"gamer logic" nonsense that annoys you

[Gunstar Green]

Here's one: The idea that you cannot play games "wrong", which is anti-artistic and anti-gaming as a whole. Some ways of playing games are better than others just like barely thawed piece of meat is worse than a properly cooked steak.

Deep down, it's nothing but the gaming version of cultural relativisim.

That's like saying there's only one right way to interpret any form of artwork. The artist may have intended you to see their work in one way, but once a piece of art leaves the hands of their creator it becomes its own thing to be interpreted however people choose to do so.

[alienjesus]

The idea that games are 'more' than just toys, as if being toys is a bad thing. Toys can also be artistic outlets, but anything interactive that you 'play' with is a toy.

Toys are one of the most important things in the world, and they have a total negative stigma around them amongst adults.

[Erik_Twice]

That's like saying there's only one right way to interpret any form of artwork. The artist may have intended you to see their work in one way, but once a piece of art leaves the hands of their creator it becomes its own thing to be interpreted however people choose to do so.

No, some interpretations are better than others. For example, "Edgar Alan Poe fucking loves ravens" is a terrible interpretation of his work and anyone who chooses to interpret it that way is wrong.

Here's an actual game example, this is a game critic playing Giga Wing 2:

Without trying to sound like a broken record, no amount of manual dexterity whatsoever is going to get you through this one.

As a consequence, there's almost no gameplay at all.What you'll find offered here amounts to moving your ship around the screen while holding the fire button down and launching super-bombs while you constantly die and respawn amid a pyrotechnic lightshow.

I'm more than happy to say he's playing the game wrong and that his interpretation of the game is terrible.

The idea that games are 'more' than just toys, as if being toys is a bad thing. Toys can also be artistic outlets, but anything interactive that you 'play' with is a toy.

True that. In fact, many of the titles we call games are actually better described as toys: Dungeons and Dragons and Simcity are both toys, the latter was even refered as so back in the day.

[marurun]

That's like saying there's only one right way to interpret any form of artwork. The artist may have intended you to see their work in one way, but once a piece of art leaves the hands of their creator it becomes its own thing to be interpreted however people choose to do so.

No, some interpretations are better than others. For example, "Edgar Alan Poe fucking loves ravens" is a terrible interpretation of his work and anyone who chooses to interpret it that way is wrong.

Here's an actual game example, this is a game critic playing Giga Wing 2:

Without trying to sound like a broken record, no amount of manual dexterity whatsoever is going to get you through this one.

As a consequence, there's almost no gameplay at all.What you'll find offered here amounts to moving your ship around the screen while holding the fire button down and launching super-bombs while you constantly die and respawn amid a pyrotechnic lightshow.

I'm more than happy to say he's playing the game wrong and that his interpretation of the game is terrible.

That doesn't mean the reviewer was playing it wrong, necessarily. Maybe the game wasn't properly suggesting to him what he should be doing. The design of a thing is supposed to tell you how to use it. That could be considered a flaw in game design, not necessarily a flaw in the reviewer. Either way, this is more likely a case of a reviewer looking at a game that is simply not a good fit for them and not a case of "playing the game wrong."

What if the reviewer had played the game in that style but had a blast doing it, and later tried playing to the game the way it was intended and didn't enjoy it? In that case, the reviewer might have been "playing it wrong" but had more fun doing so, which means there was nothing wrong with it at all.

The only wrong way to play a game is to keep doing it when you're not having fun. In that case the only right way to play the game is not to play it. As long as the game is an enjoyable or meaningful experience, you're playing it right, regardless of the actual game rules or mechanics or the intent of the creator.

[Sarge]

I can appreciate Erik's sentiment here. Now, there are, at times, a wide gamut of choices that are valid in how to play a game, and if it works for you, that's great! But I also won't give equal weight to, say, R.C. Pro-Am II where my cousin used to just spin in circles and laugh his head off at it to my own "proper" way of playing.

[marurun]

But I also won't give equal weight to, say, R.C. Pro-Am II where my cousin used to just spin in circles and laugh his head off at it to my own "proper" way of playing.

Why not? I mean, if he is enjoying himself, is there REALLY anything wrong with the way he's playing? If so, what's wrong with it?

[Sarge]

In terms of enjoyment, sure. But it completely deviates from stated goals of the game, has no longevity to speak of (he'd get tired of it eventually!), and requires no skill at all. So no, I can't give it equal weight. It's not wrong from a personal enjoyment standpoint, but there are better ways to play. In some ways, playing that way makes it not a game at all, because you're just holding two inputs and watching the (pointless outside of entertainment) results.

I think perhaps it would be better to say that, subjectively, there aren't any "wrong" ways to play, but there are "better" ways to play. And there are different levels along that spectrum. And sometimes, two ways are just as valid; think, say, Super Smash Bros. where lower skilled casual players go at it versus what you would get from high-tier tournament players.

[Gunstar Green]

The only real example I can think of where you can objectively play a game "wrong" is using an exploit in an online game to gain an advantage, especially if doing so is a ban-able offense.

I don't think having fun is the deciding factor in cases where there are enforced rules.

That said I of course agree that some interpretations are better or more valid than others but even interpretations that miss the point are still interpretations even if they have little value.

[marurun]

I think perhaps it would be better to say that, subjectively, there aren't any "wrong" ways to play, but there are "better" ways to play. And there are different levels along that spectrum. And sometimes, two ways are just as valid; think, say, Super Smash Bros. where lower skilled casual players go at it versus what you would get from high-tier tournament players.

I think I can agree with this but. But I think we should note that, just like with stuff like "best" games, there is a certain subjective element to this determination. Any objectivity involved is objectivity by consensus, not objectivity by some kind of factual mandate.

[Erik_Twice]

What if the reviewer had played the game in that style but had a blast doing it, and later tried playing to the game the way it was intended and didn't enjoy it?

Well, what if someone prefers his hamburger burned to the point it turns into charcoal instead of cooking it properly?

Let's not beat around the bush with absurd hypotheticals that have no bearing with reality. Games are an interactive medium and in order for them to work the player has to put something into them. Players who play "wrong" don't get joyful or meaningful experiences because, quite simply, the game isn't working properly.

Shmup credit feeding, not understanding grabs in fighting games, going "all-in" at all times...this stuff ruins games and we should talk openly about it instead of being afraid to say someone is playing wrong.