Playing to have fun vs. playing to win

[God of Kings]

Here's a fun poll for Civ VI players to identify our playing styles.

Read here:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TechnicianVersusPerformer

In this context, technicians play to win, while performers play to have fun.

Please vote in the above poll and state your rationale.

 

[Pietato]

I play to have fun. I would not play otherwise.

I still only play deity though, and try to maximise everything I do. But I just build or do whatever I want, and I never go all-in with a single strategy.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Learning towards performer. I think if a game isn't interesting enough to talk about, I really don't care much for the efficiency of it.

 

[Tech Osen]

I play to have fun but overcoming a challenge is part of that. I do like to build a functioning empire instead of just focusing on one victory condition.

 

[Uberfrog]

I think this is a false dichotomy. I certainly play to have fun, and would hardly call myself an optimiser or rank myself with the best players on these forums. But I still play to win. Losing, or especially being stuck in a frustrated position where you can't expand as much as you want in Civ isn't very enjoyable.

I would suggest that in a well-designed strategy game, pursuing the relevant victory conditions should be fun.

 

[TomKQT]

I often like to do some kind of "role playing", in the sense that when an AI attacks me and I succesfully defend, I like to go and punish him as much as I can (or as long as it's fun). Not typically by capturing his cities, but merely by pillaging everything
So this alone would IMHO put me somewhere in the "performer" part.
And I don't try to play the most effective way, I still play Civ6 similarly to what I did in Civ5 - less cities, more love given to each of them.

I think this is a false dichotomy. I certainly play to have fun, and would hardly call myself an optimiser or rank myself with the best players on these forums. But I still play to win.

Well, yea, I also play to win
I think the distinction is in the fact whether you make also some stupid (but fun) things that practically slow your progress in the game, or whether you really play the most optimal way.

 

[ezzlar]

Performer. The aggressive micro manage ICS doesnt suit me and is often the superior strategy.

 

[Uberfrog]

I think the distinction is in the fact whether you make also some stupid (but fun) things that practically slow your progress in the game, or whether you really play the most optimal way.

I think Civ VI is forgiving enough (and the AI inept enough perhaps) that you can do this and still be in a reasonable position to win the game. Likewise you’re probably not going to be able to be a builder or role-play much if you get off to a really bad start or are being pummelled by the competition.

The contrast to me would seem instead to be between speed-players and role-players. You don’t have to be set on winning in under 200 turns to still be focussed eventually on winning.

 

[legalizefreedom]

Are you doing what you want to do or are you doing what the game wants you to do?

 

[drubell]

Any game, including video games, at its core, is designed for a player to overcome the challenges of the game following the rulesets given.

Saying that there's a difference between playing "to win" and playing "to have fun" is ridiculous because the assumption there is that it's not fun to overcome challenges.

And that doesn't mean that you need to be the type of player who ruins a multiplayer session by playing to win by any means at the cost of fun. But it also means that playing in a way that should make you lose yet you will eventually win anyway isn't "roleplaying," it just means that the challenges to overcome are so simple that making constant errors won't affect your ability to win by the rulesets given.

In which I'd say you're playing "for the experience," not because you're roleplaying or playing for a challenge.

One of my favorite video games is called Chrono Trigger. It's honestly not challenging to finish that game, but I have fun experiencing it. So it's really less of a "game" for me and more of a timewasting experience. However, Chrono Trigger still has a set win condition to achieve the ending of the game.

So if that's how you like to experience Civilization, that's fine, but I'd argue that playing that way isn't for "roleplaying" or for "fun." It's a difference between whether or not you play Civilization for "challenge." And much less of whether or not you're arguing about different playstyles like "performer" and "tactician." We can boil this down to the essence. Do you play for challenge or not?

 

[Disgustipated]

Who says winning isn't fun? I think it is.

I voted equal amounts. Because while I do play to win, I also like to do things I consider fun like growing large cities and building wonders like Venetian Arsenal which is completely irrelevant to winning the game. I just like to build a large Navy by the end even if I don't ever use it.

I play a level that is enough to offer some challenge, but not one where I'm pulling my hair out from the stress. I know I shouldn't stress over losing, but I sometimes do.

 

[eleven11]

I would say pure technician considering I end 90% of my games after I break the AI's back and gain control of the map or surge ahead on the trees. For the 10% of games where I continue it's to see if I can beat a new personal best finish time.

 

[WillowBrook]

As others have said, if you want a contrast, it's not really fun vs win, but fun / roleplay / do what I like vs win as quickly as possible.

I like to figure out how to maximize stuff and play efficiently, but not every aspect of the game every game. And I don't care how fast I win, unless I've done what I want with the game and lack a win with the leader I'm playing and just want to finish it. So I lean performer.

