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.