Solo or MP?

[MarkShot]

To add to that ...

The knight changes color every move.

It takes three moves to move one space over.

It is valuable in the early game and in closed pawn structures it is more valuable than the bishop.

It is of limited value on the side of the board.

It is good for blocking passed pawns and forming an outpost.

It is the only piece which can deliver check with intervening pieces.

It can be pinned on the side by a bishop.

It can achieve a smothered mate.

It is adept at forking.

Because of its short range it can be trapped or sucessfully attacked by a king in the end game.

Despite this, I still s*ck!

[MetalDog]

I had a Bobby Fischer chess book growing up.  It was mostly illustrations of games in progress.  You then had to figure out what they asked of you: use the knight to checkmate in three moves; using your rook, take white's Queen in four moves; etc.  I liked that book and I was good at solving the puzzles, once I knew what they were looking for.  There was another one with a title similar to,"Seeing three moves ahead."  Pretty similar to the Fischer book.  I was adept at solving those, too.  What always befuzzled me was the opening move.  I never read a book on those.

[MarkShot]

Chess has opening books (pretty much preplanned play based on statistical results of thousands of games).  The middle game of tactics.  The end game with a few pieces that follow some fairly typical patterns.  A knowledge of each is of value, but I admit studying openings is kind of boring.

[FarAway Sooner]

This is a great thread that I've been planning to reply to for like a week now.  Better late than never, I guess.   ???

I think we derive enjoyment out of games for two main reasons.

For those of us who started out playing board games (and that includes pretty much anybody who started gaming before 1985), gaming is a social experience.  This fact was reinforced to me several years ago when I and a couple high school buddies got in the habit of weekly gaming sessions where we'd just play some game (usually a co-op game of some sort) while jawing away at each other on Skype.  Whether playing against each other, or playing together against a game system, there's a huge social element to it.

But another source of enjoyment in all gaming is the puzzle-solving aspect of it.  Winning a game is fundamentally about solving a puzzle better than the opponent.  This is one aspect where PC-based games shine.  Playing solo, it's the primary source of pleasure.  It's also where that dreadful/wonderful "one more turn" dynamic gets engaged.

I LOVE playing MP, because of the social aspect of it.  But I'm not really that eager to play with strangers--socializing with strangers just isn't something that's appealing to me right now.  Partly because my own availability is crazy (wife, young family, etc.), partly because my recreational time is limited (see above), and partly because I really don't want my limited gaming experiences squandered with some stupid dip peeing all over my gaming experience, I've just never gone the MP route with strangers.  Mostly, because I don't know somebody, it makes me not prone to trust them and it just gives me one more thing to worry about as I'm playing.

I come to gaming because I want escape from stuff in life.  Playing MP with strangers, I fear it would be too likely to just reintrude the hassles of life I try to escape from when I game.

Maybe if I tried it, I'd like it.  But I'd be such a flaky gaming partner, I only really trust good friends to try carrying that load.

[Bismarck]

Solo, just like sex.

[republic]

I enjoy playing PBEM games.  I spend most of my free time during the day at work planning my moves, then send in the turn having forgotten to do something critical then spending the next day trying to recover.  :)

I sometimes enjoy traditional multiplayer, but usually only with people I know or have come to know online.  The 'unwashed masses' of the Internet can really spoil a good game.  There are too many people who will sacrifice fun just to win, people who get online only to irritate others, etc.  Often it seems Internet Anonymity brings out the worst in certain people.  Myself, I try to be the same me digitally as the me you'll see in person.

Also, with my husband/father/full time working lifestyle I can't keep up with the teenager learning curve of many of the online games.  I start out on an even keel, but before you know it on games like Battlefield 3 they know all the hidey holes and are maxed out before I even see all the maps in rotation.

Multiplayer strategy games can often be broken down into a perfect build order, and I never play online long enough to learn that build order...and even if I did...I would probably stop playing the game.  I don't like to think of games as puzzles to figure out.  I like to think of them as a canvas to try different strategies, or to learn new things about subjects I'm interested in.  Though, Wargame: European Escalation seems to break that "build order mold".  I just stink at it.  :)

The best and worst experience I've had with multiplayer has been Aces High the online flight sim.  Sometimes it can provide that rare feeling of 'being there'.  Yet...I've quit the game 3 times because of the community.  I've just seen at Gamersgate I can buy 2 months for $7.50....and I'm thinking "Should I?"