Does anyone really need to be good at a game to enjoy themselves? Isn’t fun readily derived from the distended comprehension of enjoyment? Is fallibility a reflection of enjoyment, or merely a complicit prescient that encourages progression as opposed to the practicality of having a good time? Logistically speaking these two exchanging factors are mutually exclusive, beneficial collaborators that enhance the defining ubiquitous of a games biological make-up. “Challenge” and “fun” are a curious necessity considering both provocations can be hideously polarising to each individual recipient. While some gamers are discouraged by the restraints of failure neutralising any enjoyment, others thrive on perseverance, tendering a resiliency that harnesses the encompassing affray. Competition is as attractive to some as it is arrant to others. The eligibility of procrastination is the very essence of gaming, with the insatiable capacity to learn from ones mistakes, then–at least in my case, make new more convoluted mistakes before finally correcting them. The retention of both fun and formatting competitive yet fair resolutions to contentions is something attributed more for congenial functionality, with recognition applied to both casual and seasoned participants that can adjust the variable difficulties more attuned to their singular specifications. Yet even useful calibrations that ease the enduring difficulties can negate your immersion by reminding you of your of how rubbish you are. So should immersion and by association fun necessitate an inherent talent?
If your anything like me then the egregious categorising of genres is nothing but furnishings, decorative miscellany designed to classify singularly distributed utilities into indefinable titles suitable for commercial clarification. We are purveyors of nurtured apathy, we crave the passivity of having products, services or even people categorised for the benefit of clarification and ease. The substrate formality of identification is preferential guide that loosely defines whatever game you wish to acquire, but is largely negligible, explicitly applied to ease the tedium of choosing a suitable game. Or something along those lines? Personally genres have always inhibited my gaming experience, so I ignore such classifications, constantly adapting policies to accommodate the variant of gaming genres I play. But don’t let that fool you. Just because I enjoy a slew of variations shouldn’t suggest I’m versatile or even exceptional at any of them. It’s impossible to change from a frenetic FPS to a more austere RPG without incurring certain debilitations, with varying results. When it comes to FPS’s most button configurations are similar, with only minor aberrations such as environments or utilities that slightly elevates it’s distinguishing singularity, but only a little bit. It maybe a little quicker or slower but in most cases an adaptation of play-style isn’t really necessary. Chances are if your an exceptional Call of duty player then by extension your good at Killzone or Halo. But when your shifting from one genre to another then such transitions can expose your weaknesses. Sometimes I can persevere despite my latent proficiency and procure merited levity, yet other promoted instances of tenuous provocations can moderate that pleasure. There really isn’t a formula. But what I lack in efficiency and fluidity I compensate with effectual determination and veracious tenacity.
In The Witcher 3 for instance I’ve deployed a contemptuous means of progression, readily intervened with meandering tactical economy, slowly wearing down combatants with methodical application. I’ll back off enough that enemies revert back to benign stances while my health slowly regenerates before again initiating another attack. Of course such protracted concessions belies the overly cautious tedium many would deem too boring. But it works and not at one point did I think it would be more fun if I was better at it. In fact I think I’d enjoy it less! Is it really justifiable to reduce the level of debilitation to facilitate an expeditious victory? If that results in augmentation to your fun then sure, go ahead. But as far as I’m concerned there isn’t a inherent wrong or right way to play a game. I think that’s why I avoid competitive online players, the morally instructive protestations to observed inferiority. The kind of people that demand perfection, epitomised by furrowed ambivalence towards those that demonstrate skills below their requisite consensus of acceptable. The same people who scheme and ridicule those with abusive intolerance simply because we haven’t dedicated 10 fettered hours committed to self inflation and studying an environments gradient to the point that it becomes routine, or even work! You should never feel intimidated for having a life. Games are just distracting fun no matter if your casual or an ardent consumer, and with enough creative diversity applied to purchases you can be regularly assured that no matter how inept you think you are, ultimately it doesn’t matter.
Do you enjoy games more if your good at them? Or is like a 6 year old’s sports day? All about the taking part? Let me know what you think. Cheers.
