EPTI'm back to talk more... Board games? And video games.
This post is about forfeiting and how it is perceived differently in board games vs video games.
I was playing Blood Rage with some friends this weekend and we got to a point in the second phase where there was little to no chance anyone would even come close to beating me. I had more than twice the score, superior clan stats, Frigga's protection and almost an infinite pool of rage with Loki's Trickery (and a base of 12). For those who don't know the game... This is an insurmountable lead. So, the game was called 2 turns into the second phase of Ragnarok and I was victorious. Being a student of the game and a former RTS player, I was more than happy to pack it up and move onto something else, however, not everyone sees it that way.
Generally, when it comes to board games, if someone leaves and/or doesn't want to finish a game that they are clearly losing, the victorious player often will take offense and/or doesn't feel satisfied with that as a victory. Do this often enough and you will be labeled a quitter and shamed for it. There is a trend here, when it comes to board games, players often want to savor the victory and play out all stages of the game whereas in the world of video games, people tend to prefer that you leave the game as quickly as possible as to get another play in. In fact, often in video games, you will be flamed if you stay in the game past the point of no return, players will condemn you for continuously trying in a futile scenario.
That got me to thinking, what causes this discrepancy? Is it the type of people who participate or is it the nature of the game and what people get out of it? Is it the simple fact that video games are majorly played online or something with the nature of competitive video games themselves?
The first factor that came to mind is that, if you compare the two groups from my experience, the video game players are far more invested in the games they play. The percentage of board game players that fit under the terms ‘’casual’’ or “occasional” is much higher than that of multiplayer video game players. Even so, I don’t think the will to win is any less for the “casual” gamer than it is for the competitive gamer, in fact, it may even be stronger. I’ve seen some casual players attempt to claw someone’s eye out to get an advantage at Jungle Speed. So, it would seem that the importance of victory is not so much of a factor to the social dynamic of forfeiting.
So, I went on to ask some friends of mine who are both board game players and online gamers. We discussed that board games are played in person with people who you know, therefore the social interactions are much more important than video games which you’re playing online. While online, you’re likely to have little to no regard for the player who is against you, therefore, regardless if you’re winning or losing, if the margin is significant enough, the remainder of the game feels entirely pointless. You’re not getting any social interactions of value and you’re not really accomplishing much in the game itself. My friend explained that when he plays video games in person, he generally doesn’t like people forfeiting even if the gap is large.
For a moment, that made a lot of sense. The only issue with this argument is that when I play Starcraft or Dota, regardless if I’ve known the people or not, forfeiting has been fair game. The portion of the game remaining at this stage does not add to anyone’s enjoyment of the game. For anyone who is about to argue this point, yes, people do get upset when you forfeit at Dota, but those people are generally your teammates, the situation in team games will always be a little stickier.
This is where I stumbled on the root of it. I think the major reason for a forfeit being a valid option in many video games is that the main purpose of playing those games is for improvement. Whether it be personal improvement, ladder improvement, stats or equipment, the value of staying in the match after the game is over is nullified once the advantage has become insurmountable or nearly so. At this point, the potential gain of remaining in the game is far less than starting fresh.
Then I thought, in chess it is also socially acceptable to yield when you believe it’s lost. So it would seem that it is not just video games, but perhaps the competitive system that drives this mentality, the accolades and the perceived importance of ranks and titles. In a multiplayer board game, where everyone is sitting around the table plotting their next move while enjoying a nice cold beer, it is quite easy to forget about the competitive system, the need for improvement and the wasted time. In that moment, it seems that all of the least meaningful portions of the game become tolerable and even appreciated.
I sometimes wonder if it wouldn’t be better to have a middle ground, where people aren’t killing each other to get out of a game of Dota as quickly as possible and conversely aren’t killing themselves attempting to stick with it through the entirety of a deep strategy game at the table. Perhaps there should be less value attributed to the competitive system and games should be played for what they are, fun distractions to be taken out and put away at any time. Of course, this is a difficult balance as everyone has different tastes and tolerance levels.
Alas, wishful thinking.
Many board games may not ever see the same will to improve in the absence of a competitive system while video games are now being released with practically no option other than the competitive multiplayer. The human inclination to ranks and systems which demonstrate one’s superiority or accomplishments is not going anywhere.
