Poll of the Day > Can you have fun "just" playing a game and not winning?

(+) Yeah! (+)

There are a very few games I play for fun and don't try to win at all cost.
---

Yes

Fighting games with the right people and mindset
Mario Kart
Mario Party
Smash

Lots of games
---

there has to be some kind of progression, which you could call "winning". even if I'm losing over and over, I have to at least be progressing in skill or something.
---

Sahuagin posted...

there has to be some kind of progression, which you could call "winning". even if I'm losing over and over, I have to at least be progressing in skill or something.

I assume TC is talking about multiplayer games, and if so I agree with this guy, for most competitive games
---

Sahuagin posted...

there has to be some kind of progression, which you could call "winning". even if I'm losing over and over, I have to at least be progressing in skill or something.

Well I mean in general, however the thought of this topic came to me from Age of Sigmar(table table wargaming) as there are a few armies that, if playing against someone who knows what they are doing or playing most of the other armies, will win almost every time. But some of those armies seem fun or cool looking, but I don't see how I could ever actually play them.
---

Are we specifically talking about competitive/multiplayer games? Actually my answer is yes either way. I can jump into a game just to have fun and not necessarily win or make any progress.
---

Yes. You can have fun playing a game. Even if you're constantly losing... Well, maybe not sore losers...
---

Yes

Team games like Onrush and Rocket League
---

Depends. If I am playing a competitive fps game alone then I only have fun when I'm winning. If I am in a group with my friends then I have fun regardless.

Any other genre I always have fun.
---

I could... but it's never come up

I'm always winner
---

I dunno. Sometimes it can be fun even if I'm on the losing team, if I'm still one of the best on my team. Or if it was a close match.

Sometimes it can be annoying to be on the winning team but be among the lowest scoring on the team lol. Or if you contribute through support in some way but the game doesn't reward that the same as killing
---

Sandbox games?
---

People love not winning. Darks Souls is a game designed around not winning.
---

Metalsonic66 posted...

I dunno. Sometimes it can be fun even if I'm on the losing team, if I'm still one of the best on my team. Or if it was a close match.

Sometimes it can be annoying to be on the winning team but be among the lowest scoring on the team lol. Or if you contribute through support in some way but the game doesn't reward that the same as killing

Honestly, I like being support more... Haha...
---

Yellow posted...

People love not winning. Darks Souls is a game designed around not winning.

Replace 'not winning' with 'overcoming the odds'.
---

Absolutely, most of the time I'm not trying to stomp, just have everyone come away from it happy.
---

Yeah. That's easy.
Especially if it's a pretty close game. If you're getting curbstomped that's usually not as fun but it sometimes can be.
---

Yes, any skill-based game where the opponent doesn't significantly influence how I play i.e. racing.
---

part of the fun of playing a game is knowing what to play it for, which is why I never understood the Sims
---

Of course.
---

DevilSummoner1 posted...

Sandbox games?

Sure, plenty of sandbox games have no win conditions at all, and tons of ways to reach lose conditions. Dwarf Fortress calls this "Fun". But not just sandbox games. Early arcade games like Centipede have no win condition, just a lose condition and a high score table.

What_The_Chris posted...

part of the fun of playing a game is knowing what to play it for, which is why I never understood the Sims

Funny you should mention The Sims. The Sims developed more and more goal oriented mechanics as the series went on. 3 and 4 play out as a bucket list simulation with clear objectives that score points like 'get a job in X career path' or 'flirt with a werewolf'.
---

Many of the games I play you don't win exactly. You can do goals, but you can play as long as you want. There isn't actually winning the games.

Some don't even have in game set goals as much. You make your goals.

I play a lot of sandbox/survival/sim games, so yes.

I've been enjoying the hell out of Oxygen Not Included and that's a game you just play and don't win, in fact the only guaranteed ending is that you eventually run out of resources and die. Don't Starve is similar.
---

Resident Evil 5 co-op with voice chat can do this.
After a while you end up with all the unlocks on binding of isaac and winning becomes inconsequential, it turns more into just gradually seeing your run come together
---

Lol I picked up Old School Runescape again. Have fun chopping trees and mining... for some reason.
---

Competitive games, sure. Single player games where I keep losing to the same enemy or failing the same task, no.

