By Michael Lowell
November 28, 2010
I Play For Fun: The Four Dumbest Words in Video Games
People use the internet to discuss video games. True story. Some talk market trends, others talk big releases. Some even talk gameplay. Crazy, I know. Many of the best games have demanding learning curves. Starcraft? Yeah, that’s one. Call of Duty? Eh, sure. Man’s inherent curiosity also lends itself to electronic rule sets. It’s our competitive nature. We don’t care if it’s computer code. We want to get the better of it.
Thus, “I play for fun” was born. And we were all dumber for hearing it. Because excuses and irony have never been wrapped with a fancier bow. Excuses that wouldn’t be tolerated in any other form of recreation featuring a competitive edge. Irony that gets a free pass because “it’s video gamez lol”. If “I play for fun” is one of your talking points, you really, really need to shut the fuck up.
Think about it. “I play for fun.” What the hell does that even mean? Who doesn’t play video games for fun? Let’s bite hard on that statement. Let’s prod for answers. Video game testers. They work seventy-hour weeks to document the innards of broken video games. That doesn’t sound fun. Professional gamers. That’s another. Yeah, they enjoy the game to some extent. The ability to play video games for money is a meeting of natural ability and passion. But nobody goes into professional gaming saying “Seven days of video games a week! Glad I passed on college for this!” How about game reviewers? Where you have twenty-four hours to dissect a game and come to a conclusion that’s consistent with the final rating that Activision demanded? All of those are professions. All of those people are paid to play video games. Everybody else plays video games for fun. It’s an Occam’s razor ordeal. If video games were not fun, you would not play them. You would find something else to do with your time.
Here’s what people are really saying when they say that they play video games for fun: “You play the game more than me. You study the game mechanics. You play the game with a competitive edge. Those are the only reasons you can beat me. If I took the game seriously, I would embarrass you.” And as a man who plays a lot of video games, studies game mechanics, and plays games with a competitive edge (all because I enjoy doing it), I know that is complete bullshit.
Here’s the thought process: The “I play for fun” crowd doesn’t care much for video games. But hey, Call of Duty is pretty fun. They can grind out a couple hours a week, though that’s all they can handle. Any more Call of Duty, and Call of Duty becomes boring. The “I play for fun” crowd then discovers some gamers operate on another plane of existence. They’re one-man armies. The “I play for fun” crowd becomes frustrated. Hey, losing isn’t fun. They access their conqueror’s profile and find that he plays four to five hours every single day. He does this because it is fun. It’s also very possible this skilled player has a knack for shooters. And human beings derive enjoyment from things that they’re good at. For a lot of people, playing to win is part of playing for fun. So that natural talent snowballs on the back of considerable practice time. So what is the perspective of the “I play for fun” crowd? They apply their experience with Call of Duty and extrapolate it to the most talented reaches of the user base. Therefore, “those skilled players must be bored out of their mind. They must have a twitch in their brain. They must be playing to extract some perverse, abstract justice against those who picked on them in high school. They must have no life. They can’t possibly be playing for for fun. Therefore, I am playing for fun. I enjoy the game more than you do by examining its mechanics on fewer levels and playing the game on a superficial level. I enjoy the game more than you do because I’m not interested in playing the game on a higher level than was intended. And I feel it is my duty to make sure everybody knows that.”
Quarterback Ryan Leaf decided the moment that he inked his multi-million-dollar football
contract that he was going to “play for fun”. People don’t think too fondly of Ryan Leaf.*
Mainstream gaming journalism has allowed this mentality to fester. They have beaten the idea of “time equals skill” into the ground. Competitive gaming has its origins in an era of marathon single-player, a Golden Age of Arcade Games where video games were never designed in-mind for their prodigies. They were an endurance test. If you were running a newspaper, “fourteen-year-old kid plays nineteen hours of Asteroids with one quarter” had some appeal to it. But even as online role-playing games stole the “how can we imply that gamers are wasting their lives” card, “good gamers just play video games more than their competition” persisted.
