Which is a better strategy: To try to win or to try not to lose?

Always play to win. Put your full effort into what you're trying to accomplish and never look back. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise if it's something that you really want. Playing to not lose doesn't even put 100% into the game where playing to win puts 120% :gf:

Playing to win is the obvious choice for me. Like GF said, playing to win makes you put in so much more effort than just playing to not lose. If you play to not lose then you are barely trying hard enough, but if you play to win then you are going full out. Once again, it's a no-brainer for me but that might not be the case for someone else.

It's important to note that playing to win has a lot more risk attached - through one way or another, you're likely to lose.

If you're playing simply to not lose, oftentimes, you succeed. Winning is an added bonus.

Haha, it actually depends on which game I'm playing. In games like Zelda, I play to win, because I simply cannot stop playing the game until I beat every single aspect of the game and have gotten every single secret. It does not matter to me here, because you simply cannot lose.

But, in games like Fire Emblem, I go on the defensive and play not to lose. I'll start over if I lose any characters, so I don't want to do that. I'm always looking around to make sure all my guys are protected at all times. But there's always that longbowman that you forget about that comes by and PWNs your Rhys. D:

It of course depends on the thing being played.

I don't usually care. I generally play with improving in mind, not just the results.

But it's hard to come up with an answer for a question as open as this one.

Haven't posted here since I was Restricted... And before that.

It really depends what I'm playing. I generally play to not lose. Like, in Blazing Sword, I'll be more conservative and play defensively, whereas in TSS, I just send Seth everyone in to shread some nppbs.

But in MMOs I generally...

It always depends on what I'm playing/doing.

Playing not to lose will quite often leave you crippled by your more aggresive foes, and you often depend on them to make a mistake for you to stay alive. Of course, it also depends on what you are playing...

Playing not to lose: You are playing the game, not exactly winning, but you aren't losing.
Playing to win: You _obviously_ are not losing, because you're winning, and you're playing the game, and you're winning.

Playing to win >>> Playing not to lose

Completely

/topic

Playing to win doesn't mean you win; that just means you value winning as your top priority. Playing not to lose would be a more defensive position, where playing to win is more offensive. Either way, playing to win is overrated; it's just a game. Play to your best, win or lose.

No, that would being playing offensively Vs. playing defensively.

This is playing to win Vs. playing not to lose.

*abuse of wording*

The position, dear DH. I didn't necessarily they were playing utterly defensively or offensively. Winning is moving forward to attempt the goal, where trying not to lose is to hold the position and perhaps win while you're at it. One is more proactive in winning, where the other is more proactive in simply trying not to have your butt kicked.

Sure, that would be alright. However, you forgot that part of winning is not losing, so if you are playing to win by assumption you are playing not to lose. Playing not to lose does not assume you are playing to win, on the other hand.

It's not even comparable.

If you play not to lose your opponent can't win .

If you play to win there is a chance you might lose.

What? No, even if you are playing not to lose, it's very likely you can still lose. Actually, _just_, _exactly_ as likely as if you were playing to win.

to play not to lose in no way means you are trying to win,just not lose,therefore your objective is to make sure your opponent does not win.

omfg

Do you even read my posts?

However, you forgot that part of winning is not losing, so if you are playing to win by assumption you are playing not to lose. Playing not to lose does not assume you are playing to win, on the other hand.

Playing to Win and Playing not to lose are exactly as defensive. Playing to Win is /generally/ more offensive.

ggnore

Samurai Deeper Kyo explained it like this: If you're playing to not lose, you're not going to take the risks you would take if you were playing to win. So basically what DH said, playing to win is more offensive.

It depends on the situation, really.

*sigh*

No, playing to win is always better in every situation ever always. Playing not to lose doesn't have a single lead on it.

Losing means not winning.
Playing to win means winning.
Therefor playing to win means not losing.
Playing to win includes all the properties of playing not to lose.

Playing not to lose is mainly defensive, but that doesn't mean it's more defensive than playing to win. It just means that it's a defensive strategy. Playing to win includes all of these things, and because you are actually aiming to win, and not just survive (while doing that just as much) you are more likely to actually win.

/TOPIC

>>

Playing to NOT TO LOSE could also mean going after a draw; neither you or the opponent wins. This brings up a new light to the topic, so technically, playing not to lose does NOT mean you will win.

@Asvel - I believe I'm the one that brought up the offensive/defensive stuff.

Who was that directed at?

In any case, that's another point against Playing not to lose.

It also depends on whom you are playing against. Or really, as Asvel said, it deoends on the circumstance. In all technicalty, playing to win and playing not to lose are generally going to lead you to the same actions (perhaps not nessessarily tactics), but you just have a different mindset. So whichever way, your actions won't be so different to make much difference.







Then you could consider that the outcomes of games have no consenquence to one's life, what the heck does it matter anyway?

Well that would be a third option. <__<;;

Sir, you forget yourself.

Consider a campaign in a war. I believe winning and losing can directly affect your life.

