TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

The point of a game is not to win

40 pointsby cyb0rg0over 1 year ago

22 comments

sfinkover 1 year ago
A subtlety that probably would have weakened the essay to bring up: if your goal is growth, then no, you don&#x27;t want to always be the dumbest in the room. Unless, perhaps, the stronger players are fully invested in directly teaching you tutorial-style.<p>If there is too much of a skill gap, then the weaker players just get steamrolled and learn nothing. Exploring different options doesn&#x27;t help, because the stronger players will know how to best defeat those strategies if they aren&#x27;t carried out perfectly. Even if the stronger players go easy on the weaker, and even intentionally leave openings and suggest they be exploited, it takes a certain level of skill and&#x2F;or experience to recognize or gain from them.
评论 #37699289 未加载
alexjplantover 1 year ago
Random adjacent anecdote: I got a Game Boy GameShark for Christmas when I was 8 years old (so ~1999) and distinctly remember my father furrowing his brow as I explained to him that the whole point of the device was to cheat at video games. He was initially skeptical as it involved &quot;cheating&quot; at games which he regarded as a negative behavior given his experience playing sports, but after explaining that it was basically a software hacking device designed to expand gameplay possibilities he understood and softened his stance. Emergent properties of gameplay are far more interesting than merely &quot;winning&quot; a game, especially when it involves using Pokemon summoned from memory that was never intended to be addressed or rooms in the dungeons of Koholint Island that were discarded halfway through development.
评论 #37700953 未加载
评论 #37709983 未加载
proc0over 1 year ago
&gt; For most games, the real objective is learning about each other, or about the game, or about some other real or abstract thing the game is evoking.<p>Yes but this is incomplete, The learning usually has the purpose to overcome the challenge that a game is presenting to the player. Games are, in essence, puzzles. It isn&#x27;t always obvious what the puzzle is, but the player can definitely tell when it is absent because there is no challenge, there is nothing to overcome, and therefore nothing to learn about. The best games tend to be excellent puzzles that have entertained players for many years. In Mario games it&#x27;s platform puzzles, in RPG games it&#x27;s finding a character build, in multiplayer games like fighting or FPS games, it&#x27;s the other human player. So yes I agree it&#x27;s not about winning. It&#x27;s about solving the puzzle&#x2F;challenge the game presents you with.<p>&gt; So remember, the play objective is not the point of play, and while you should bear it in mind, the real objective sometimes requires you to diverge from it.<p>I also agree with this because the game&#x27;s objectives are not necessarily the puzzle the game is presenting. Usually the puzzle or challenge to solve lives on a higher abstract meta-game, usually defined by the genre.
mojoeover 1 year ago
&quot;I should emphasize, the tragically elegant thing about &quot;the point is to win&quot; is that winning now is a real world goal that abased hearts do sometimes actually harbor, but it&#x27;s perilous as a monogoal&quot;<p>I&#x27;m going to go out on a limb here and say that such &quot;abased&quot; hearts are the most common hearts at game night, followed closely by the hearts of those who are just looking to bond and impress each other with witty repartee
评论 #37699222 未加载
Jenssonover 1 year ago
It took decades until they realized that people like cooperative games more than competitive games. It is so funny to me how we don&#x27;t really understand humans and what makes things fun to them. Apparently pack animals likes to do things with the pack instead of against the pack.
评论 #37699219 未加载
评论 #37699274 未加载
评论 #37699207 未加载
评论 #37700174 未加载
评论 #37699468 未加载
评论 #37699155 未加载
评论 #37699719 未加载
almostdeadguyover 1 year ago
This is a bit too navel-gazing delve into what was more succinctly said in a quote often attributed to Reiner Knizia: “When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning.”<p>I’d also recommend the author delve into the existing catalog of negotiation games, since the linked post in the top of this article seems to indicate that they aren’t be aware some of the brilliant games in the genre:<p>* Cosmic Encounter - Players play one of several wildly unbalanced alien races with a special power and are forced into a series of confrontations where they must either battle or negotiate. One of the few games I’ve played where 1 to N players can win (and I’ve seen cooperative wins before). The game revolves almost entirely around negotiation (with your matched opponent, with other players at the table as potential allies, etc)<p>* John Company - A wild simulation of running the British East India Trading company. Players hold different positions within the company providing different privileges and effectively must negotiate to better their position. Players can also work to undermine the company at the expense of those more invested in it, or can hedge against the company’s failure.<p>* Quo Vadis? - Players are Roman politicians who must move their senators through a series of committees, to the inner sanctum, where the player with the most prestige wins. Moving through committees occurs through votes, and prestige can be obtained through voting (as an incentive provided by the game) for others or by negotiating more prestige.
