Which would you prefer to play? (in Contests)

A game where you thought you could win, but couldn't... or a game that seemed impossible, but wasn't?

I want 2 answers, one for if you knew they were like this (they seem to be the opposite of what they are), and one for if you didn't (and you were just presented with 2 games, one that seemed easy but was impossible and one that seemed impossible but wasn't).

Best Answer get 50k. If there are additional good answers (up to 2 runner-ups), I'll give them each 10k.

Walt Disney once said, "It's kind of fun to do the impossible." Now, I'm sure that Mr. Disney really meant that it was fun to do what seemed impossible, and in that respect I agree with him. A lot of the fun associated with playing a game has to do with the time spent playing it, not the end result (win or lose). If I knew a game seemed impossible, but there was a definite method to winning it, I would prefer that game over the alternative.

Now... If I didn't know? That's a harder question to answer. Of course, playing the game that I thought I could win--but couldn't--may keep me interested for a while, but I don't think I would continue playing long enough to realize the fact that I couldn't win it. So, I suppose I would play the harder of the two games, with or without the foreknowledge of each game's respective possibilities.

A game that is easy but impossible or a game that is extremely hard but possible. . . hmmm. i would have to say that it is impossible for an impossible game to be easy. Now i cant answer the questions directly but i know i love and hate a rubics cube because it seems impossible. I mean cmon, how many of us have actually finished one of those? The best ive gotten was 3 Sides. . . Its seems impossible but i dont think it is. I would definitely prefer the challenge with my goals reached at the end than something thatisnt challenging and no goal to be reached at the end. Until then i will try to figure the damn thing out. Honestly though, the thing is soooo HARD.

I'll have to go with the seemingly easy one.
There needs to be a carrot on a stick to keep you interested in it, somehting that always lies tantalizingly within reach. In CB there is always that next rare, or the next benchmark in score/PR/MPR whatever; yet truly "winning" is not possible - you will have to keep fighting to stay on top.

If, on the other hand, there was no motivation provided from the game itself, no ultimate reward to be gained (that you know about anyways), then the only motivation would be what each player brings in from the start. I would definiteltly try the game out, but at some point I would reach the limit of my patience/interest/determination and decide it nots worth it.

It would still have to depend on what the game does for you, are there smaller rewards along the way? depending on what kind of game it is, the act of playing might be reward enough.

id go with a game that seemed impossible but wasnt. its fun to overcome that challenge and rise to the occasion..

plus these options both look like carnage blender...

a game you thought you could win but couldnt (cb1) there is no way you are catching up without some bonus, and since there are none, ur done for...

and a game that seemed impossible but wasnt (cb2) it may seem to be impossible to catch Ranger, but if you exploit the NUB correctly, you can beat him in 25 days :D

"a game you thought you could win but couldnt (cb1)"
--SoulCalibur

Tell that to Sutekh/chet. He'll have a different story for you.

I'd prefer the game that seemed impossible but wasn't. I guess its suited to my personality as I'm a perfectionist. I always set my goals high so if the game was too easy at the beginning, Id lose interest pretty quickly. However, if the game was hard as hell, it would keep me interested and I would tend to stay around and keep playing the game until I reach a point where I'm too good or until I finish the damn thing. I find the most satisfaction out of comlpeting a game (or becoming very skilled at the game) that I know is extremely difficult because of all the hard work I put into it and that I managed to get positive results.

If I didn't know about what the games were like, I would still choose the harder game over the easier game ( I know I'm calling it the easier game even though I wouldn't be able to win it...) for the same reasons; I really enjoy facing up to challenges and making things hard for myself so I can improve myself even more.

But, in the end I think it depends on the type of game. I wouldn't usually play board games or such things. If you're talking about computer games, I usually play Warcraft3 and any RPG game thats not so crap (Thats kinda why Im trying CarnageBlender out...).

I'm hoping we can get at least 10 total answers to this before I pay out.. but I do know whose answers I like so far.

If I didn't know that I could/couldn't win.

I'd go for the one that I thought I could win. Most of the time when you go for games that you think you can't win, you wont win. It's not worth going out of your way to play games you think you can't win, just so that you're even happier when you do win. Just go for the happy medium, where you live in ignorance thinking that you will win, but never get there.

If I did know.
Well, that'd take the fun out of it wouldn't it?

Oh well, I'd have to again go for the one that I couldn't win. If I knew that I was capable of winning one, then it'd be dull, just keep going along and then beat it, but you knew you would win all along so it means nothing to you. Whereas if you go for the one you know for certain that you can't win, you still get a thrill out of getting close.

Assuming the gameplay is equally addictive and in depth with both games:

If i knew i would go for the one that seemed impossible.
The greater the challenge, the sweeter the victory.

If i did not know, the difficult one would keep me up longer, as trying and discovering is more fun to me then being on top.
I'd rather go for fun in exploring/theorising then a boost of my self esteem by being No. 1 (top 10% is enough for my self esteem)

/me wonders why nobody has mentioned Tetris

The most addictive game in the world.

