Because it doesn’t seem to matter currently if you play ranked games or casual games, the general experience tends to be the same. But one has numbers and things to go with it. You still get people playing to win in casual games and you get people dicking around having fun in ranked games, and the ranks don’t necessarily indicate how they play as a team and a whole bunch of other things that make it less than ideal.
Honestly for competitive games if you’re not playing to win, just don’t play. What’s even the point?
What counts as a “competitive game” - is it anything where there are winners and losers or something more specific?
Can you think of a game that exists in a gray area? Most games I would consider competitive multiplayer games are pretty obviously so. Maybe something like a BR game where you’re expected to not win. Or Elden Ring where the competitive multiplayer aspect is de-emphasized. Do those games even have casual and ranked modes?
Smash Bros? Plenty of people play it as a competitive fighting game while others just like to goof around with their friends.
MTG Arena - there’s a regular play queue and a ranked queue, and people definitely play to mess around and try new decks for fun. This of course doesn’t cease to induce salt from sweaty gamers in the play queue.
Even ignoring games that you consider “in the gray area,” who are you to say someone can’t find a way to have fun in a game that doesn’t align with your way of having fun? Not everyone is playing the game hoping to land on an esports team.
Edit: I’m mostly referring to casual queues - ranked queues being hyper competitive does make sense. I’ve just seen the same argument made that casual queues should be the same level of competitive.
Co-op games that let you troll your buddy?
Things like L4D’s primary mode and Portal 2’s co-op mode.
I said something similar in another reply, but I can’t think of any games where winning/losing is possible but doesn’t change my enjoyment. Even elden ring invasions feel better if you win the encounter.
The only thing that could come close is an encounter like that or in something like DMZ where you can talk it out and join forces, but maybe that’s just another form of winning.
i think a competitive game would be like CSGO where it’s often pretty intense and there’s a lot of mechanics to learn and often times your pretty frustrated when you lose as opposed to like call of duty where it doesn’t really matter if you win or lose (or didnt in older titles)
Another name for them would be adversarial multiplayer. But, basically yes. Anything where there would be winners and losers is what I would call a competitive game.
Though others narrow it down further to more high skill adversarial games like Quake and Counter-Strike and League of Legends/DOTA for their professional competitive leagues.
i think a competitive game would be like CSGO where it’s often pretty intense and there’s a lot of mechanics to learn and often times your pretty frustrated when you lose as opposed to like call of duty where it doesn’t really matter if you win or lose (or didnt in older titles)
There’s different levels of playing to win though. I play a lot of R6 Siege. In the evenings I mostly play casual with my friends. I’m either using the random button to pick my operator for variety, or I’m playing all shotguns for a battle pass challenge or I’m trying to find ridiculous places to put a frost mat.
Within that structure I’m trying to win the rounds, but it doesn’t matter if we lose. I’m just having fun in a game with my friends.