Now the problem is that for years and years, the argument from gamers to an oblivious mainstream was “Don’t knock our hobby until you’ve tried it.” That argument extended itself to competitive gaming. Video games have now gone mainstream in the form of social gaming. One side of this revolution comes in the form of Wii Sports, where playing for a high score and determining who is the better player doesn’t really matter. It’s about getting together and having a good time with your friends and family, a la bowling night. (And no surprise that the most popular minigame in Wii Sports is the bowling component.) The other side features World and Warcraft and FarmVille, where more powerful items and equipment are ultimately reaped through vast amounts of playtime. (And fittingly enough, this class of games may be the lone argument that someone doesn’t play for fun. Taking several weeks off from the game may lead your guild to drop your services, costing you access to end-game content. That may act as a vice for months of joyless playthroughs. But that’s a different story for another time.) Even Call of Duty, once the great compromise between core and casual gamers, is being fitted with “grind to unlock weapons and abilities” role-playing elements. It’s like playing organized basketball and being told you have to win twenty-five games before you’re allowed to start shooting three-pointers. So “Don’t knock our hobby until you’ve tried it” is now ultimately answered by “We have played ‘your games’. And the player who plays the most is the one that reaps the benefits.”
That’s a slap in the fucking face. The pissing matches over what video games take skill are relative. You don’t get to be the best in those games unless you have something to bring to the table. Even poker, the game closer to paper-rock-scissors than chess, breeds enough millionaires to keep the suckers throwing money into the sport, and allows for enough dominance that one man can become its figurehead. (Hello, Phil Ivey.) “I play for fun” is an assertion of snowflake syndrome. And snowflake syndrome isn’t exclusive to video games. After all, my professional basketball career didn’t pan out only because I was too short. A lot of people haven’t gotten the memo: When your mom told you that were special and that you could do anything you wanted if you put the time and effort into something, she was full of shit. Simple math says ninety-nine percent of society doesn’t get to be in the top one percent. And if the ninety-niners get left out? They aren’t going to blame themselves and they aren’t going to get better.
The irony of “I play for fun” is obvious to anybody that spent a couple of hours with Warcraft III. The ebb and flow of multiplayer and its numerous breaks in action created a rather-legendary community of trash-talkers. And in my own experience, the nastiest of that crowd were the players who insisted that they played the game for fun. “Oh, they’re just saying that to save face when they lose.” But think about it: Remember playing single-player games when you were a kid? And you got to a really hard level, and you couldn’t beat it, so you insisted to your mom that the game was cheating? The “I play for fun” crowd thinks the same way. In declaring that they’re simply in the business of playing for fun, they don’t learn the game rules, they don’t learn the optimal strategies, and they don’t bother trying to see the game on a level beyond the first move. So when they lose, they won’t know why. And then they will be angry.
Check out the Battle.net forums and check out the wonderful world of low-level Starcraft some time. (Actually, just take my word for it. You don’t want to visit the place. It’s a “not my virgin eyes!” thing.) If somebody loses to Marines, then Marines are overpowered. If somebody loses to Ultralisks, then Ultralisks are overpowered. If the opposing player anticipates a mid-game strategy based on an early-game build, then that player is clearly maphacking. If someone makes more units than them, then Starcraft is a bullshit click-fest which rewards mouse speed instead of strategy. In the world of low-level gaming, it’s simply not your fault if you lose.
I’m shocked the search toolbar wasn’t overpowered by the number of results returned.
Skilled gamers do not do this. Sure, Greg Fields (IdrA) indulges the Starcraft II lexicon by asking people to apologize for playing the Terran race.* Sure, you’ll get your rants, where “after playing 3,000 matches I’ve determined this game isn’t worth the money.” But the nature of good players is that they understand why they lost. And if they don’t, they’ll take time to find out why. They’ll watch replays. They’ll analyze build orders. They’ll consult for help on discussion boards. They won’t make excuses. They will try to get better.
Somehow, society has come to the conclusion that’s a very bad thing. That’s precisely the problem: “I play for fun” ultimately implies that being good at a video game is a bad thing. Only losers do that. Those nerds should get lives. Clearly, true memories are created by being too drunk to remember what happened the night before. Well, hate to say it: I like being good at video games. Fact is, I like being good at everything I do. Honestly, that’s a pretty good life skill to have. I enjoy seeing how my skills stack against the work of others and seeing if I can manipulate my skills to better others. I enjoy putting my best hand against the rest of the world. And quite frankly, I don’t care whether it’s video games. I don’t care what test of skill it may be. As long as my competitive edge doesn’t inhibit the ability of others to function during the course of their day, there’s no harm in that.
Sound like I have a bit to prove? Perhaps. I just subscribe to a different four-word phrase.
“I don’t make excuses.”
If you “play for fun”, you do.
YES.
Comment by Rocky on November 29, 2010 at 3:26 am
Yep.
