Every so often I take a break from working and try to play the internet hearts game built into windows XP.
Is it too much to ask that another three people out of the squillions who must be playing worldwide actually carry a game through to its conlusion?
Do these wankers have the attention span of a goldfish? Are they really so intent on winning that the moment things aren’t going their way they just quit? The minute they get passed the queen of spades or fail to shoot the moon on their first go, they piss off and are replaced by a computer, which causes all the other players to leave.
To make it worse, the only chat available consists of a pull-down list of inane comments such as “wow,” “shooting, shooting?” etc. so you can’t even express your irritation.
This is the really irksome side of the anonymity that the internet provides. I don’t believe very many of these people would stand up and walk away from a real game of cards. Why don’t they just play the computer? You can’t offend a computer.
Finally, if anyone reading this is guilty of this crime, I have only this to say:
Not really related, but I was playing a game of chess online (don’t remember where) against a guy who was much better than me. Anyhoo, there came a point when I realized that I was losing, no matter what, so I resigned. Perfectly acceptable in chess, no?
While I was typing out a congratulatory message to my opponent, I received one myself that I was a “fag” for resigning. Lovely. So I, of course, quickly composed a missive replying that if he wanted me to make it up to him, I could maybe meet him in a park somewhere…
I swear, you’d think being propositioned by a strange guy on the internet was the worst thing that had ever happened to him. He certainly seemed to think so. I, on the other hand, derived no end of amusement from his half-coherent homophobic rantings. Until I had to go to class.
If it was just occasional, I’d be inclined to think that. I usually give people the benefit of the doubt. But so far I have not been able to complete a single game with four human players. Also, by a startling coincidence, the person who duck out first always does so after losing a round, failing to shoot the moon, etc.
Yes, stuff happens occasionally. An urgent job comes up, but in my experience this is the exception. Why start a game if you know you’re unlikely to be able to finish it?
Sorry byter, I don’t understand your post. Could you expand on that a little?
Persistance doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter how many games you start, someone always ducks out before it finishes. And what form of stupidity are you referring to?
I agree with lel on this one. I mean, sure there are going to be people who are bad sports, but I imagine it’s mostly people who have other stuff they have to tend to. I feel bad about it when I’m playing a Yahoo! game, or when I’m involved in a hunting party on a MUD or some such thing, but when the phone rings, or there’s someone at the door, or the dogs are eating something expensive, or my brother is crying, or my mom or sister need me to lift something heavy, etc. etc. etc. that comes first.
I know it’s inconvenient, but it’s just got to be a fact that an online card game is low on the priorities list.
Try it then. Play ten games and see how many of them you can play to the end. It’s not just the occasional game. It’s almost every single one. And why should an “online” game be any less of a priority than a real one? The other people are real aren’t they? And like I said, the fact that it’s almost always after a bad round suggests that these people are just skulking behind their monitors. I can accept that occasionally someone has to go answer the door, deal with something etc. But with not so much as a sorry or goodbye?
If it’s such a “low priority,” they should just play against the computer.