You always think you can beat it but then you come across yet another level of even faster paced blocks!!!

Oh the humanity, and on a side note, has anybody reached level 30+ on the original gameboy version?

Only 7 real answers.. like I said, I'd like to see at least 10... There's no competition in this without other people. This is a game that looks like you can win it, but if we dont get at least 3 more answers, it'll be a game you "think you can win, but can't.. =(

lol this contest is useless! theres no way to win - I quit!

If I knew, then I would try to play he one I couldn't win. If I didn't know I would play the impossible one.

This is exactly like a word find on at Pizza hut placemat yesterday. It was a simple ten-word matrix, but one of the words "bubbles" was not on the sheet. the sheet had "bubblcs".

It drove my daughter nuts!

I would have no preference, both would be enjoyable in my opinion.

If I knew:
When discussing a game that I thought I could win, but couldn't:
I don't play games for the sheer purpose of winning or losing. I think everyone would agree with me when I say that people play games because games entertain them. It doesn't matter if you can win or not. It matters if you enjoy what you are doing. I hope that society hasn't gone so far downhill that winning is now everything. Even when playing a game that you can't win there are still short and long-term goals and motivations to keep you playing it, that is what makes it enjoyable. That is why I play Carnage Blender. When when you're at the top you haven't won. You simply have a new goal of staying at the top.

When discussing a game that seemed impossible, but wasn't:
I would enjoy playing this game also. If I think that a game is almost impossible but know that it isn't, I would continue to try harder and harder until I beat it. Especially, if the game was entertaining. Winning would just be the icing on the cake.

If I didn't know:
Again my answer is the same; there would be no preferance:
Essentially we are talking about the same thing. In the first example, I would be playing a game and it would be easy, but I would keep playing it because, unbeknownst to me it was impossible to win. On the other hand, I would continue playing a game that seemed impossible forever until I beat it. One is impossible and the other is near impossible. How could I discern between the two?

So my final answer is this:
Who cares whether you can win or not. If I, or anyone, else enjoys a game then we should play it. I don't feel that my preference is a result of the outcome--whether you could win or not-- but more of the time you spend enjoying playing the game.

I did know:

If I was presented with 2 games, who was opposite of what they seemed and knew it, I would take the one seeming to be easy, but in reality was impossible, and try to solve it anyway and work my mind to overcome the challenge.

If I didn't know:

I would take the one that seemed impossible, but wasn't.


Reason:

I like to tell myself that nothing is impossible and all riddles and tasks have an answer if you are bright enough to find it and calculate it correctly.
Take the story about the University student who misses a lecture in Math, but came by class and saw 2 math pusles on the green board, he wrote them off and spent his weekend solving them, all night was used, as he assumed it was homework, that he just had a hard time solving, while in reality, if was the proffessor giving the others examples of math pusles yet unsolved by any human being.. by the end of the weekend, he had them solved and turned them in to the proffessor, and his answers was right on, and he got a job at NASA.... true story as well, forgot the name of the kid, but pretty amazing thing to do.

It doesn't matter in the slightest.

Jon will just change it next month anyways.

I have a query Ice.

If the puzzles were unsolved by anybody previously how could they know that his answers were actually completely correct?
Also being that he was a University student and one who skipped his classes at that, I find it very hard to believe that story.
Find me the puzzles he supposedly was the first to solve and I may find it easier to believe.
Did anybody anybody even think that he may have solved them by complete guesswork and no remote logic?

Has this contest been forgotten?

Zog, missing and skipping are two totally different animals. ;)

I can honestly tell you that I hardly go to a lot of my classes. Heck, last summer I walked into a class, waited to see if it was a test day, and if it wasn't, I'd walk out. It's just knowing what classes you can skip and still do well in. ;)

I have a few favorite answers... There are (over 3) good answers here, but none really shine. I like the Rubic's Cube reference, especially. I'll keep this contest open until Wednesday and then I'll pay out. It's only 50k/10k so it's not like you're waiting for some huge prize. Also, to put the question in a better way.. Think about a game with Levels. Either they're really easy, and never ending, or they're really hard, but they have an end (and a reward at the end, be it something simple like a "Thanks for playing." or an actual reward. Also, I'm kind of disappointed that no one realized where I got the question from, I was really waiting for that answer, which I had planned to give 50k to, and 10k to the 2 answers I liked best other than that. If you go and look it up, I'm not going to just hand out 50k to whoever looks it up first, now it's truly based on the quality of your answers. If anyone would like to change their answer after I said what I did about the level thing, go ahead. Most recent answers will be the only evaluated answers. Good Luck!

RessurectionOfBone was sent 50k... 10k will go to the first 2 people who replied already to this... I dont have time to go through them all again, but I did enjoy the rubic's cube reference. There was one more I really liked, but I'm a bit too busy to reread all of these.