Here musta is complaining about console turtlers. About how they turtle for 95% of the match after they get a life lead.
At post #10, RenWoXing remarks: “The game… has come to a point where people play for the sake of winning.”
Going back to post #7, the great Joel aka Mistwraith says: “It is a really good practice also to learn how to counter tactics like that [turtling]”.
I guess there needs to be a distinction between Playing to the Best of Your Ability to Win, and Playing for the Sake of Winning.
It’s the latter mindset that is frowned upon. But is it truly incorrect? If it helps you win matches, then why not use it? Competitors in other sports and games call this “gamesmanship”: using whatever tactics (however underhanded they are — as long as they are not illegal) in order to carve out the smallest margin of victory. Also, to irritate the hell out of your opponent psychologically.
At the end of the day, as Kilvear said, it all depends on the player’s own personal goals and objectives. The player who wants to Win for Winning’s Sake will rely on a singular, almost rhetorically one-sided playing pattern in order to win. And it works.
The player who Plays to the Best of His Ability will become more well-rounded, mastering every nuance of his character or exploring every possible angle of strategy and tactics. This sounds like it requires much more effort and bloodshed… but again, it’s up to the individual’s personal ethos and goals.
Both styles exist in all levels of competitive play, and both styles have produced champions.
So, to bring this topic to a close (seriously I hope this is the last time I’m blogging about Playing to Win): which type of player are you?
1. Do you Play to the Best of your Ability to Win? 2. Or do you Play for the Sake of Winning?
Likes videogames a lot, and good videogame writers even more. Plays almost everything except for rhythm games. Also enjoys sports, animation, comics, Japanese language studies, and the occasional American TV drama. Contributes to BallBall and No Game No Talk.