Now I'm stuck with this thought, and me and my friends have argued it out, so here it is: Is it better to rock like a son of a gun at 1 game like oh I don't know, WOW, or okay at a ton of games like halo 3, COD4, etc. Also everyone please be nice on this thread, I want this to be a no-stress conversation.

I would much rather have the ability to play any kind of game well. I play games for fun, not to be the best, I don't want to have any poor gaming ability affect that because I've been playing too much of one game.

That being said, I am better at certain games than others. I have a natural talent for JRPGs from playing so many of them.

OK at everything, as if your only good at 1/2 games, well then you become a fanboy, and no one wants that. But also it means your better at social gaming to, as you are about the same as your friends at all games, instead of kicking their ass at 1 and awful at others, (and it just means your friends won't want to play against you at that specific game)

Milkatron:
I have a natural talent for JRPGs from playing so many of them.

Thought I might add: It isn't a natural talent, if you got good by playing loads of them. Its a natural talent if you were good the first time you played it.

I'd rather be bad at every game in the universe. If I were then to continue to play games, I could lay claim to being the most dedicated gamer of all time. Making me, I believe 'teh hardcorz', at least I think that's the technical term for it anyhow.

I like being okay at everything and being a fair bit above average in a couple of games.

Okay at everything, because what happens when your game gets old and everyone else moves on?

well, you could be a Odd Person who plays Everything Enough that You Pwn in Everything, unless They Glitch up the game...

I really agree with the okay at everything, but everyone please reply if you disagree.

Other: Don't care
I'm already good with any way of controlling a game except the Wii remote, and I learn most games within 5 minutes of playing.(games I still can't control even with at least 1 hour of gameplay experience: Halo3 and Wii remote controlled games)

Other: Rather be able to have fun at all games.

The way it seems to be to me, when your great at one particular game, or decent at most of them, then it's easier for people to get you worked up when they insult "your" game or way of playing. I would rather have fun playing games and be the absolute worst player then be decent and sometimes play just to prove that I can.

I just happen to be better then all of my friends at FPSs and Rhythm games (Especially Rhythm games). This is mainly cause I did literally nothing else for one summer a couple years ago.

The way I see it, video games are for my enjoyment, I'll play them how I want to and I won't go out of my way to be competitive, don't get me wrong I don't like losing the whole time but for me I'd just choose fun over the ability to say i'm the greatest and suffer the pressures of that.

This is why I'm not a big fan of achievements/trophies on the respective systems and why I'm mainly a wii player, I just always felt that with these other systems you feel the need to be competitive, I always found I was treated differently if my score was lower or didn't have an achievement/trophy others did. It puts too much pressure on the player and takes some of the fun away in my view.

But then thats just me, I'm the same in life, just not that competitive, I understand that some people enjoy the challenge or finding an opponent worthy of besting, I do too sometimes when it comes to games I'm good at but generally I'd rather be ok at everything and enjoy it for what it is.

My only strengths compared to my friends are rpg's, tactical type games and Brawl because I'm decently good at it from my complete overplaying of it xD

Think thats the lengthiest first post i've ever made ^^

You last few posters are straying a little from the point, but nice posts though.