Comment by PIES on November 29, 2010 at 4:25 am
Yes. As a casual gamer who gets his ass handed to him often enough, its still irritating to hear people make excuses as to why they can’t play the game. If you lost, get better or be quiet. Its how I try to play at all times. So, Amen sir.
Comment by Uhlrik on November 29, 2010 at 6:10 am
I didn’t play Quake 3 for 5 years straight because I liked looking at the pretty graphics (those were all turned way down eventually anyway). I played to win, even when I was on 56k I did my best to get the best of everyone I saw.
Same for my years in WoW I never raided on my mage and was happy with 2nd or lower place in dps. Anyone after 1st place is the beginning of the losers.
Comment by Song7 on November 29, 2010 at 6:14 am
I like reading the comments on Metacritic. “This game is too hard, only no-lifers are good at it. I play my games for fun!” And this was just for games like Devil May Cry and Resident Evil 4 which aren’t even hard to begin with.
This is a recent favorite of mine:
“I think Nintendo dropped the ball big time on this game. It’s supposed to be a fun experience for hardcore gamers nostalgia and young new gamers. This game does nothing for either group. It’s too hard for hardcore gamers and impossible for beginners. The graphics are extremely antiquated and uninspired … compare the style to that of kirbys epic yarn. Basically, this is a game that feel like it took a year to make just to cash in on the brand of Donkey Kong. It’s sad but safe to say Nintendo has lost their touch for platforming. It’s such a dichotomy because Kirbys Epic Yarn is an amazing experience. Nothing to see here but another Nintendo reboot thats boring, uninspired and just plain lazy. Shame on Nintendo.…”
IT’S TOO HARD FOR HARDCORE GAMERS AND IMPOSSIBLE FOR BEGINNERS
Also “Kirby’s Epic Yarn” is an amazing experience, a game where you can’t even die (it does look pretty though, but DKCR just completely destroys it in terms of everything else).
Comment by Q-veta on November 29, 2010 at 11:39 am
Too hard for hardcore gamers? Oxymoron that can’t even exist, or be possible. When something is hard I call it a challenge these people call it a waste of time… odd way of thinking.
And ya I enjoy the comments on metacritic too. either it’s 5 stars (or whatever) and the greatest game ever or 1 star and horrible. Comedy in every post.
Comment by Song7 on November 29, 2010 at 12:19 pm
@Uhlrik: Thanks for the nod. I don’t mean to dwell on this, but somebody had to say it.
@Q-Veta: Every person who gave Henry Hatsworth a lower score because it was “too hard” needs a sledgehammer to the balls. Still one of my best platforming experiences in the last half-decade. I’m looking forward to Epic Yarn and Donkey Kong Country Returns when I can spare the money for both of them. Though I remember Kirby always being a tad easy.
@Song7: Any of you guys notice that user reviews are entitled to be emotionally-driven crusades featuring “the greatets gaem ever!!1″ or “OMFG THIS GAEM SUXXX” but any critic who uses the full range of the one-to-ten review scale gets shat on?
Comment by Mike Lowell on November 29, 2010 at 3:04 pm
I remember when Gears of War 2 and LittleBigPlanet had less than 3 as user score with a few hundred votes before they even released.
If you only have money for one of them get DKCR, it’s actually difficult, a lot more than the previous Donkey Kong Country games and the Mario games (maybe not the original SMB2 which I haven’t played).
Kirby gets boring, sure it looks great but YOU CAN’T DIE. A 3/5 at best, more closer to a 2/5 probably.
Seriously though Donkey Kong Country Returns is fantastic, I dare say it’s even greater than Super Mario World, a lot harder too. The only thing that isn’t great is the waggle to roll (which isn’t a problem if you have a modded Wii, you can just make B do the same thing as the waggle).
Comment by Q-veta on November 29, 2010 at 3:13 pm
I’ve used the I play for fun phrase before in WoW. Now I realize why I said it haha. Grinding to the number one slot in 3s and 5s was very difficult to do against all the spellcleave teams. We pretty much won in the first 30 seconds, died, or pulled something over them. It was very stressfull and time consuming but it was worth it. I still wouldn’t do it again because it is very hard and you have to invest a lot of time in it. It was very fun though while it lasted looking back on it so I have no idea why I said that phrase to my arena buddies.
Comment by Casualty on November 29, 2010 at 4:38 pm
@Mike- There are only great games and shitty games. The Grey areas are to be avoided at all costs.
Comment by Song7 on November 29, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Meh. Just some honest feedback here. I don’t think this is your best work.
