Would you play to the death?

[Bananadine]

No, not your own death--but just the ordinary destruction of your in-game nation. Do you play until the end, even when you think you're probably going to lose, or do you quit early? If you don't play to the end, would you consider trying it?

I love making comebacks, myself. I start to lose interest when I feel like I'm winning. So it's natural for me to play against the strongest possible AI's, and spend whole games as an underdog, until the very end when my nation either suddenly arises victorious or finally collapses.

But the AI, even at its highest strength, is not a very interesting opponent. Outwitting a seemingly more powerful human opponent is even more interesting, and fun. I think it ought to be fun for that opponent, too, to face a desperate foe who's been backed into a corner, and who might throw all resources into some strange, last-ditch defense. Fun all around!

So why do people in multiplayer games usually quit in this situation? I mean, when it looks like they're losing, and a really interesting series of battles is about to begin. Do you give up, when this happens? Do you think comebacks generally aren't possible--or that they simply aren't fun? If so... are you crazy?!

In my present multiplayer game, no less than four players have suddenly disappeared when their positions were still not entirely bad, and a fifth has turned all his resources toward destruction of the world's population... and away from his own defense, thus effectively disappearing as well. I think some of these five left for unspecified personal reasons; others clearly gave up because they thought they were losing. Wouldn't games be more dramatic and challenging if everyone committed to playing until the end, no matter what (except maybe in the truly extreme situation where only two players remained and one was much stronger than the other)? Aren't drama and challenge good things, in a game like this? One of the remaining players in the game I've described was on the decline for a long while; he almost lost his capitol. But he didn't quit, and now he appears to have the second-strongest nation out of seven. Why don't you all play like he did, there? (From his talk, it sounded as if even he was on the verge of quitting, when his nation was at its weakest!)

I think it is crazy to give up as soon as you feel like you're losing. Isn't it when things become uncertain, or even desperate, that you can learn the most? Or do people expect and desire to march straightforwardly toward a well-planned victory in every game? That might make sense against only AI's, but in multiplayer games it's a delusion. Only one person can win each game! So if you don't like losing, then you don't like multiplayer Dominions. Isn't that right?

Obviously I have a strong interest in this matter. I am even now attempting to start a game in which everyone commits to honestly trying to win until the game says it's over. Would you join a game like that? Do you think an ordinary game would be improved, if everybody just agreed at the start not to slip away as soon as they started to feel a little pain?