Does he who kills the most really win the game? - hist Blog - www.GameInformer.com
Switch Lights

The lights are on

What's Happening

Does he who kills the most really win the game?

In yesterday's "I Quit" blog, I mentioned my other competitive multiplayer pet peeve: ignoring objectives in order to pad your stats.

Funnily enough, both peeves were just reinforced on the night I was playing more multiplayer than usual to test out my mic.  (No, I'm not seriously obsessed with the mic, despite the constant mentions of it...it's just cool to finally have a good one)

The early quitter peeve was in Magic: the Gathering and the objective one was in MW2.  That one annoys me even more than the quitting one does.

If you're playing Team Deathmatch or something like that, then the purpose is to get as many kills as you can.  Sounds logical, right?

In Sabotage, though, the goal is to take the little yellow bomb and plant it on the opponent's big green thing (yes, I do military technical terms well, don't I?).  Thirty seconds later, if you defended the planted bomb correctly, it blows up and you win the game.  Easy to understand?

Apparently not.

How many Sabotage games have I played where everybody's just out to kill each other?  Way too many.  Some games, the bomb sits there for almost the entire game, untouched.  Crying and alone, obviously unwanted, like the nerdy kid being chosen last in PE.  Meanwhile, the studs go around trying to kill each other.

(Hey, did you know I have a new mic?)

In the game I was playing yesterday, people were actually taking the bomb and trying to plant it, and it was defused a couple of times.  But when a guy on our side actually grabbed the bomb, planted it (obviously an F-ing newbie), and then some of us defended it from being defused (I even shot a defuser), a bunch of my teammates shouted at the guy "why did you plant the bomb????? I need kills."

WTF???

If you want kills, go play Deathmatch!  It was funny, the guy (yeah, definitely an F-ing newbie) actually responded "Isn't that the point of the game?"  I could hear the eyerolls over my headset.

(Hey, did you know I have a new mic?)

I admit that I'm not a very good player in these games.  I get killed often enough without there being a big red "KILL" banner attached to my back.  So I generally don't go for the bomb myself.  I usually last about 10 seconds when I do pick it up, before somebody unloads on me. However, I do support the guy with the bomb.  I try to go along with him, take out any opposition around the objective or who might be coming after him as he heads toward the objective.  A couple of times, I've gotten so frustrated with the lack of trying on either side that I just pick up the bomb and try to get as close as possible to the objective before getting my head blown off.  A couple of times, that's actually spurred my teammates on to trying to set the bomb themselves.

I don't play Domination, but I understand that this problem is even worse in that game type.  As for other games, I haven't played them enough online to really know, but the mindset seems so universal that I can't imagine it's any different.

What's the purpose of playing objective-based games if you're not going for the objective?  Are you just not good enough for Deathmatch?  Is that it?

I would really like to understand this mindset, so I'm all ears if you want to try and explain it to me.

Oh, and one final thing...

Did you know I have a new mic?

comments