this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2025
654 points (98.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
9797 readers
1397 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'll never forget an old MTG article about the 3 different types of players. I've found that it applies to most games and a lot of life too. There are Spike, Timmy, and Johnny.
Spike players just want to win. They don't care if the way they win isn't fun or interesting. All they care about is the W.
Timmy players are all about style. They don't care if they lose as long as they do something big, flashy, and cool.
Johnny players are in between. They want to win with style. They want the big flashy move to win them the game.
All three players are having fun but they define "fun" in their own ways. Games should try to have ways to satisfy all three types of players.
Games shouldn't satisfy people who just crave winning no matter what.
It's as absurd as saying that some people want art to be beautiful, some want it to be meaningful, and some want it to just be boobs, and that you should satisfy all of them.
Games should have a point, and winning is not a point on its own. People who focus on winning are typically and almost exclusively the ones that make games become shittier and shittier. And not just games but anything that can remotely have a "win".
Why not? Is wanting to win not a valid motivator to play a game?
It is, but if it is your only motivator, the games shouldn't cater to you.
I'd argue there's room for both - however, the real enemy is capitalism as any game could have a well-balanced casual and competitive modes, but they take time and care which costs money and most games forced to extract money not support fun at the behest of boards, shareholders and c-suites.
Yes they should. Playing competitively and with a focus on winning is just as good as any other reason to play games.
Here's an alternative perspective.
Uh, citation needed.
I don't like that this article seems to be written by a Type-A 22-year-old whining that none of his friends want to play Settlers of Catan with him anymore.
There is a point to be made here about people having a self-improvement mindset, about not letting their frustrations take over, about not jumping to conclusions regarding which game tactics are unfair or not in an obvious bid to cover for some self-made injury to their self-esteem. And I would love to make that point.
But, there is something really important that seems to be missing from this discussion entirely: sportsmanship.
Dominating the board with move choices that are optimal but which do not respect the other players, their time, or the spirit of fair-play
Is rude.
This is sort of fine in an online context where anyone who doesn't like you can find another lobby, but you would really struggle to do things like "gain a minor lead and then run out the timer" every match in the living room with six of your cousins, and you know exactly why.
Anyway, I strongly disagree with this article, even though we might come to a lot of the same conclusions about the.. pragmatism of tournament rules, or whatever.