Do You Play Games to Win?

[fcgamer | 4,729]

This seems like a weird question, but for those who play games, do you play them to win? For example, when my brother was visiting, we played some of the games we had as kids, swapping turns or two player when applicable. I was surprised to discover that some of the games my brother still hasn't finished, to this day.

Similarly, he was surprised that although I'm not always successful, when I sit down to play a game, my objective is to play it through to completion in that sitting. It might be a personality thing as I'm also not one to start watching movies part way through (or to start one day, finish a different day).

 

[Hammerfestus | 3,860]

1 hour ago, fcgamer said:

This seems like a weird question, but for those who play games, do you play them to win? For example, when my brother was visiting, we played some of the games we had as kids, swapping turns or two player when applicable. I was surprised to discover that some of the games my brother still hasn't finished, to this day.

Similarly, he was surprised that although I'm not always successful, when I sit down to play a game, my objective is to play it through to completion in that sitting. It might be a personality thing as I'm also not one to start watching movies part way through (or to start one day, finish a different day).

 

I never finish what I start.  It’s an issue.

[Mega Tank | 966]

15 minutes ago, Hammerfestus said:

I never finish what I start.  It’s an issue.

Interesting. It all makes sense. That's why we never completed a trade in fantasy football.

 

 

[Rhuno | 108]

Depends on the game. If it's something short like Contra or Double Dragon, then sure. Generally, if it's going to take more than an hour or two, I'm not going to finish it in a single session.

[Webhead123 | 679]

Fundamentally, I play games to experience them. There are some kinds of games where "winning" is effectively the entire intent of the thing but there are many games where I just play to explore the space and ideas that the designers have imagined for me. I like to challenge myself sometimes, sure. I like games that make me think and present me with the threat of "defeat". But win or lose, I boot up a game because I want to interact with the experience that it promises, even if that means only playing for a few minutes to "satisfy" that desire.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Webhead123

[fcgamer | 4,729]

1 hour ago, Webhead123 said:

Fundamentally, I play games to experience them. There are some kinds of games where "winning" is effectively the entire intent of the thing but there are many games where I just play to explore the space and ideas that the designers have imagined for me. I like to challenge myself sometimes, sure. I like games that make me think and present me with the threat of "defeat". But win or lose, I boot up a game because I want to interact with the experience that it promises, even if that means only playing for a few minutes to "satisfy" that desire.

I've been curious about this, if there's people out there who would be interested in a game that is solely just an interactive world...no enemies etc

[SilverspoonGaming | 332]

I have never thought about it this deeply, but I definitely play the games to win.  Most games I cant beat in one sitting, such as recently playing NBA 2K24, but when I play, Im trying to progress my team as a far as I can to work towards the ultimate goal of winning championships in my game mode.

[Gloves | 11,794]

19 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

I've been curious about this, if there's people out there who would be interested in a game that is solely just an interactive world...no enemies etc

Like Second Life?

[fcgamer | 4,729]

7 minutes ago, Gloves said:

Like Second Life?

Possibly, I'm not familiar with this game 

[Gloves | 11,794]

42 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

Possibly, I'm not familiar with this game 

It's basically a big ol life Sim. Speaking of, The Sims exists. Also there's plenty of other games if we extend it to job games like Lawn Mower Simulator or Truck Simulator etc.. Depends on the limits you put on it really. 

[DefaultGen | 5,413]

2 hours ago, fcgamer said:

I've been curious about this, if there's people out there who would be interested in a game that is solely just an interactive world...no enemies etc

You've invented walking simulators

[fcgamer | 4,729]

6 minutes ago, DefaultGen said:

You've invented walking simulators

Yeah, like just walking around an overworld and talking to people, but not doing fetch quests or fighting baddies or anything. 

[DarkTone | 986]

Nah. Its about having fun for me. 

[Rhuno | 108]

6 hours ago, fcgamer said:

I've been curious about this, if there's people out there who would be interested in a game that is solely just an interactive world...no enemies etc

This sounds like Proteus. It's kinda neat for a few minutes, but I lose interest fairly quickly when there's no real goal or objective.

[Sumez | 2,967]

People around here can't even agree on what "winning" means 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,549]

[Tulpa | 3,516]

17 hours ago, fcgamer said:

I've been curious about this, if there's people out there who would be interested in a game that is solely just an interactive world...no enemies etc

Most games with a creative mode are that. Like Minecraft or Raft or things of that nature. Sometimes they call it "Peaceful Mode." You just chill out and build shit.

As mentioned, walking simulators and some interactive novels might count. Penumbra: Requiem has no enemies. Firewatch has an antagonist of sorts, but you never fight them, you just solve the puzzles and complete the tasks to get to the end of the story. They have a completion condition, but not necessarily a "win" condition by most definitions.

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Tulpa

[RH | 4,921]

21 hours ago, Hammerfestus said:

I never finish what I start.  It’s an issue.

Yeah I don’t finish anything.  It’s probably not true, but I feel like so could count all the games I’ve beaten on my fingers and toes.

And if that’s not enough, I never even finished my favorite RPG. (But that’s Xenogears so I think most people would give me a pass on that one.)

[T-Pac | 7,560]

Now that I've gotten over the mental hurdle of allowing myself to use save-states and guides, I almost always play games to win (as in, beating the game).

I'm not motivated to "win" in a competitive sense, though - one of the main reasons I fell off participating in VGS contests. I quickly realized it just isn't my thing.

[T-Pac]

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,105]

If the game has an ending or a win condition, I definitely try to finish it, but I'm also not going to force myself to finish a game I either lose interest in or end up not caring for.

[AirVillain | 490]

Good questions....

Depends on the game/situation.

If it's a game I know I can beat, or know I have a pretty good chance of beating then I want to win and smash that shit. I hate losing. Ex. Contra, Double Dragon II. I expect to beat those games each time I play and any less is not acceptable.

Some other games I'll just throw in to play and don't care how far I get/how much I play.

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,013]

On 11/9/2023 at 3:11 AM, DefaultGen said:

You've invented walking simulators

Death Standing already exists. 

[Andy_Bogomil | 815]

All the games I really enjoyed, I've pretty much beat into the ground in some form. Maybe not in one sitting, depending on the game, but I usually 'play to win'. I don't really spend any time with games that don't interest me or I find out I don't like. Newer games are generally too long... anything that takes 2+ hours to beat I'm probably only gonna play once.

I do have a bad habit of just turning games I've already completed off when I die in a really crap spot and don't feel like doing a part over. This typically applies to NES games where the you get punished hard with the lack of saves/checkpoints etc.

I've really mellowed in my playing over the last 10 years though. I used to get pretty revved up back in the day playing online or even raging at a really annoying part in a game when I was younger. 

[Tanooki | 4,939]

I always played to have fun, played as an escape.  The side effect was that I'd play to finish the game, then do it some more as I figured it out so I could just relax and do it again.  And this happened in a rotation around a rare buy, a super rare in year gift, or around b'day and christmas.  Little funds, more time, made for more play with friends and largely alone as friend time was usually toys and outside.  I never did it because I'm some 100% completionist or speed running psycho, that's nuts.

And with less time and the challenge of interest around jobS, home stuff, the toxicity of the market  ...I get what I get largely local (or largely imported online) and I play still to have fun, but finishing it is not in the cards and would just be a side effect of an easier and/or shorter game I can push my way through and that's fine too.

[CMR | 520]

I still haven't beaten Zelda BOTW2.  I've done everything else, though.