avoid that and let the individuals speak for themselves.

and I will quit Smash 4 if winning isn't fun.

What exactly are you 'quitting'?
Competition?
If so, then you're doing it wrong: Casual = For Fun; Competition = For Glory.

I can see it already: a person gets a stock lead and then his strategy becomes to repel his opponent with safe, non laggy moves, tacking on enough % so that even if the other guy manages to kill him

This is why I am against the out-of-game rule of %-based wins.
Again, the irony is that Playing to Win is on your side here.

And if it does, I'm not going to play it.

There are other games out there, have a look around.

 

[Shack]

I posted this in another thread, but I think it deserves its own discussion.

There's a certain aspect about the competitive meta that people never acknowledge, and it's that the even some of the most competitive players in the game don't actually "play to win". Playing to win means doing literally the strategy that most assures your victory. M2K played like that in Brawl, and that took the form of planking. Planking - literally the worst phenomenon to ever happen to competitive smash. But even still, there were competitive players that didn't plank, even though it was the best strategy. Do you know why? Because that **** isn't fun. Playing to win means always picking the top tier character, but do you know why people don't always do that? Because that **** isn't fun. Most people still want to have fun, even competitive players. Mango is the perfect example of this. He is the best, hands down. He has shown that he can play using the best characters and best strategies, but he prioritizes actually having fun over winning. That's why he beats people in Melee with ****ing Mario. The motivating force that makes people want to play this game is not a competitive urge to win, it is fun. That's why I hate when people use "play to win" as their ultimate retort to complaints about the meta. Of course people want to win, but people want to have fun even more. I quit Brawl because winning wasn't fun, and I will quit Smash 4 if winning isn't fun.

If you're going to ascribe the "play to win" mentality to the Smash 4 meta, it's beginning to look like we're going to be seeing more time outs. Timing out is the most economical strategy in any game where the defensive options are better than the offensive ones. I can see it already: a person gets a stock lead and then his strategy becomes to repel his opponent with safe, non laggy moves, tacking on enough % so that even if the other guy manages to kill him, he doesn't have to change his strat because he's already tacked on so much % that the guy will never catch up. That's what I think the "play to win" mentality will look like in this game. And if it does, I'm not going to play it.

Just because someone uses a low tier character doesn't mean they're not playing to win. Not everyone plays the top ranked character the best, some do a lot better with low tiers because they fit their play style. Also, who said playing to win can't be fun? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean others don't. In any other sport, when playing competitively, you play to win because it is a competition and the point is to win. If you don't care about winning, then just play casual games with friends. No one forces you to go to tournaments or to play ranked modes. Some people also play to be disrespectful and sand bag people because they find it fun, but that usually only happens when they know they are that much better than their opponent or just feel like trolling.

EDIT: In regards to the time out comment, yes that happens in pretty much every type of competition. In Football or Basketball, when ahead and the game is almost over, the winning team will usually run the clock. Why would this not apply to eSports? It would be foolish not to. Also that is personal preference, some people don't like to run the clock and will give it their all, no matter how much they are winning by. There have also been many times where running the clock has failed and the player focusing on running away takes a hit by accident and loses the game when they might have won if they just ended what they started. It is strategy with multiple outcomes. Keep in mind that in order to run the clock, you have to be winning in the first place.

 

[digiholic]

The way I see it is, you play to win, and accept that that means you're going to have to do some scummy stuff to get there, or play for fun, in which case you waive the right to get upset at losing.

If I go to a tournament as Mega Man because I want to do my best at Mega Man and get bodied by a Diddy Kong, I don't cry foul and say he didn't deserve that win, he picked a better character than I did. That was on me. I did my best, but it wasn't good enough. Oh well, I had fun playing Mega Man.

 

[Reaperfan]

Some people have fun by winning. Go figure.

 

[RODO]

ITT: OP's point going over lots of people's heads.

 

[Trickerhere]

What about Amsa lol?

 

[dragontamer]

I mean, sure. Normally characters are diverse enough mechanically that player preference outweighs relative imbalances; my Brawl Jigglypuff being better than my Brawl MK (despite practice) being an extreme example.

In a sense, everyone who doesn't main the single top-most character (regardless of how small the difference is) is a sub-optimal player merely coping with their personal limitations, physical or mental.

There are advantages to choosing lower-tier characters in any fighting game.