He said games. War is a whole different animal.

But the fact that this thread does not focus directly on games, it is only inferred, makes his point moot.

Well then it goes without saying that you obviously can't treat war so nonchalantly. But with war, there are many, many things to consider before you decide a strategy. Clearly one can't just immediately rush into, "I'm playing/fighting to win!!!!!!!!!!!!!" without horrible reprocussions. As Dez said, war is far different than a game and pretty much would require a thread for itself when it comes to this question.

I dare say, it's simply a point I brought up. If we were to discuss war, then I agree completely that we would need a new thread.

However, if one were to dumb war down to playing to win or not to lose, my point remains valid.

How is war not a game?

Wow. I REALLY hope that is sarcasm. To say war is a game is _ sorry to be blunt _
utterly stupid. Foremost, war has much higher costs when it comes to wins and losses. Unlike a game, money is much higher in importance since you don't find red gems and white gems to replenish your finances. You have to me very aware of political impact. Make the wrong moves and you'll just get another war after the one being fought gets finished (WW2 illustrates my point for those who know thier history). You definitely have to be considerate of you soldiers and thier health, both psychological and physical, and so on. There's definitely more than what I care to type. MUCH more. I hope this isn't just an illusion from video games that war has no consequence that you're under.

Actually war is a game, but a very different type of game from the ones of which were being spoken.

It defies almost all usually considered aspects, but technically, there are enough core similarities that it can be considered a unique form of game.

Lumo, quit proving that War is too big or something to be a game. Because that could just prove that it's a large-scale game.

Well, just that "game" implies something fun to pass the time. To say that war is a game is really stretching the definition. Maybe to the leaders it is considered a game, but to the soldiers and civilians in the fighting territory... well, it doesn't seem like a game anymore <.< My point, basically, is that the word "game" has a very positive connotation that strongly contradicts the connotation and definition of war. But if you are adamant that war is a game, I'll leave you guys to it. Have fun.

Your definition of game is very different from the one that includes war, the one that's technically correct.

*checked dictionary*

Technically, yes it is. Well, I suppose it shall go under the darker connotation of "game". Still, it doesn't seem to feel right calling it a game, but that's just a moral issue.

My friend said to win. Yeah, I think I can just close this topic now ....

Ok, since this topic was brought up, I'll reply, because I have some serious misgivings against this.

Since the "definition" of game was brought up, lets go to ol' dictionary.com and look up game:

1. War is definitely not an amusement or pastime. One could take a pessimistic view of war, in saying that leaders enjoy attacking each other, or that Hitler attacked the Jews only for enjoyment, etc. But, it comes down to the fact that truly no one enjoys war, it is simply the inevitability of human society where people disagree.
2. Does not apply to war (unless you can think of an application).
3. The first part of the definition applies: a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons, but war DEFINITELY does not follow a set of rules, nor amusement (see response to 1.), nor for the enjoyment of spectators. I don't think America really enjoys watching the war right now.
4.-6. I can't see how these would apply, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
7. Here is where the term almost could be applied, in that like sports, soldiers must go through rigorous training, learning how to fight, use weapons, etc, like a football players must learn to run, catch, throw a football. BUT, war involves so many other aspects besides fighting. You must take into account political leadership, and how many different circumstances they must take into account when planing/executing a war. Each of the decisions they make affect many different people, and the ramifications of deciding to attack on city could be very bad for another, even whole country.
8. War may resemble a game, BUT, here again, war does not go by a set of rules. Again, you could say there are rules like: attack, defend, send troops; but I would think 'rules' would be a very loose term in these circumstances.
9. Here is where I would agree with this use of the word. A leader could try and see through another's "game", in reference to his strategy and the use of his troops.
10. I hope you don't think of war as a joke; people's lives to be thrown around like confetti.
11.-12. Not applicable.
13. Doesn't really apply, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the definition.
14. Almost the same definition ad 9., in that you could call what leaders do as "the game of war". But, it is an informal use, and doesn't encompass the word as a whole.
15. No applicable?

Again, using "game" to describe a war is very...pessimistic, and would not encompass war as a whole. One could say certain aspects of war may seem like a game, but when you take into account everything, and the meaning of the word "game", it isn't applicable.

As for what this topic is actually supposed to be about, the argument for playing to win and playing not lose is almost the same as the cup half-full/half-empty argument. It's simply a matter of mindset, of how you approach the game. In the end, it does not really matter which you use, because you'll ultimately make the same decisions (arguable). But, as Aeo said, when you have the midnset of "playing to win", you become more aggressive, and are willing to take more risks than you would with the opposite mindset. When you're playing not to lose, you almost have a negative outlook, in protecting your player(s), always watching your back, etc.

what game?

often it is the best strategy to not lose, because if you don't lose you will eventually win! Of course, this only applies in 1 v. 1 games with a human opponent. In larger or more complicated games, it would probably be good to try to win, as you aren't going to stand out from the masses by doing nothing.