With Civ III, the last version I played a ton of, I really got into GOTM for a while and played for fast finishes in the HOF (I wasn't particularly good, but enjoyed the challenge). I tried a few GOTMs with civ VI, but couldn't get into it. Instead, I pursue a few achievements each game, and they give me enough of a goal to motivate having fun.

 

[ChocolateShake]

I play Civ 6 mostly as a roleplaying/empire simulator game. I like to set my own challenges and constraints and work to get victory my way. That to me makes it both challenging and fun. But everyone has a different way to enjoy the game.

My ideal game of civ would make me face hard decisions about what to prioritize and make me work hard to achieve victory using the play-style I want. So if I play peacefully, I want to be faced with decisions like do I save that city state or ignore its plight and continue on building wonders and stuff. That makes the game the most fun for me. If I'm going for an aggressive game, having the threat of my empire splintering or my opponents forming a coalition makes things fun.

 

[Rosty K]

Well, it's a thread title that is slightly misleading, the 'performer vs technician' dichotomy actually works for 'role play' vs 'speed play'. Of course both play to win, just give it a different meaning. A 'performer' plays to win the game, not to beat (not necessarily PvP) the 'technician' and brag about it in his face

I'm probably an almost pure 'performer' in this regard. I'm trying to play as the civ character suggests, avoid exploits (including the early rush if it's not in a civ's 'character') and unreasonable things (cartography before mathematics? You've got to be kidding me ). I'll vary my districts, not build the 'victory' one everywhere, cause that's the 'right' thing to do. Well, and wonder-whoring, of course. I want them all, which of course isn't optimal.

On the other hand, I've developed a strange obsession - I can't build a builder without Liang, or a settler without Magnus

 

[Forster]

I lean toward performer. I play to relax and enjoy myself. I really don't have the desire to micro manage everything so I get the very best placement or fastest win. Sure I like to win, but I just can't enjoy that min-max play style.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I reject the decoupling of "attempting to achieve a stated victory condition" and "playing for fun" outright.

Saying that there's a difference between playing "to win" and playing "to have fun" is ridiculous because the assumption there is that it's not fun to overcome challenges.

This.

Also if Betty optimizes to "win" in terms of audience evaluations and has similar talent, she will be strictly better at the task in question. No need to make those who put less thought into what they do feel better because they don't perform equally well . Nobody can be amazing at literally everything, at least not pre-transhumanism.

The most ironic thing to me is that it bothers people who "roleplay" when their opponents don't and they lose. When that complaint starts showing up, it's time for a little self-reflection, because that's not coherent.

 

[UWHabs]

Who says winning isn't fun? I think it is.

I voted equal amounts. Because while I do play to win, I also like to do things I consider fun like growing large cities and building wonders like Venetian Arsenal which is completely irrelevant to winning the game. I just like to build a large Navy by the end even if I don't ever use it.

I play a level that is enough to offer some challenge, but not one where I'm pulling my hair out from the stress. I know I shouldn't stress over losing, but I sometimes do.

Basically perfectly describes how I go. I try to win my games, and will do what I think helps there. But especially when the game is "in the bag", I don't just switch all my useless cities to run campus projects, and stop worrying about perfectly optimizing my cities. At that point it often becomes, "what would it be cool to build here?" or "let's try to optimize to get a National Park location" or "this coast has high appeal, let's blanket it in seaside resorts" even if those things will have 0 effect on my eventual victory, and will probably just waste time and turns Or often I'll like, denounce someone so I can declare a CB against them, even if I'm already at war with everyone else on the planet and am currently rocking a -200 warmonger score from every other leader. Little things like that.

At least, until a couple hours later when I'm like, "I started tonight at 8 knowing I was going to win, and it's 11 right now, and I really just want to get this damned spaceship launched."

 

[Mr. Shadows]

I dislike the question because it assumes that people who work for the fastest victory times (or to become a dominant MP competitor) aren't doing so for fun. Having said that, I'm not (usually) interested in fast finish times, but I am interested in collecting reliable ways to win at the Deity level. To me a strategy doesn't have to be fast if it's interesting and reliable. Then again I do play the occasional time trial, and other times I turn the difficulty down to play in the sandbox. It all depends on what seems like fun when I start a new game.

 

[Eliminator_Sr]

I definitely try to beat my fastest times and I like the competition aspect of GOTM, but I'm not a big fan of tedious micromanagment to get the absolute most out of every action. I like to play quickly by intuition and adjust on the fly. I don't really try to optimize strategies but I probably would go down that path if I needed to to pull out the victory.