Yes, I was thinking that no matter how you win - it doesn't matter.
The problem with these games I find that they are realatively simple to 'beat them at their own game' if you're able to see through what they're doing (I'm not so good, I was confused at first), but they don't last very long and certainly aren't enjoyable :P.
Thanks for the information! :)
@OP: If you see a way to win the game, will you not pursue it with ferocity? Why saunter about, admiring the beauty of various things, with the victory within reach?
If your opponents are going all-out for victory early, then they do so because they think they see how to win the game. If they are incorrect, then you can find beauty and enjoyment in refuting them.
I think you already know the answer to one of your questions; the fact that you ask it suggests that you know fully well. Of course, development is necessary to playing sound chess.
Two games is a negligible number of games to have played, and so you should not be beginning to judge opponents' skill based on such a microscopic sample size. Literally thousands of games wait to be played. After you play a great many more games, let us know how much enjoyment you have been able to experience.
In both your games your opponent did develop (castled and connected his/her rooks) But in the process if you left free pieces to take, they took them, which makes sense.
There's no such thing as a peace treaty for the first 10 moves of the game 
And if anything, you were the one ignoring development (at least in your 2nd game) by moving the same piece (usually a knight) multiple times in the opening.
Also, the point of developing is to bring pieces out quickly, yes, but also to influence the most important part of the board... the center! Knights to a3 and h3 are not good developing moves. This isn't an arbitrary idea, the center is important because it gives you the most options / mobility, and even the relative values of the pieces are derived from mobility (just making sure you know the center is very important! 
)
Thanks for the advice.
I did move the knight multiple times just to see what they were playing at.
These tips were very helpful, I see everyone's point entirely. Much appreciated. :).
I've only played a couple of games of chess in my life in all reality, I've read plenty of books, but, since the author sets up the board it's not a good real world view at it. Real life games are different from online, and one author did put it as "running before you can walk", I'm playing with people who know the game when I know nothing of it.
Thank you all very much :)
On a related note, there are some openings which I'm reluctant to get into because as one author put it there exists here "development as a tactical process"
Meaning, as long as the moves are reasonable I do expect something of a peace treaty so to speak in the first few moves, but some openings like the Trompowsky can involve serious threats through the entirety of the opening.
So anyway, you're not alone :) The more you play the more you learn and get better.
I think that with only two games, especialy against different players, you can't really judge if there are players who dont allow for development of the game. If a player thinks he has a shot at improving his position, why should he play development moves? If, as black, a game of yours started 1.f3 e5 2. g4, would you not play Qh4#? Would you play something else just because the game didn't have a chance to develop?
I know its an extreme example, but its just to show a point.
Anyways, if you think the problem is that your opponents you've played so far are (far) better than you, then after a couple of games your rating will get to a closer level to your "true" rating, and your opponents will be more similar in strength.
I really think that two games is not enough to judge the player base of a chess site, especially not a larger site like this one, so I think you should keep on playing :D
Reminds me of the funniest "unsult" I've ever received after winning a game
"What is it with everyone on this server? They all just try to checkmate rather than just play the game normally. Losers!"
(was a different server btw).
Took me a while to realise he was actually serious.
Chess against a human is not the place to be taking time to admire the scenery or check out new ideas, unless you don't mind losing a few games in the process ( in which case, then its probably a great place to do it ).
Maybe try an engine like Fritz in friend mode, where after a couple of games you'll get a relatively easy time, more "standard" play (rather than opps playing opening traps or endless variations on Scholars Mate) and chance to try out all the new ideas you must have as a newcomer.
I looked at the games and I think they ( your opponents) were just playing chess, with all respect you kinda left pieces hanging and they just did the best move which was taking them. :)
To my limited knowledge of Chess, there is usually a "Opening game", "Middlegame" and "Endgame" in a good game of chess, but, from the two games I've played on here, there are players who don't allow "Development" of the game, they just head right into the kill, they attack before anything enjoyable can come of it. What I find I'm ending with is an unenjoyable game that's meaningless, as a matter of clicking one way or another.
Is this common? To just go for the kill? Am I wrong about development?
What's odd, is that games I play in real life generally have this developmental stage, maybe it's because my opponents suck as bad as I, but, still, they are much more enjoyable.