As much as I agree that scrubs calling good players no-lifers and lamers is pathetic, denegrating casuals because they don’t have the time or inclination to attempt to improve significantly is equally pathetic.
For example I play Starcraft casually. I don’t have the time to attempt to get very good at the game (note I said attempt :p), but I still like loading up the odd game and trying my hand at an enjoyable game.
If I get beaten by someone better than me I don’t rage, abuse and make excuses. The fact is though that I would improve if I took the time to work at it, but I just don’t take it that seriously. Would I be the second coming of Boxer? Highly unlikely. Would I beat the guy who just handed my ass to me? I don’t know. But for me my level of involvement puts the match into context. How can it not?
While I wouldn’t use the phrase “I only play video games for fun.” per se, I definitely play some of them not really intending them to be anything more than an idle diversion. Being abused for that is no different to getting abuse for being a basement dwelling troglodite because you happened to beat some raging 12 y/o with snowflake syndrome.
Just 2c.
Comment by Age on November 30, 2010 at 5:00 am
@Age: I think the point is not that casual players are scrubs, but rather that they shouldn’t be bitching that people who sink more time into something are better than them.
Comment by Acritter on November 30, 2010 at 5:05 am
@Q-Veta: No worries, I’m definitely giving the game a run. I very, very much enjoy challenging platformers (provided they’re challenging and not poorly-designed shitfests like The Lost Levels).
@Casualty: The buy-in for merely having the ability to play World of Warcraft is obscene (between leveling and gear-whoring). You’re more vigilant than I am. I couldn’t put myself through the grind.
@Song7: I see. <3
@Age: Casual gamers are entitled to play the game in a very relaxed manner. That’s perfectly fine with me. But they’re not entitled to make thinly-veiled excuses that imply their natural gaming ability is superior to somebody else’s, and do it while implying their opposition needs to get out of the house more. Your score is your score. Context need not apply.
Comment by Mike Lowell on November 30, 2010 at 5:50 am
YES.
Comment by grmnasasin0227 on November 30, 2010 at 6:15 am
I have a blast playing a lot of games that I suck at.
I have friends who dig RTS’s so I will concede and play with them even though I don’t particularly like the genre. In one round of Dawn of War a friend pretty much asked “What the hell are you doing?” and I told him “I have no idea.” Fact was, I was having a lot of fun just hanging out with everyone.
What I don’t like is when I am “playing for fun”, and having a blast even though I am losing (I used to use the tag “free killz!” in games I suck at), and then people want to talk shit about me being a n00b or something. #1 reason I quit XBox Live.
Want an insanely hard platformer? Try “Prinny: Can I Really be the Hero?” on PSP. Game about drove me insane, but you better believe I beat that fucking game all the way.
Looking forward to playing DKC Returns. We need more good 2D (2.5D?) platformers
Comment by Kelly on November 30, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Prinny wasn’t particularly hard, it was just an adjustment period for me because you can’t control the character mid-air like in most platformers. They only insanely hard part was the second part of the last boss (which I didn’t beat because it was poorly designed). It asked you to mash the square button for 3 minutes straight as fast as you could. The other bosses were fun, but mashing a button for 3 minutes constantly just doesn’t do it for me.
I was mostly interested in the new DKC because it’s made by Retro (they made Metroid Prime) so I was very excited. It’s a good thing it surpassed my already high expectations, I couldn’t take another disappointment like Metroid Other M from Nintendo this year.
Comment by Q-veta on November 30, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Little off topic, but on the subject of platformers.
Gex (the 1st one) is a pretty good one. :P
Comment by PIES on November 30, 2010 at 2:38 pm
@Q-veta: Agreed that the final boss was annoying. Just pattern memorization and knowing where to be to mash the X button the longest without getting hit. I remember beating him with only a few seconds left.
I am assuming, then, that you didn’t play through every level at every hour? The stages change depending on what order you play them in, with the level getting harder the later in the day it is. This also means that boss battles change and get harder depending on the hour. And some of the harder bosses were from earlier levels played at the latest hour.
And, of course, you can begin new rounds without having to clear the game, which means only having to do the final boss once…
Comment by Kelly on November 30, 2010 at 3:11 pm
I wonder if the “I play for fun,” people make the same excuses for activities such as sports. Imagine a kid saying that phrase and storming off a field after losing a baseball game. If I were his/her teammates, I’d be giving them quite a cold stare.
Maybe it’s the internet anonymity that turns them into flaming trolls. But I just feel like the people who make these excuses are in fact, have as much competitive drive as the rest of the hardcore audience. Why else would they be compelled to protect their pride after losing?