schneemsover 1 year ago
Surprised I don’t see any comments on “open” versus closed” games. A closed game is a puzzle with a definitive end and win condition. A closed game is a game of baseball.<p>An open game is a career in baseball. In my book, How to Open Source, and this conf talk I gave <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;m.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=-8UQMH6p-Mw&amp;list=PL9oQ7yETvN13V5Xp7016XupVLg3WqiMtx&amp;index=8&amp;pp=iAQB">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;m.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=-8UQMH6p-Mw&amp;list=PL9oQ7yETvN13...</a> navigating the two is a huge part of open source contribution (converting unbound seemingly impossible tasks into achievable puzzles, and reframing a setback or loss as part of a larger contribution career).<p>I’m with the author in that when I play board games with friends my game is to keep the friendship going, to keep the games coming.
omoikaneover 1 year ago
Philosophical post about games and winning reminds me of this particular comic:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;existentialcomics.com&#x2F;comic&#x2F;159" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;existentialcomics.com&#x2F;comic&#x2F;159</a><p>Consistent with this article, watching people play games is one way to learn about their personalities, and &quot;philosophers play X&quot; is a recurring theme in Existential Comics to illustrate different philosophers.
评论 #37708330 未加载
rspoerriover 1 year ago
Games which you arent supposed to or cant win are called toys. In other languages the distinction is harder. (german spiel vs. spielzeug ; spielen vs. herumspielen)<p>Often you can play games with toys. Or you can toy in or with games. But, you arent playing the game in that moment. So theres a fundamential difference between those types of play.<p>There might be aspects of cooperation in games, but most game design theorist[1] argue that competition (sometimes it&#x27;s just against the odds) must be part of a game.<p>There are lots of aspects why we play or toy. Winning, or typically called the challenge is only one of eight aspects. Others include sensation, fantasy, narrative, fellowship, discovery, expression and submission[2].<p>So if your personal reason for playing comes from winning or not, is up to you.<p>Of course there is also the aspect of the flow, to rise with the challenge. And the types of challenges people like to be confronted with (language, mathematics, motion &amp; perception, spatial, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalistic).<p>[1]: for example : Chris Crawford, on Game Design<p>[2]: Marc LeBlanc, Rules of Play, Game Design Fundamentials : typologies of play
评论 #37702837 未加载
aeternumover 1 year ago
The point of some games is not to win. The point of many is to win. Anyone that believes people play solo Overwatch for example to get to know their teammates has never played solo Overwatch.<p>In many games, the goal is to prove oneself and win bragging rights within the social group.
评论 #37700010 未加载
notacowardover 1 year ago
It&#x27;s not just board games BTW. I used to play volleyball <i>a lot</i>. Yes, I played competitively, with strenuous drills during the week and tournaments on the weekends. But I also played pickup, and that was almost entirely social. I&#x27;ve gotten a bit of that with tennis too, but never played that as much. Now I&#x27;m in two pickleball groups. One is kind of competitive, but the other is a mix of &quot;let&#x27;s improve together&quot; and pure socializing. They&#x27;re both fun.<p>So I sort of disagree with the OP. The point of a game is <i>what the participants want it to be</i>. Yes, it <i>can</i> be something other than winning, but if it is winning that&#x27;s OK too.
intellectronicaover 1 year ago
There&#x27;s an entire book on that: Finite and Infinite Games by James P. Carse.
AlbertCoryover 1 year ago
&gt; For most games, the real objective is learning about each other, or about the game, or about some other real or abstract thing the game is evoking.<p>That&#x27;s certainly one way to look at it. Not everyone sees it that way.
e28etaover 1 year ago
for a very different perspective, I like this quote, attributed to The Utopia of Rules, by David Graeber.<p>this [is] precisely why the games are fun. In almost any other aspect of human existence, all these things are ambiguous. Think of a family quarrel, or a workspace rivalry. Who is or is not a party to it, what’s fair, when it began and when it’s over, what it even means to say you won – it’s all extremely difficult to say. The hardest thing of all is to understand the rules.<p>In almost any situation we find ourselves in, there are rules – even in casual conversation, there are tacit rules of who can speak in what order, pacing, tone, deference, appropriate and inappropriate topics, when you can smile, what sort of humor is allowable, what you should be doing with your eyes, and a million other things besides. These rules are rarely explicit, and usually there are many conflicting ones that could, possibly, be brought to bear at any given moment. So we are always doing the difficult work of negotiating between them, and trying to predict how others will do the same.<p>Games allow us our only real experience of the situation where all this ambiguity is swept away. Everyone knows exactly what the rules are. And not only that, people actually do follow them. And by following them, it is even possible to win! This – along with the fact that unlike in real life, one has submitted oneself to the rules completely voluntarily – is the source of pleasure.<p>Games, then, are a kind of utopia of rules.
