Something about a Randy Buehler interview that irks me...

[Rando]

This is a quote from The Ferret's interview of Randy Buehler, posted on www.starcitygames.com yesterday:

"Keep in mind that the portion of the audience that plays to win, period, is actually quite small. Something like 90% of our audience cares more about winning in a cool way, or in some cases just having fun playing regardless of the outcome."

I don't get it.

I always play to win. In fact, what is the point of playing any game if you aren't playing to win?

Play to lose?
Play to tie?

And I most certainly find winning to be quite fun, and a helluva lot more fun then loosing or drawing, which just pisses me off (Especially drawing. You can't help but think you could have/should have won.)

And what is the definition of "winning in a cool way"?

I personally think that winning with Squandered Resources and Cadaverous Bloom is pretty cool.

So is winning with a hoard of weennies, or with Enduring Renewal/Goblin Bombardment/ 0cc Creature.

Does he mean "They like to win with Goblin Game." or "They want to break Pale Moon"?

Is it true that 90% of you don't care?

...maybe I'm reading too much into this.
...maybe I should get back to work.

 

[rkoelsch]

but I believe he is probably referencing the recent rash of cheating. The win in spite of the rules attitude that some pro's are displaying. And I think you may be reading to much into it. But that is every person's right to misinterpet other people. Opps I better get back to work too

 

[olwen]

I'm not sure why you have a problem with a general statement. If it doesn't apply to you then you're in the other 10%, that's all.

Does it bother you that it is possible that there are others who play the game to have fun regardless of the outcome?

 

[Rando]

No, it's that thought that if you are not a pro or semi-pro or wanna-be-pro, then obviously you don't care about winning.

(edit)
Which, after reading that, sounds stupid.

I don't know what I mean.

Maybe this thread should be deleted.

 

[rkoelsch]

for some strange reason I am not particularly happy when I lose. But I really think you are reading too much into his statement.

 

[Spiderman]

It seems to me he's saying only 10% play to win, that is, put in the hours or days needed to test all deck and card possibilities to find the Tier 1 deck that will take first in Worlds (and get you their).

The other 90% play and win but "have fun doing it", that is, killing the opponent with poison or that Plague Rat. Or don't even care and just want an excuse to hang and have fun.

He's not saying 90% of players play to lose...

 

[Apollo]

Obviously, I prefer not to lose. But, I'd much rather do it by attacking with a horde of hippos than by Stroking them for 14209.5.

I think all he's saying is that most of us don't spend all that time playtesting, and we just get togeter with friends to play. That is, we play for the fun of the game, not for the winning. Of course, everyone would like to win. But do you play simply for the winning, or for the friendship and the fun?

 

[Chaos Turtle]

I'm pretty sure you could read that statement to mean, "Keep in mind that the portion of the audience that plays only to win, period, is actually quite small."


By his second statement, I think he means something along the lines of we play to win and to have fun. When we're not competing (even when we are, in most cases, I think) we're playing for kicks rather than to obliterate the competition.

I mean, whay else would I subject myself to making the local OppoFISHion player actually win the game against me (not conceding as soon as the combo hits and he has 5 creatures to my 1)? I think it's fun to see a blue deck completely dominate after being Boiled three freakin' times. Well, maybe the first time it's fun...