Looney Labs Rabbits Mailing list Archive

[Rabbits] Re: Kind of Gamer

  • FromSteven Hoffman <divreon@xxxxxxxxx>
  • DateWed, 30 Jan 2008 07:32:29 -0800 (PST)
Just a side note really, I'm a very competitive gamer, and Fluxx is fun for me because I know the strategy behind it, there is an "Optimal" way to play most hands, and like poker there is randomness, but most games have some random element, dice, cards to draw, etc. Sure there are games where someone wins by pure luck, but the longer a game goes, the more likely it will be won by the skilled player. The game is about optimizing your chances that the deck will deal you a win, or that your opponent will be forced to make you win.

Don Sheldon <don.sheldon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1/29/08, Joseph Pate wrote:
> Side note: I thought it was strange that someone in one of those
> "Fluxx attention" links concluded that "gamers hate Fluxx. Non-games
> love it". I don't find this to be true... but then we clearly have a
> different definition of gamer. To me, a gamer is anyone who loves
> games and at least thinks about creating their own. The other definition
> appears to be "someone who uses games to massage their ego and lord
> their skillz over others". This used to be me, but it didn't take
> too long to realize that your l33t gaming skillz mean nothing if noone
> will every play with you. Plus, if you're *that* good, the games get
> a little boring, unless it's all about ego and domination [which it
> isn't, for me at least]. In short, "whatever!".

Me thinks I hear a bit of bitterness. That's not a fair
characterization of the other side. It's not about domination and
1337 skillz. I, for one, am the kind of gamer who likes strategy and
skill to play a significant role in a game's outcome. I find great
joy in pitting wits against a skilled player. Fluxx is highly random
in its outcome (I'm trying to say that as neutrally as possible, no
judgement here), it's certainly entertaining, and it can be good to
have a game that anyone can win regardless of skill, but I have always
had the most fun against people trying their hardest to win a game
where player actions alone (or at least primarily) determine the
result. I'm talking deep strategy with no randomness like Chess, Go,
Diplomacy, Homeworlds and the last IGDC winner, Pylon.

Not sayin' your way is bad, just sayin' "don't hate the player" just
because he has a genuine preference for a different class of games.

Now, if someone is being a big jerk and thrashing you at a game just
so they can rub it in your face, feel free to go ahead and hate that
player. And if he tells you that you're not a "real gamer" because
you like more casual games, again, feel free to hate on that guy.

But please try not to villainize all strategophiles.

- |) () /\/
It's OK, my wife doesn't get it either.
Rabbits mailing list

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering, at the Nuremberg Trials

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.