livremover 1 year ago
It&#x27;s a difficult balance to do &quot;partially cooperative, partially competitive multiplayer&quot; as the author describes their game. Almost every year there is at least one thread started on the boardgamegeek forum where someone wants to discuss &quot;semi-cooperative&quot; games like that, and every time it ends in a complete meltdown and thousands of posts. There are very strong opinions about it.
32gbsdover 1 year ago
I save alot of time by winning games because you get to experience the play space in the shortest possible time. I have not found a game which has a play space that is interesting enough to waste large amounts of time not winning.
langsoul-comover 1 year ago
Sorta echo&#x27;s the logic of the point of the game is not the game, but rather the learning on the journey.<p>Same with board games, winning is the pay-off but the real deal was playing the game together and having a good time
herpdyderpover 1 year ago
None of this really resonated with me. I don’t play games to grow (or to win): I play games to have fun. Usually to have fun while playing with others as a social activity.
RHSman2over 1 year ago
You should consider the magic of backgammon and how long it is has been with us. It’s all about the moment and how randomness will play out on certain, critical moments.
runsWphotonsover 1 year ago
I like winning games and competing in zero sum games.
评论 #37699220 未加载
ChatGTPover 1 year ago
If you always win then it’s not a game anymore ?
MrJohzover 1 year ago
The article makes some interesting points, although I suspect the main thrust that boardgame play has a complex set of in-world and out-of-world goals is not especially controversial amongst the hobby. Indeed, expand the definition of boardgames slightly to include the larger tabletop gaming scene and you find tabletop RPGs that actively make &quot;losing&quot; a - if not the - goal.<p>Even in more conventional competitive boardgame territory, there are plenty of games that provide complex goals beyond just &quot;winning&quot;&#x2F;&quot;not losing&quot;. Games like Battlestar Galactica have you potentially switch sides during play, so you can find yourself actively working against the ludological goals you had just moments ago. Leder Games (and more specifically Cole Wehrle) have produced a few games exploring the role of the kingmaker in boardgames. Oath is particularly interesting, because the game as a whole develops with each game played, meaning that a person who has no chance of winning can still have goals beyond the current game and into the future.<p>Historical games are also filled with complex player goals beyond the simple &quot;win&quot;&#x2F;&quot;lose&quot; dichotomy. This Guilty Land sees two players competing over slavery in the US - one (Justice) trying to abolish it, and the other (Oppression) trying to maintain it. This already questions the ideas of goals in games - should I be happy if I win the game as Oppression? Yet if I don&#x27;t play with the goal of winning, the game won&#x27;t work. And the designer&#x27;s true goal is historical discourse and argument - is democracy equipped to handle situations as deeply immoral as slavery? (This is similar to your example of Death Stranding, where you play the game to win, but also to experience the narrative created by the author.)<p>I particularly like the example of Meltwater, which has a victory condition of annihilation of the opponent, but is designed with the expectation that the game stops being fun long before that point. This means that games typically finish via resignation, but that in turn raises the question: when should you agree to resign? How many people do you need to kill for the game to have been played? This complex, almost contradictory set of goals then becomes the thesis of the game - it&#x27;s set in a world after a nuclear holocaust where the two great powers have destroyed every other landmass, and so retreat to Antarctica, the only part of the world that still has oracle potable water. And there they fight over these last resources to the death.<p>Except the irony of the game is that, by the end of the game, the two sides will have sabotaged enough of each other&#x27;s resources that there won&#x27;t be enough for one side to survive. Whereas at the start of the game, with careful management, there&#x27;s just enough resources for both sides to call a truce and share the territory. But if you do that, you don&#x27;t play any game at all.<p>A lot of the designers of these games have design diaries where they discuss goals and philosophies they tried to inject into the game. I also really recommend Dan Thurot&#x27;s &quot;Space-Biff Space Cast&quot; which is a podcast which explores a lot of these ideas, usually with the designers of the games in question. Those have been great resources for challenging me to think about what games can look like, and what sorts of stories they can tell.