Maybe it’s time to make an online multi-player mode/channel for casual players or people with less commitment time. I believe Penny Arcade had a comic that represented this idea well in a comical fashion. I don’t have the link but you should check it out (I got a small chuckle).
Comment by Ineno on November 30, 2010 at 6:09 pm
@Kelly: Yeah, I was blessed with a pretty sharp tongue and a solid penchant for trolling idiots. So if I’m losing, I can usually talk my way out of taking the blame, or at least drive the other players nuts. I’m pretty free-market when it comes to smack talk. I see using the ignore function as a sign of weakness. In all the years I played Warcraft III, I only banned people from chat channels if they were annoying a friend or somebody else. I never once banned someone who confronted me.
@Ineno: I was actually going to argue that if you played pickup basketball or football and went with the “I play for fun” defense, you would be picking up teeth by the time the game is over. I opted elsewise because I figured it would be a little bit too crazy to sell to gamers. I’m happy to see that I’m not the only person who thought this way.
And if anybody isn’t aware, this is the comic in question:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/
The irony is that if I remember correctly, Unreal Tournament 2004 had one of the most professional and mature player bases of any game I’ve ever played. Of course, this comic was made three days after the game came out. I guess Gabe’s findings aren’t surprising.
Comment by Mike Lowell on December 1, 2010 at 7:05 am
awww man i miss playing on golems in the mist (sp?)
Comment by GhOsT-TiMe on December 1, 2010 at 7:51 am
@Mike Lowell
Your link to the penny arcade comic illustrates my first point but the comic I was referring to was my second point. I found the link so I’ll post it.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/9/15/
I sometimes do wish they would have leagues to filter out players by age/occupation. I personally find people with full time jobs in their 20~30s much more pleasant to play with than other age/occupation group.
Comment by Ineno on December 2, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Noted. <3
I guess it’s that “boys will be boys” thing. Can’t say I wasn’t a bit of a trash talker back in the Warcraft III days. The difference between me and most people is that I welcomed it back. Of course, my only real experience with X-Box Live is about a month and a half of Halo 3. And the VOIP was so horrible that I don’t think I understood half the things my teammates were saying, anyway. I’m probably getting a completely different perspective on the service than most people.
Comment by Mike Lowell on December 2, 2010 at 8:39 pm
I really enjoy reading your articles or what ever you want them to be labeled. Society as a whole has been dumbed down slowly over a long time but with video games you can blatantly see just how fast this has happened. You can take World of Warcraft for example and see how over the years it has become extremely easy not that it was that hard in the first place but it definitely is a whole lot different in 2010 then 2004. I suspect something will happen that will wake everyone up and they will snap out of their trance of materialism and decadence then realize what is happening and how to fix it. It isn’t just video games that have had a decline it is all of society we have degenerated into a cancer that is killing the Earth and ourselves. Everything now a days is garbage and has no thought put into it. It is just a whole bunch of junk made for profit to be consumed and thrown away video games included. Most of the games coming out today are sequels or made on the same engine, which I could imagine is true for WC3 and SC2. Game no longer needs to be any good to be sold it just has to have a good marketing scheme, be a sequel, made by a giant company or be intellectual property theft like all the DotA games that have come out. Poor IceFrog had to leave the DotA fan website that had been up for years because it was turned into a giant commercial for League of Legends. Greed, corruption, ignorance and flat out stupidity is why we can’t have nice things.
Comment by Anonymous on December 3, 2010 at 5:47 am
@ Mike: It wasn’t the trash talking that bothered me so much. Trash talking is always part of the fun and the main reason I enjoy playing games with friends. But there is trash talking, and then there is just being a jack ass.
And then there are also people who take the games way too seriously and sap all the fun out of it for everyone.
Comment by iamKelly on December 3, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Very off topic but I love looking at the topics for Spike’s video game awards and seeing what they put into the best graphics category. God of War 3, Heavy Rain, Kirby’s Epic Yarn, and Red Dead Redemption are the one they put in. No PC game? I mean come on what the hell is going on even though it wasn’t anything like it should have been SC2 blows all of those out of the water. I think out dated games such as Crysis made what 3 years ago is better than these games they put up. I stopped looking for at the best of titles after seeing this too much face palm.
