DiabloFans

And sure games might have originally been made up to have fun (in some cases to scam other people out of money) but that doesn't mean they don't have other valid aspects. So instead of you trying to argue over grammar with a guy that isn't english and have it as a second or third language perhaps you should focus on more apropriate topics where you might have a valid point (which you also made in some of your points as a side note).

I think part of the issue here is probably the language barrier. Why I agreed with the definition was because it pointed out a simple and easy enough reason why to partake in said action it explained my stance. Seriously though the reason people play is to have fun, to enjoy themselves. and get some sense of satisfaction. The individual weighs the pros and cons and unless some outside factor unrelated to the game steps in those not having enough fun stop playing a game. People that don't derive any enjoyment from a game don't play them. The fact people can have fun without winning a game supports the idea that you play to have fun. Is winning more fun? Sure sometimes. When you are under contract/employed you can have very different reasons to play (as in the act of participating) i.e. you are paid to do so. The reason any game exists and is bought though is because of the expectation that it will be fun and enjoyable. I'm not shitting on a professional, because they're doing their job. Though frankly they're no longer really 'playing' the game in the same sense that the rest of us are and the reason that the game is there for us in the first place.

This might be one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever heard.

Yet have it you are. In the statement I was arguing the reason behind an action. I backed it up with the definition and the reason why games exist. They didn't spring up because suddenly someone wanted to win. They came about because people enjoyed them, they had fun. As absolute as the idea of play = fun is I find it silly that you would try and reverse it that anything that is fun = play. That isn't my argument. It's that if you are playing a game, then you should be having fun. That is all frills cut away why you play the game.

but if playing a game to win and feel better than other people gives you satisfaction doesn't mean it's fun doing it.

So seriously what is fun then. Cause getting that warm fuzzy feeling of satisfaction certainly sounds like fun.

The reason I took this apparently idiotic stance of play games for fun is because the idea that you play only to win is wrong. You aren't playing just to win. You play to win cause that is how you get your fun, your enjoyment. The act brings you satisfaction. If you play a game and aren't having fun in doing it how long would you keep doing it? Unless its part of your job you'd likely walk away from the game as the realization you aren't having fun doing it anymore hits you.
Why do I find this pertinent? It shows the schism between some people. That they can't equate the reason as to why they're competitive and why they want to win. Then they look at other ways of playing with an upturned nose and a statement of how they're the 'real' whatever. I brought it up since I think it bridges this apparent gap between casuals and the hardcore. Maybe it's pointless to bring up, but it seems to have put a bug up someones butt that I'd argue the only real reason to 'play a game' is to have fun.

And to the idiot posting above me try to read that he was arguing over my example that pro gaming wasn't counted as playing a game because the focus is to win and improve not to have fun. I play games to have fun but some people don't that was the point which he tried to dismiss with word definitions

It's not really playing then if you don't have fun. They are working. It is a job. The word definition clarifies that stance. It gives reason to the action which your attempt to dismiss does not. To me at the least games and playing them is about having fun. Apparently to others its about winning or improving and not fun at all. So then why do you wish to win or improve? What's the end goal behind such? Congrats if you are having fun then you are playing the game. A pro-gamer that plays and seeks to win or improve out of the sense of enjoyment such a thing gives them is doing so for fun. Can a competitive game be fun? Yes. But if you do it just to win because that's your job. Then you aren't really having fun or playing any more you are working.

Seriously I brought it up because Adon stated the point of a game is to win. I find such a statement to be false or at the very least misleading as one can still have fun and enjoy a game that you end up losing. That at the end of the day if you play a game the answer isn't whether you won or lost, but that you had fun. So I put it as simple as possible, which then apparently drew the ire of Zera because... I don't know. Is there a problem with the idea of games being about having fun? Shall we start a new topic in the PvP forum to discuss if PvPers like to have fun? Since apparently they don't like that being the real motivation behind playing a game.

Haha, you outta material? Ran through your ABC argument to fast?

Apparently you ran out of actual material long ago since your only tactic has been to twist what material is offered.