The number one factor in any fighting game is reading yourself and your opponent. If you choose a less used character, your opponents simply won't be as comfortable fighting you.

Winning with Metaknight... when everyone else has studied Mew2King's Metaknight... means playing as good as, or better than Mew2King. Fact. There's too many youtube videos, frame data studies, and analysis that goes into fighting games. On the other hand, playing a good Jigglypuff is much easier. There's less video about Jiggly, less analysis, etc. etc. You can scrape out wins because opponents are more ignorant of Jigglypuff's setups.

I've said it before. Tier lists are just a representation of the community opinion. The top-tier characters are similarly almost always the most studied characters in the game.

It'd be like pulling off Queen's Pawn openings in Chess, or a rare Joseki in Go. By choosing the less-traveled road, your opponent is probably going to be less studied than you on your home turf.

 

[SuaveChaser]

I feel where op is coming but that is how competive gaming is it is about the wins at the end of the day people want to be on top. I rather just win by my own methods and doing what i enjoy.

 

[dragontamer]

There's no reason why both "competitive gaming" and "non-competitive" can't coexist.

Just because you play basketball with your coworkers every now and then doesn't mean that you're going to try to play NBA-level ball all the time.

Similarly, if you wanna play Smash casually, you're welcome to do so. But chances are, the "competitive gamers" are gonna want to set up tournaments and their own community. Its just much easier to run a community around competition, because everything is simple and objective.

Subjective rules among friends is fine and all, just don't expect it to happen in tournament-level settings. Similarly, don't expect tournament-level seriousness when you hang out at your friend's house to play a bit of Smash. I'm sure Michael Jordan doesn't go all out on his cousins when he plays Basketball.

 

[Antonykun]

I think it's important to consider playing to learn where you aren't necessarily playing to win but rather to better understand the dynamics of the game.

 

[MAGMIS]

you hate when people say "play to win"

then you must like when people say "play to lose"

 

[Yong Dekonk]

There are advantages to choosing lower-tier characters in any fighting game.

The number one factor in any fighting game is reading yourself and your opponent. If you choose a less used character, your opponents simply won't be as comfortable fighting you.

Winning with Metaknight... when everyone else has studied Mew2King's Metaknight... means playing as good as, or better than Mew2King. Fact. There's too many youtube videos, frame data studies, and analysis that goes into fighting games. On the other hand, playing a good Jigglypuff is much easier. There's less video about Jiggly, less analysis, etc. etc. You can scrape out wins because opponents are more ignorant of Jigglypuff's setups.

I've said it before. Tier lists are just a representation of the community opinion. The top-tier characters are similarly almost always the most studied characters in the game.

It'd be like pulling off Queen's Pawn openings in Chess, or a rare Joseki in Go. By choosing the less-traveled road, your opponent is probably going to be less studied than you on your home turf.

While this idea sounds like it has merit, it really doesn't. Not in tournament level play. Great players can read their opponents even when they pick unconventional characters because many principles of reading your opponent are universal. There's a reason why MK won brawl tournaments over and over. Because he was the best character in the hands of the best players.

 

[kyoskue]

you hate when people say "play to win"

then you must like when people say "play to lose"

Nice logical fallacy there.

 

[FirewaterDM]

neither are mutually exclusive. I wanted to, but never really was able to play Brawl competively. I played Pika, then added IC's because of the attempted MK ban, I picked that character to specifically be annoying/play who was strong, though i'd go Pika more often than not. BUt as I learned the character, I found it to be fun to learn the CG's, to learn what I needed to do to be successful, figuring out the handoffs was a step that made me happy, figuring out hobbling, or even how to accurately 0-100 Snake/Spacies with Pika was fun because I knew it helped me get better, and so on and forth it helped me enjoy and change even in Melee/PM where I don't play the top, top tiers (IC's and Luigi in both).

Point is, playing to win, whether it's considered not fun, made the game fun for me. One of my biggest regrets as a player was the one time I let the two get seperated, and kind of made a friend resent me simply because I showed him the wonders of the Pika/Fox CG in some not real tournament (FFA pools, etc.) I felt bad for that afterwards because that wasn't fun. And in certain environemnts, if i'm playing with my friends who aren't that interested in competitive play, or are new, I'll abide by their requests to not wobble, or not use x character, or even go to strange stages, or play with items- it's fun there because I can have a good time and make sure everyone has a good time.