Some games, sure. Even with some players and the games are competitive, I can play just for fun. But sometimes I also just cannot avoid playing to win

you can have fun even if you don't win, but it will be more fun if you do win.

and if you aren't playing to win the don't play any team based game
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

DevilSummoner1 posted...

Sandbox games?

Sure, plenty of sandbox games have no win conditions at all, and tons of ways to reach lose conditions. Dwarf Fortress calls this "Fun". But not just sandbox games. Early arcade games like Centipede have no win condition, just a lose condition and a high score table.

technically you could beat some old arcade games. if the score was high enough the game couldn't handle it
---

Metalsonic66 posted...

I dunno. Sometimes it can be fun even if I'm on the losing team, if I'm still one of the best on my team. Or if it was a close match.

Sometimes it can be annoying to be on the winning team but be among the lowest scoring on the team lol. Or if you contribute through support in some way but the game doesn't reward that the same as killing

paragon had this for a long time.

i could slow the enemy, shield, heal, and speed boost my teammate so they could catch up and secure the kill. apparently that wasn't assisting......
---

All the time. I can even lose games against myself.
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

DevilSummoner1 posted...

Sandbox games?

Sure, plenty of sandbox games have no win conditions at all, and tons of ways to reach lose conditions. Dwarf Fortress calls this "Fun". But not just sandbox games. Early arcade games like Centipede have no win condition, just a lose condition and a high score table.

technically you could beat some old arcade games. if the score was high enough the game couldn't handle it

Like that Pac-Man screen where the game blows up?
---

The amount of hours I have in Tony Hawk games agrees with this.
When I was real young, I hated losing in sports games, figuring winning every game is the only way to play, and I am very glad my mind has changed on that.
Those games I just pop in now, play a game or two and hope I win the season after time.
---

Whenever I used to play online I didn't care if I won or not. I don't play online anymore and just play single player games so I guess I want to "win". I can still have fin dicking around though.
---

The only time I feel I "have to win" is if I'm playing some ranked mode in a competitive game. But that's what that mode is supposed to be.
---

hypnox posted...

Can you have fun "just" playing a game and not winning?

There are a very few games I play for fun and don't try to win at all cost.

Depends on how we're defining the question, but I'd say I'm almost always "just playing" games and not "winning".

For the most part, I play games where win states are technically impossible. I've sunk a ton of hours into games like Minecraft and Stardew Valley, where I'm essentially setting my own goals and objectives, and long-term failure is effectively impossible. Beyond that, 98% of the games I'm playing are single-player RPGs or narrative-intensive games where the only "win" is to complete the narrative in some way (and that doesn't always mean the "best" possible ending - my favorite Dragon Age: Origins playthrough is the one in which I died, and I will occasionally make "bad" choices if I think they're in-character for the persona I'm playing or if it might make the story more interesting).

When it comes to the precious few multiplayer games I play, I almost never play competitive. I much prefer co-op play where players are working together to achieve a goal, whether that be co-op horde modes in shooters or something like Borderlands or Halo story mode. Over the span of my gaming life, I've probably revived far more players than I've ever killed.

Even when playing MMOs with freeroam where PvP conflict is almost mandatory, I still don't engage in it. In GTA:Online, I spent almost all my time either in Passive Mode or private servers, doing missions or screwing around with friends. About the only time I was ever competitive in GTA was playing Deadline when it first came out, and that was mostly just because it's really fucking cool to drive Tron bikes and wipe out opponents (and I was VERY good at it).

I HAVE played competitive multiplayer (both in video games as well as tabletop stuff like Magic: the Gathering), but even then I'm not necessarily trying to "win" exclusively. Whether it's playing team modes in Destiny (where I'm more focused on zone control or team support than getting kills and worrying about my K/D) or racing in GTA, there are usually other factors involved. In Magic, I'm usually more interested in playing unique variant game types and screwing around with other players than I am necessarily winning.