From some random english dictionary (http://oxforddictionaries.com). Online ofc since I don't have a propper english dictionary as I'm not english. So why is it that just because you leave out part of the definition or takes it from another source makes you more right.
2 [with object] take part in (a sport):

So your counter is no it can also mean to take part in a sport/game. That's why you play to... play? That does not give an indication of why you play. You play to win? Why do you wish to win? TO HAVE FUN! Games are meant for enjoyment and recreation, why resist this idea at all? How is this even a negative?

Not true at all. Ever play any recent game now adays? It is all about winning, fun takes the back burner. In EVERY game I have played online in the past 5+ years, it always boils down to winning or losing, and people don't like to lose, they especially don't like to lose to unfair circumstances.

Yes I have. I play games to have fun. So nope can't say it's all about winning. Why do you like to win? Is it that sense of enjoyment of ... hmm fun? So the end all reason to play a game is to have fun.

Ever heard of idra?
And for that matter a lot of pro players play to win not to have fun (they might love their job but they don't play to have fun)

A job is not a game. Regardless of the means it gives you certain criteria you are expected to meet if you wish to continue your employment. So they don't 'play' they 'work'.

No one plays to lose and no one plays to win. They play to have fun.

For or Against? I haven't taken that stance. I'm primarily pvm and I'll probably enjoy the pvp arena. Do I agree with the vast majority of what those stating they uphold the values of 'real' PvP argue for? Nope, but I don't see that making me anti-PvP. It makes me against their suggestions.

Quote from Adon

So your argument is that you are more important then me because you like to PvM more? So you are so greedy that any second of attention that PvP gets you are going to run to your mommy and cry? I love this community haha.

Really cause from your posts I'd expect that you consider everyone beneath you. Now as for the argument yup PvM in a PvM game is more important than a 'real' Pvper. Especially one that mostly insults the game and anyone that holds a view other than your own.

Quote from Veggie50

How would PvM vs PvP be possible? PvM by definition cannot take part of such a battle.

That is by far the most logical, simple, and funny answer I've seen so far. Well played. +1

Quote from Makesh

I don't get why those who prefer PvM are so anti-PvP. I can understand it in a game like WoW, where PvP balance changes can greatly affect PvE, but Blizzard have stated multiple times that this will never be the case for D3. For me, Diablo is one of the very few games where I enjoy the PvE, but I'm looking forward to the PvP equally, so I really hope they won't take too long before patching it in.

Disagreeing with suggestion, etc. on this forum doesn't make one anti-pvp. It means they don't agree with what someone has suggested. It's like someone not liking the president's policies being labeled a racist. It is a leap from logic to justify one's position. Multiple posters that are primarily PvMers have stated looking forward to PvP yet this is quickly forgotten somehow as they disagree with a suggestion made by someone identifying themselves as a PvPer.

While Blizzard has stated their stance very clearly on not repeating the mistakes of the past by sacrificing core design for side features many have posted ideas or suggestions that could do just that. Therefore players interested in the core game get this uncanny sense of deja vu. Thus they respond and post their reasoning. They don't hate PvP they just don't wish to see PvM suffering for it.

And they have specifically stated there will be. They said you can join with your buddies and kill each other. No other way to do that then private arena buddy.

Unless they mean joining a public game as like a team vs. random. I don't recall them specifically saying killing your buddies or killing with your buddies.

I hit what esc and said make game public.

So you start a game as a private game then make it public and then grief. Then your excuse would be. "Hey the game was private and I let some random join to grief by making it public..." Seriously is that supposed to be a counter argument to how grief in a public game will get you banned cause if it is it fails.

You won't be able to kick anyone unless 3/4 agree and that wouldn't happen if 1 is my buddy haha.

Um the person being potentially kicked wouldn't get a vote so... two people that don't agree versus your buddy is 2v1. So you get kicked. Then probably your buddy gets kicked as well with a vote of 2v0. So yeah. Problem solved.

That is the end goal for all PvP.

Really I thought it was the fun and challenge of it. No wait wait. I'm sorry that must be a PvM only concept. Silly me.