Comment by Casualty on December 6, 2010 at 6:28 pm
@Anonymous: I’ll keep from going into a general overview of society and follow your points about the industry. What will ultimately determine the fate of the video game industry is whether history holds up. If those casual gamers begin looking for deeper experiences, then the industry will cycle and clean itself out. If those casual gamers quit playing, they could sink the industry just like they did in 1983. If those casual gamers can play FarmVille for forty years without getting tired of it, then we’re fucked.
Simplest way I can put it.
@iamKelly: No worries. I put the disclaimer in the article that “[a]s long as my competitive edge doesn’t inhibit the ability of others to function during the course of their day, there’s no harm in that.” That’s why I did it. I consider being hostile during the gaming experience to file under that rule.
@Casualty: Don’t worry. I’m planning to do a massive run-down of the Spike Video Game Awards. That fucking plague needs to be dealt with. It’s a perfect example of what’s wrong with this industry.
Comment by Mike Lowell on December 7, 2010 at 8:31 am
Games are a form of entertainment, something you do in your leisure time for fun. If you aren’t playing them for fun you need a new hobby, because it is crazy to be wasting your leisure time with serious business. Unless you are one of those e-sports fags maybe.
Comment by ShoggothRancher on December 13, 2010 at 1:03 am
You claim that this only happens in video games and its not widely practiced elsewhere. I beg to differ. People try to do this in lots of other areas of their lives, including competitive arenas. In sports, people will have similar behavior, claiming, “they aren’t trying” for one reason or another. In the workplace, the same annoying people boast “I just don’t care as much as you do.”
Comment by NUH UH! on January 9, 2011 at 8:49 am
I’ve played a lot of basketball and football in my life and I can’t remember hearing it very often. Not with the vigor and emphasis that gamers seem to use it with. As far as the workplace goes, that’s a completely different issue entirely, as in “you’re getting paid to do the job and aren’t interested in doing it.” Of course, I’m sure that could be spun about a thousand different ways.
Comment by Mike Lowell on January 9, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Great article, Michael. There’s nothing worse than hearing someone say “Oh, I don’t care if I lose because I just play for fun!!” when you know they’re seething on the inside, wishing they were better than they are. But what about those who say they “play video games” in response to “what do you do for fun?” Clearly they’re in a different category to which your summation doesn’t apply, correct? Therefore some who say they “play for fun” without using as an excuse to detract from the skill level of others mean just what say, they play for fun.
Comment by Hoyt on April 22, 2011 at 5:05 am
Yeah, that sounds like an unrelated issue there. “What do you do for fun?” is essentially another way of asking “What are your hobbies?” I certainly wouldn’t crucify someone for saying “video games”. If we’re already on the topic of video games and “playing for fun” gets invoked, then it’s an issue.
Comment by Mike Lowell on April 22, 2011 at 12:12 pm
You seem to have completely missed the point, here.
‘I play for fun’ is without doubt an excuse, but one which is perfectly justified. Most people don’t have the time to reach the oh-so-ridiculous ‘hardcore’ status within videogames, and as a result, realise that they’ll never reach the higher levels of play. So why do they even still play?
Yep, FOR FUN.
‘I play for fun’ in no way implies that the other person doesn’t, it’s merely a justification of their ‘lesser’ play-style against the snobbery of ‘elite’ players. Just because they’re not winning, doesn’t mean they’re not enjoying it as much.
Sure, some people use it as an outright excuse; all the while wishing that they had the time or skill at their disposal to be better at the game.
Yet there are people who really do just ‘play for fun’. These people are happy just to share and enjoy an experience, regardless of kills or deaths, wins or losses. These people don’t necessarily strive to be better, they’re just having fun doing what they’re doing, as they’re doing it.
Sure, ‘I play for fun’ is making excuses, but if it’s true, why not say it?
This article reeks of Sirlinism, which is, quite frankly, the worst discipline to emerge from gaming. People have different thought processes, and different competitive spirits- to apply a single set of rules to recreational competition is foolish.
If I’m bored and messing around, throwing scrunched-up balls of paper into the bin, I’m doing it for fun. If someone were to come along and insult my aim, I wouldn’t give a shit, I’d simply tell them the truth, that I’m doing it for fun. The same applies here.
Comment by Super C on April 24, 2011 at 9:23 am
Yeah, they play for fun. But so do hardcore gamers and pretty much anyone else who doesn’t play video games for a living. They derive the “fun” from slightly different outlets. In-fact, the “play to win” audience probably enjoys the game more, since they’re the ones playing twenty-plus matches a day and reading up on the inside-outs of the game. So at best, “I play for fun” is a redundant and pointless statement. And yes, you can “play to win” even if you’re in the middle of the pack and even if you lose more matches than you win. It’s still possible to enjoy the game while you’re doing that. “Playing to win” and “playing for fun” (and all of the variants encompassing percentages of both disciplines) are ways to play for fun.