I just don't consider direct win/lose gaming to be all that fun or interesting, and really haven't since college/into my early 20s (back when we played a lot more fighting games and PvP shooters).


---

Yup. For me, it isn't really about the destination, but the journey. Video games are how I relax. If I'm not having fun, I'll play something else.

With that being said, I do play fighting games and obviously like winning. The only time I really don't have fun is when online matches lag or something like that. MK11 is borderline rage inducing though-the game is so unbalanced it's crazy.
---

There's an important distinction to be made here between having fun playing even if you don't win, and having fun playing with no desire or intention of winning. The former happens all the time. The entire Roguelik(t)e genre is based around the expectation that you will lose on most of your runs, but it's working to overcome that challenge that makes them fun.

The latter is less common. The only time you'll really see that is in a sandbox-ish game that has enough of a focus on aesthetics that wandering aimlessly is fun. Even playing a sandbox game normally involves setting short- and long-term goals, each of which becomes its own victory condition that the player is trying to achieve. That qualifies as the former. That's not to say the latter can't happen, but the majority of interactive entertainment is inherently goal-oriented, meaning players are almost always trying to win in some sense or another.
---

In Monster Hunter, my "win" goals are collecting enough shit to make better shit
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Beyond that, 98% of the games I'm playing are single-player RPGs

Can you imagine if someone just couldn't win the first battle in an RPG game?
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

Can you imagine if someone just couldn't win the first battle in an RPG game?

I don't have to imagine it, Witcher 2 exists. I know multiple people who basically dropped the game and never went back because the tutorial fight was a bit wonky and people could get stuck on it.

Also, From Software exists.


---

I like winning better!
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Beyond that, 98% of the games I'm playing are single-player RPGs

Can you imagine if someone just couldn't win the first battle in an RPG game?

Aren't there a few games where you have to lose?
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I don't have to imagine it, Witcher 2 exists. I know multiple people who basically dropped the game and never went back because the tutorial fight was a bit wonky and people could get stuck on it.

LinkPizza posted...

Aren't there a few games where you have to lose?

I was meaning just a normal RPG game, not something super hard or the times when you're forced to lose. You know, I really dislike when there's fights you have to lose.
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I don't have to imagine it, Witcher 2 exists. I know multiple people who basically dropped the game and never went back because the tutorial fight was a bit wonky and people could get stuck on it.

LinkPizza posted...

Aren't there a few games where you have to lose?

I was meaning just a normal RPG game, not something super hard or the times when you're forced to lose. You know, I really dislike when there's fights you have to lose.

Oh. Like a kobold or slime at the very beginning of a normal RPG? Hmmm... I guess that would be hard. Though, possible if they have multiple difficulty settings, like hard...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Oh. Like a kobold or slime at the very beginning of a normal RPG? Hmmm... I guess that would be hard. Though, possible if they have multiple difficulty settings, like hard...

Yeah, or maybe even lose during the tutorial section XD
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Oh. Like a kobold or slime at the very beginning of a normal RPG? Hmmm... I guess that would be hard. Though, possible if they have multiple difficulty settings, like hard...

Yeah, or maybe even lose during the tutorial section XD

You know, I think it might be possible in Legend if Dragoon. Like if you dont get the additions. And just get hit. You can block to gain back 10% hp and to block a certain amount of damage. But I think it is possible to lose...
---

I'm not sure I could have fun while consistently losing (excluding maybe a game with a large number of participants where I rank at least moderately well), although it's easy to enjoy myself while losing at least part of the time. Also it depends on how you define winning.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

AllstarSniper32 posted...

Can you imagine if someone just couldn't win the first battle in an RPG game?

I don't have to imagine it, Witcher 2 exists. I know multiple people who basically dropped the game and never went back because the tutorial fight was a bit wonky and people could get stuck on it.

Also, From Software exists.

You can also fail the first battle in almost any SMT game save for later entries and the first Devil Summoner.
---