Interesting. I do enjoy games more when I am good at them, but this is largely because I’m easily frustrated and usually play RPGs where I’m impatient to get on with the story.
Yeah it’s strange how we equate good performances with a good game. And also frustration with bad ones. I must admit that I do get impatient with games all the time, which could explain why I regard most of them as bad.
I’ve thought about this topic for a while. Games such as COD and Minecraft are extremely popular mostly due to them being easy to pick up and play. A skill gap, as much as I love it, does scare people away. It’s not their fault at all, we all have fun in different ways.
Precisely. Fun is highly subjective, an endearing term usually affiliated with what is easy to accomplish. I think sometimes, with a little application, perseverance can grant an alternate means of gratification not ordinarily avaliable in an easier game.
I have fun watching really shit movies. The Room, The Art of War trilogy, The SW Prequels. etc. Some people look at me weird for that reason. I don’t get why. :l
That is a quandary. I mean the Star Wars prequels are of such distinguished repute?
No one expected Star Wars to be as popular as it became. I think most of the people who hate it are the same people who are the biggest fans of the original movies. Those people are extremely difficult to impress.
I think I enjoy playing games just for fun but also games I’m good at too. I think it’s because you find more enjoyment with games your good at because you feel proud at making progress. Whereas whenever you play a game your not as good at, you start feeling frustrated because your not making any progress. But at the same time, I also don’t mind playing games just for the sheer enjoyment of playing a game. Because there are some games I like playing just to play it and not to make progress in it.
It’s true that you can generate fun through adversity, with the struggle of success being incredibly rewarding. Thanks for the comment.
Hotline Miami is one of my favourite games, and I was damn awful at that. I’m loving Witcher 3 too, despite spending most of it rolling around like an iron filled kitten on a magnetic floor.
The classification of games is often a culture driven concept too. Many people that enjoy a certain gaming niche for that sense of inclusion within a certain community.
I still have ulcers attributed to trying to get the platinum in Hotline Miami! Even attaining the fabled trophy felt hollow. I was exhausted, mentally abused and embarrassed. I love the game but I never want to see it again!
Oh salutations to you – I get tremors even thinking about the platinum for that game…
It was trying to get A+ on every level that nearly killed me! And did kill my character numerous times. You got to be quick, ruthless and use the drill mask. Never again……
My first thought was “of course I like games better if I’m good at them!” But on second thought, if that were true, then shouldn’t I be replaying more “favorite” games? If I had a good time beating a game, does that make me good at it? What constitutes being “good” at a game anyway?!
Sorry, not yelling, just thinking loudly. Final thought: I think being good at a game does make it more enjoyable as long as there’s some sort of hook to keep you playing. Otherwise, simply being good at a game can make it unchallenging, and we all know there’s fun to be had in overcoming obstacles. i.e. I am good at playing Saints Row IV, but now that I’ve mastered the game, there’s little reason to continue playing it.
Or is there? I think I am confused.
I think what fun IS is all dependent on the player. I imagine there are just as navy gamers who enjoy easy games that make them look good as there are those that play games that encourage development.
It makes sense that we would like games that we are good or at least competent at playing. But then I realize one of my favorite game series of all-time, Syphon Filter 1-3 was notoriously difficult at times, yet I never gave up on it.
It depends on the mechanics of the game. Fighting games are like that for me, because not being able to grasp the mechanics effectively keeps me from the higher level play, which is where the best experience lies.
Sports is the genre I’m best at but play the least these days. Probably used to be 90% of what I played but at a certain point, I got tired of beating the computer by a ton on the hardest level and playing humans in most sports games is just playing someone looking to cheese through for a win.
Anyway, I’m not great at aiming weapons quickly but games like Tomb Raider are among my favorite type of games to play. I suck at online multiplayer shooters but love Star Wars so I find Battlefront fun.
For me it’s the type of game, setting, and just game play that make a game more fun than others and not being good at.
Pingback: Make Gaming More Fun with These 10 Tips for Gamers New & Old — offcultured