At the same time, if I spend an hour or more in transportation, have to eat, pay venue/tourney fees, and gas, you best belive that i'm going to do whatever it takes, even if the entire crowd thinks I'm a scumbag because of my playstyle, to make sure I have as best of a chance of making some money, or winning the tournament as possible.

Finally, I have these differences because of the needs of my friends and competitors, I'm very willing to change or do things others want to do to make things better, like play with settings i'm not familiar with, or items, or not using characters if asked. At the same time, I'm not gonna sandbag or ignore the tools that I know solely because it appears more "fun" I'm going to play hard because it'll help me and my opponents get better in the long run. (So yes, i'm the dude who would wobble/0-death handoffs in friendlies, if I could consistently do it). And it's more of a respect thing than a only wanting the win thing- it's more disrespectful if you have the capabilities/skill to be the best, and you sandbag solely because others around you think your strategy is bad or not fun.

(This does not include stopping certain strategies if they visibly upset, or otherwise demoralize people to the point of where they want to quit the game. Causing salt is one thing... but making someone legitimately hurt is worse.)

 

[stancosmos]

http://www.ssbwiki.com/Master_Hand_glitch

Master Hand sucks at high level play, except that he cannot be KO'd. Essentially, all Master Hand games (if legal) would end in timeout by necessity.

That "can't be KO'd" thing sure sounds like it overshadows any other problems he might have had..

 

[stancosmos]

I posted this in another thread, but I think it deserves its own discussion.

There's a certain aspect about the competitive meta that people never acknowledge, and it's that the even some of the most competitive players in the game don't actually "play to win". Playing to win means doing literally the strategy that most assures your victory. M2K played like that in Brawl, and that took the form of planking. Planking - literally the worst phenomenon to ever happen to competitive smash. But even still, there were competitive players that didn't plank, even though it was the best strategy. Do you know why? Because that **** isn't fun. Playing to win means always picking the top tier character, but do you know why people don't always do that? Because that **** isn't fun. Most people still want to have fun, even competitive players. Mango is the perfect example of this. He is the best, hands down. He has shown that he can play using the best characters and best strategies, but he prioritizes actually having fun over winning. That's why he beats people in Melee with ****ing Mario. The motivating force that makes people want to play this game is not a competitive urge to win, it is fun. That's why I hate when people use "play to win" as their ultimate retort to complaints about the meta. Of course people want to win, but people want to have fun even more. I quit Brawl because winning wasn't fun, and I will quit Smash 4 if winning isn't fun.

If you're going to ascribe the "play to win" mentality to the Smash 4 meta, it's beginning to look like we're going to be seeing more time outs. Timing out is the most economical strategy in any game where the defensive options are better than the offensive ones. I can see it already: a person gets a stock lead and then his strategy becomes to repel his opponent with safe, non laggy moves, tacking on enough % so that even if the other guy manages to kill him, he doesn't have to change his strat because he's already tacked on so much % that the guy will never catch up. That's what I think the "play to win" mentality will look like in this game. And if it does, I'm not going to play it.

So... you're hope is that every smash player plays well, without ever exploiting moves and that the best players are not really trying to win? I don't understand how this could ever happen in any game. you will never find a million people who are willing to come together and say " alright guys, play fair ". You're only hope is that sakurai removes any cheap techs and changes the timing on tactics that seem to be abused by the top tier players.

 

[warriorman222]

Well, you have to play the game to win

And it's better then saying the game's pay to win, right? Except it is. You need to pay to play to stay to win.

 

[Kraetyz]

If the winning strategy ends up making the game unenjoyable, then you just have a bad game. But when playing to win ends up making the game even better, those are the games that stand the test of time. Complaining about people playing to win is just shooting the messenger, you should be instead complaining that the game isn't fun when played to win.

To be honest, guys... this is the end of the thread.

No matter how much you hate it, OP, any competitive game is built to be won. People will want to win, and they will find ways to win. Do you find the ways they find boring? Sucks to be you. Does everyone find it boring? Sucks for the game devs, they failed, because they knew all along that we would try to win as hard as absolutely possible.

Also, I didn't see this linked in the thread yet, but... [Okay I can't post links] David Sirlin's book "Playing to Win". It's available for free at his website sirlin dot net. Just refer to Mr. Sirlin for any and all inquiries and complaints you may have. I'm sure he's got them covered one way or another.

//Kraetyz, first post and amazed by the overall quality of this forum