Winning versus playing
Google confirms it: playing beats winning. That is to say, playing is more important than winning. I think that most people know this at least subconsciously and behave accordingly. The essence of playing, I believe, is winning from yourself, improving your previous efforts, applying new tactics or strategy and feeling more accomplished than the last time you played. Sometimes this personal improvement can be measured directly by beating some opponent, but never comes the satisfaction from the mere act of winning, at least normally it should not. How meaningful is a win if the opponent never really was a match to begin with or if it was accomplished by ‘bending the rules’? The few rare people that actually enjoy winning, just for winning-sake are no fun to play with. Luckily this group of people is actually very small and I’m not sure I really know people who are like that.
I thus conclude, that to get real satisfaction from playing the risk of losing once in a while is an integral part of the equation. So it turns out that playing is not only about winning, but also about losing.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Reminds me of a quote:
Winners compare their achievements with their goals, while losers compare their achievements with those of other people.
March 20th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Perfect!
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Ah, trying to justify your current losing streak at Colonists of Catan, eh?
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:57 am
Actually, it was rather a reflection related to and inspired by the internal championships of my sports club, but it does equally apply to board games as well. Of course in the context of playing with friends and family a social motive is strongly present, thus the relative importance of the competition and performing is less. Nonetheless the fun of playing with regard to the competitive aspect, for me, comes mostly from making good decisions under the given circumstances. I’m far more annoyed when I make a stupid move, than when the dice is not rolling in my favor. Conversely I don’t imagine feeling much accomplishment from winning by luck, whereas trying a new strategy, possibly not looking optimal for winning at first sight, and seeing that pay off feels much more rewarding. The feeling of novelty and challenge make a game interesting, not the fact that one almost surely will win.
btw; the game is called ‘Settlers of Catan’ in English.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:10 am
Yes, I realized it was called settlers as soon as I hit post, but there is no login/edit function so I was unable to alter my post.
And I have to agree, to a certain degree. For example, a couple of years back we played Counter-Strike fairly seriously. We weren’t the best, but we weren’t bad either. But whenever we lost, the mood was ruined. If we played a match in which the team just couldn’t come together, or we just knew the enemy was stronger, most of the fun went out of playing.
Sure, we played a few games that we only barely lost and were quite happy with the result, but they were outweighed by the amount of games that we lost and were just not fun to play. Perhaps this problem can be attributed to a bad group dynamic, but even at times when we were sticking together, losing naturally felt worse then winning the game and getting the points registered in the league.
In certain situations, winning certainly isn’t everything and participating is much more fun. But I can also think of a few examples, like the one above, where the game has gotten to a level of seriousness which requires you to win to get the most out of the game. If you get the maximum satisfaction out of participating and not winning, then what’s the use of winning anyway? Winning tells you that you are better then your opponent (when skill is involved, obviously not the luck you described in your post). And although losing brings you back to Earth (I’m not saying you have to win 100% of the time), I do think that - in certain situations - it’s better to win than to lose
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 am
I guess that teamsports are more complex. For example, if effectively working together is a stringent requirement for succes, than the chances of the performance not feeling optimal are high, since misunderstandings, not knowning exactly what the others are going to do, individualistic goals that clash with personal goals all stand in the way of getting a good result. Also, it is much harder to measure a feeling of accomplishment –independent from the game result– as a team, than for an individual. I imagine though that it is quite common that an individual player feels that they did very well, whereas the team as a whole underperformed and lost.
Lastly it matters to what extent it really is ‘just a game’. In nature we can regard animals hunting for prey as playing a ‘game of catch’, but it is obvious that both players in that case only care about winning and not about playing. If other factors come into play, such as public respect, money and life or death, then it might no longer be a ‘pure’ game. Whit respect to the Counter Strike example, I imagine that there maybe was the ulterior motive of improving the ranking and thus gaining a higher respect among the playing peers.
I admit, I never mentioned anything about a ‘pure’ game in the original pondering. Your counterexample clearly demonstrated the need for a more precise argument. As with most arguments, the devil is in the details and if you look close enough, every subject with a smooth appearance eventually turns out to have its share of dimples.