CygnusX7, on 28 May 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:
wickwire, on 30 May 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:
It is the font of madness!
I approve of the OP, and understand the author's frustration - but speaking of madness, I always feel like something dies a little in the human race every time someone says, "you should play to have fun." Saying that we should play to have fun is like sagely pointing out that you get wet when you swim - as though the person being addressed is not trying to enjoy themselves. This is a kind of crazy attitude.
Everyone engages in recreational activities to "have fun." So why say it? Often the person at whom this cliche is aimed is not having fun - or being
accused of not having fun - in some way. Perhaps complaining about bad practices, or blaming their team, or just raging at people. Perhaps they are venting their frustrations in a constructive forum post. Regardless, when I hear the words "play to have fun," I'm frequently (though not always) hearing them in one of two contexts: pushback against criticism of their practices/builds, or as a rhetorical hammer to beat people who are expressing frustration at some given moment.
The common definition of "fun" is "something that provides mirth or amusement [or entertainment.]" But the "play to have fun" crowd in general is committing a fallacy of equivocation to smuggle in an invalid definition: "play to have fun" is often used in a way that means "do whatever I like regardless of the effect on my teammates." Not all of them will think about it quite that way, but that's the attitude that gets expressed. This attitude ignores certain important facts: MWO is a competitive game - and we all chose to play it. The attitude that "I play to have fun on my own computer so I can do what I want" attitude has to ignore those facts, because it's a moral statement - and the disregard of one's teammates in a team competition is immoral. Choosing a competitive game means that we're all playing to win, as well as to have fun.
I keep getting people in these very guides forums pop into "how-to" (or not to) guides (mine and others') to maunder on about how the author should "just let people play how they want." But if you really pressed them and got an honest answer, they'd agree that someone who loaded into a match and started legging teammates was in the wrong. Of course that's wrong - because there are natural limits to personal freedom; the easiest to apply here is the harm principle. Still, some will see the obvious trap and try to wriggle out by saying that "oh, he can do what he wants, he'll just get punished," but that won't save them; if it's ok to do what you want and some actions just get punished, then someone can also tell you how to play or what to build, and just get punished if they go beyond the rules. In fact, no matter how much the arguer squirms, they can't justify their position because it's nonsensical if examined - two definitions of "play to have fun" are being used selectively. When it applies to them, "play to have fun" means "I can play however makes me happy," but when it's applied to others, it means "I can do whatever I want so long as it doesn't reasonably interfere with other people's fun." The latter definition is correct - the former is not.
This is not to say that everyone who says the words "play to have fun" is doing any of this - some people simply see others frustrated, and reminding them that we're here for enjoyment seems reasonable - particularly the Professionally Dissatisfied who haunt the forums at times, loudly proclaiming why they "quit" the game. This impulse may be innocent, but it's not useful - of course the person wants to have fun! They're just frustrated with something that interferes with that fun, and they're either raging about it or trying to help correct what they see as a problem. So if none of this is you, don't stress it.
None of this should be taken to mean that players don't have a right to their preferred play style, that not playing the meta is immoral, or that no one should ever be allowed to play a Locust (finished mastering the last of mine last week.) What I'm saying here is that when we choose to play a team game, we're choosing to play cooperatively with other people, and those people do have some legitimate claim to our best efforts. We do have the right to choose how we want to contribute to the team, of course - and there's legitimate room for discussion (and disagreement) as to where exactly those two principles meet. But when we're thinking about an issue, it's important that we use the same definitions going both ways.
3