Comment by Mike Lowell on April 24, 2011 at 12:43 pm
‘‘I play for fun’ in no way implies that the other person doesn’t”
Once again, you’re generalising. Considering no-one is boring enough to run a study on who enjoys something more (and considering there’s no observable metric behind that criteria), I think it’s not fair to invalidate a fairly reasonable claim like ‘I play for fun’.
Is the phrase redundant? Yeah, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who uses it is out to make excuses. That’s my issue.
If anything, ‘I play for fun’ is just a reminder for the ‘hardcore’ or ‘play to win’ crowd, who tend to take things a bit too seriously. I don’t think you can deny that some people treat videogames like the be-all and end-all of life, and get seriously uppity when they lose a game.
These guys are not having fun if it gets to the point where they’re screaming at the little guy just for having a good time. In this circumstance (which, as far as I’ve seen, usually tends to be when the four words crop up), I think it’s a perfectly reasonable excuse. It’s basically a way of saying, ‘I don’t care if I win or lose, I’m just here to have a good time- which you don’t seem to be having’, which in most cases is true.
I’d also have to disagree with your statement that the ‘play to win’ audience will probably enjoy a game more. For most people, the fun in videogames will come from escapism, and the general dynamics of play. I don’t have to study a game to know how to enjoy it, I just have to play it.
Maybe that doesn’t apply to all people, but it sure applies to some. Which is actually my problem with this article in general, you seem to be mistaking ‘some’ for ‘all’.
Don’t get me wrong, it was an interesting read- but I can’t help but feel that you’re giving fodder to a generation of asshats who believe that playing to win and being the best is all there is to videogaming.
Comment by Super C on April 24, 2011 at 7:57 pm
Of course the play-to-win audience can enjoy the game more. That’s because they’re the ones who enjoy studying it and enjoy trying to get a leg-up in any way imaginable. You may look at some of their training tactics and say that they’re boring themselves to tears, but if they were, they wouldn’t be playing the game. I just started playing Civilization IV on a regular basis. The very first thing I did before I even went into the single-player mode was read a heavy portion of a thirty-page PDF document detailing the differences between the leadership traits. Yes, before I went and played single-player. I did this because it would be more interesting to have a grasp of the concept than flopping around like a fish. I’ve had to repeat this scenario about half-a-dozen times with other Civilization IV concepts and formulas. Soaking in all of that knowledge allows me to play the game at a stronger level. Playing a great game at a stronger level requires mastery and competency of a larger range of skills. Therefore, the game becomes more entertaining and interesting. I’d posit the tens-of-thousands of people who tune in to watch Day9′s StarCraft II training videos would vouch for that.
Leave no mistake that I don’t condone the player’s right to be upset and disruptive if it harms the experience of the other participating players. Note the disclaimer I put in the article: “As long as my competitive edge doesn’t inhibit the ability of others to function during the course of their day, there’s no harm in that.” Let’s make something clear, though: Any segment of a player base is capable of losing their shit, not just the really good or the really bad players, not just the hardcore players and not just the casual players. Temper is universal. “Playing to win” is not linked to the idea that a loss immediately sucks the enjoyment out of the game. It may not be fun, but most people don’t like losing. Our biology is hard-wired into that concept. When I hear the phrase “I play for fun” mentioned, it is almost exclusively used as a backhanded response to a conversation that discusses a game in extensive detail. That is, “Who cares about all that crap? I just want to enjoy the game.” I’ve never heard it used in a casual conversation about video games. I.e. “Hey, have you ever played Halo before?” Followed by “Oh, yeah, Halo! I play that game for fun!” I’ve never heard the opposite mentioned, where “Oh, I play to win.” Why? Because that would make the person who says it a complete asshole. Most people who say they “play for fun”, know exactly what they mean when they say it. I don’t condone that, either.
Comment by Mike Lowell on April 24, 2011 at 9:25 pm
I’m guessing we both just have different experiences of the phrase then, because I very rarely hear it in that context.
Yes, nobody likes losing, but some people learn to enjoy the experience that comes with it if they come to accept that it’s all they will be able to do- and I know, because I play with people like this on regular basis. I party up with them knowing that we’re going to get our asses handed to us, and they know it too, but we have fun while doing so. If some idiot starts kicking off, can’t we just tell him why we’re playing? For fun?
When I hear it used, it’s a retort against people who take the game too seriously. I very rarely hear it outside of that context, and I, personally, feel it’s justified in that context. In these terms, regardless of the gaming proficiency of the guy saying it, I think it’s just a direct way of stating, ‘I’m not as competitive as you, I don’t take every loss to heart, now stop crying through my headset’.
Does that make the person saying it an asshole? Maybe, but in gaming, I have to deal with hundreds of screaming, foul-mouthed man–children every day. I think it’s good that a simple, four word phrase exists so universally for when they kick off.
As far as I’m concerned, for both of our arguments, it’s easy to turn around and say, ‘No, it’s not just these guys’. You’re right, temper is universal, and we all lose our shit over different things- just like we all find fun in different things. There is no universal measure of fun.
It’s worth pointing out here, for the sake of context, that the vast majority of my online experience is comprised of Gears of War. Between Gears 1 and 2, I’ve sunk in at least 50 days of playtime, and while I wouldn’t want to sound too cocky about anything, I’d consider myself pretty darned good.
I’ve sunk so many hours into Gears of War, reading up on it, trying different tactics, different styles, reading into the story, playing tourneys- the whole shebang. Yet I’d be readily willing to accept that, somewhere out there, there’s probably a kid throwing a stick into the air and having more fun than me. Different folks, different strokes, right?
Comment by Super C on April 26, 2011 at 6:02 am
It sounds to me like the issue is that XBox Live (and I know this has been well-documented) is overrun with kids. Kids take everything too seriously. However, if they went out on their own accord and chewed out their friends while they were playing basketball and studied the game and tried to do everything he could to get better, you won’t hear someone say “Oh, I play basketball for fun” or “I play football for fun”. That’s because “Video games are for losers and why are you spending all your time getting worked up about them?” Compulsive gaming still has a very raw stigma attached to it. If it didn’t, then you wouldn’t hear “I play for fun” invoked.
It’s certainly very easy to take a video game too seriously. However, it’s stigmatized in a way that other competitive endeavors are not. Getting sheer enjoyment from the competitive aspect of video games (and fully demonstrating the enjoyment you get out of that competitive aspect) is subject to eye-rolling that other recreation simply isn’t. Hence, “Oh, I play for fun.”
Comment by Mike Lowell on April 26, 2011 at 2:07 pm
It’s an uninspired phrase, but *often* it means “I am not valuing skillbuilding in this entertainment experience. I’m instead valuing novelty, the experience for its own sake, and the delight of operating these interesting levers to produce results. Commenting on my skill is just missing the point. I’m not here to fight about who is better — I find that a distraction and a waste of time.”
It also can mean “You won, but here’s a lame excuse for why you’re a bad person.” as you suggest.
That it can be either is definitely an indicator that it’s a weak mode of expression, but your response to it suggests that excellence is everyone’s secret goal, even if they don’t wish to work for it, and that’s simply false.
Comment by k8to on September 24, 2011 at 10:08 pm
I think Super C deserves a “YES” far more than Mike Lowell does.
Comment by Anonymous on September 25, 2011 at 1:49 pm
@k8to: People who “play for fun” and people who “play to win” are both playing for fun. There’s no reason to make a distinction, and that distinction is being made by the people who “play for fun”. There’s no reason to invoke “I’m not valuing skillbuilding in this experience” unless there was a catalyst. Most often, that catalyst is a player they perceive to be taking the games too seriously.
Comment by Mike Lowell on September 25, 2011 at 5:21 pm
“You play the game more than me. You study the game mechanics. You play the game with a competitive edge. Those are the only reasons you can beat me….”
I agree this quote because the more you understand about the rules of the game, the more happier and experience.
Comment by Kathy on November 15, 2011 at 7:26 am
The difference between ”I play for fun” and you is that the other guy doesn’t care if he loses, he just wants to play the game.
You want to win, and you practice for it.
It’s called casuals and gamers.
Comment by your mom on January 3, 2012 at 8:33 pm
@your mom: As I mentioned in the article, the player who does not scour for and study every mechanic, strategy, and tactic available to them is more likely to get upset with themselves in the event of a loss because the unknown is always the most frustrating in a video game. And from there, whether somebody gets mad at themselves for losing is not bound by the skill or commitment of a player. Players of all skill levels have tempers. Saying “I play for fun” as a means of saying “I take no effort in trying to understand the game I am playing” is a cop-out.
Comment by Mike Lowell on January 9, 2012 at 3:19 am