Some of what I'm saying today can be read in a strict academic format here. I will be applying my own spin on these things as well, and diving into them more at different points. I will also remove the references to MUD's (Multi-User Dungeons/Multi-User Dimensions), as no-one plays those anymore. Few people even know what they are. If you do read the above article, associate the term MUD with MMORPG's (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games), the modern equivalent.
I will be explaining, and evaluating Bartle's theory in my own words. There is a lot to this, and I will likely create several posts on this subject. At least one in depth for every type mentioned here, and probably more on practical uses or comparisons to other taxonomies. The four types mentioned there are "The Achiever," "The Explorer," "The Socializer," and "The Killer." They are by no means exclusive, and most people display varying amounts of each, with a primary tendency. Remember these were created with online games in mind, but most apply to single player ones as well (Socializer exempt, minus my working theory that I'll explain in another post.)
First, there are the Achievers (Honestly, I find the suit of cards analogy Bartle uses stupid. It's easier to think of them in these terms, so I'll skip past it. If you really want it, read the article, but it's usually easier to just explain in these terms.) Achievers are the people who want to truly succeed in the game, and be the very best (like no-one ever was). This could be expressed through point collecting, leveling up the character, or completing achievements. In games without points, levels, or achievements (Rare, but existant) they probably want to be the best at doing a specific thing. They work mostly the same in offline gameplay.
Next, the Explorers, my brethren (I classify myself as an Explorer primarily, with an even amount of Achiever and Socializer next. I tend the least towards Killer, and am generally benevolent towards all players). Explorers want to know everything about the game. They are the ones who figure out obscure glitches or cheat codes, and know the quickest route from obscure point A to obscure point B. They figure out innovative uses of mundane items, and advanced Explorers may even be seen as gurus by new players, or players looking for specific information. They mostly work the same in offline gameplay. Gurus could become mods on forums, or work with video game websites, or even write a blog to share their knowledge.
Then there are the Socializers. These people play to talk, and enjoy themselves. They see games as a way of expressing individuality. These people will come up and talk to you, gossip about the game world, or talk about day to day life (Whether you want to listen may or may not matter). They are however, prime targets of the next category, particularly because they annoy them. Socializers, when playing offline games, will probably talk about them online, or to offline friends.
Finally, we have the Killers. They basically do what is described, but more generally "Act on people" This could theoretically be benevolent, but that is quite rare. They generally search to kill other players, particularly Socializers (They never shut their darn yappin'!) and Achievers (Whom they see as an appropriate challenge that they can usually defeat.) Offline, these people would gravitate towards fighting games, and becoming excellent at defeating the computer characters, or their friends.
I recently introduced this idea to my friends "Racewalkchamp," "Myrkyl," and "Depineapple." I had them all take this basic quiz, (Fair warning; it's rather slow) as to see what side they went towards. You can take as well, if you so choose. However, with a base grasp of the ideas here, you should be able to decide where you fall on your own (I declined that to them, making them take it before I explained it. I figured it would help avoid bias in the test.)
Myrkyl was evaluated as an Explorer, with Killer being his second highest score. He has become rather interested in the idea, and went on to read Bartle's article. Depineapple was also an Explorer, with mid ties to Killer and Socializer, and a very low score in Achiever. He also expressed much interest in the idea. He was one of my greatest supporters upon creating this blog, but has never actually been able to read it. Racewalkchamp, being rebellious, refused to take the test. I see him as an Explorer/Achiever, but I have never really played a game with him. He mostly ignored me and watched YouTube videos.
Reflecting upon this, I find it rather strange, as according to Bartle, Explorers are the rarest type, (Worth noting - there is no data backing this up, so I'm taking him straight on his word.) yet my friends were all Explorers. This set me thinking - Perhaps groups of friends tend towards the same gaming type. I have no information to back this up, however, so I will look more into it.
Here is a full citation of Bartle's article (Because citations are cool, and for the amount that I used this article, it's truly deserved. Also, legality.).
Richard A. Bartle "Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players who suit MUDs." Web. Accessed 12/10/13. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
I will be explaining, and evaluating Bartle's theory in my own words. There is a lot to this, and I will likely create several posts on this subject. At least one in depth for every type mentioned here, and probably more on practical uses or comparisons to other taxonomies. The four types mentioned there are "The Achiever," "The Explorer," "The Socializer," and "The Killer." They are by no means exclusive, and most people display varying amounts of each, with a primary tendency. Remember these were created with online games in mind, but most apply to single player ones as well (Socializer exempt, minus my working theory that I'll explain in another post.)
First, there are the Achievers (Honestly, I find the suit of cards analogy Bartle uses stupid. It's easier to think of them in these terms, so I'll skip past it. If you really want it, read the article, but it's usually easier to just explain in these terms.) Achievers are the people who want to truly succeed in the game, and be the very best (like no-one ever was). This could be expressed through point collecting, leveling up the character, or completing achievements. In games without points, levels, or achievements (Rare, but existant) they probably want to be the best at doing a specific thing. They work mostly the same in offline gameplay.
Next, the Explorers, my brethren (I classify myself as an Explorer primarily, with an even amount of Achiever and Socializer next. I tend the least towards Killer, and am generally benevolent towards all players). Explorers want to know everything about the game. They are the ones who figure out obscure glitches or cheat codes, and know the quickest route from obscure point A to obscure point B. They figure out innovative uses of mundane items, and advanced Explorers may even be seen as gurus by new players, or players looking for specific information. They mostly work the same in offline gameplay. Gurus could become mods on forums, or work with video game websites, or even write a blog to share their knowledge.
Then there are the Socializers. These people play to talk, and enjoy themselves. They see games as a way of expressing individuality. These people will come up and talk to you, gossip about the game world, or talk about day to day life (Whether you want to listen may or may not matter). They are however, prime targets of the next category, particularly because they annoy them. Socializers, when playing offline games, will probably talk about them online, or to offline friends.
Finally, we have the Killers. They basically do what is described, but more generally "Act on people" This could theoretically be benevolent, but that is quite rare. They generally search to kill other players, particularly Socializers (They never shut their darn yappin'!) and Achievers (Whom they see as an appropriate challenge that they can usually defeat.) Offline, these people would gravitate towards fighting games, and becoming excellent at defeating the computer characters, or their friends.
I recently introduced this idea to my friends "Racewalkchamp," "Myrkyl," and "Depineapple." I had them all take this basic quiz, (Fair warning; it's rather slow) as to see what side they went towards. You can take as well, if you so choose. However, with a base grasp of the ideas here, you should be able to decide where you fall on your own (I declined that to them, making them take it before I explained it. I figured it would help avoid bias in the test.)
Myrkyl was evaluated as an Explorer, with Killer being his second highest score. He has become rather interested in the idea, and went on to read Bartle's article. Depineapple was also an Explorer, with mid ties to Killer and Socializer, and a very low score in Achiever. He also expressed much interest in the idea. He was one of my greatest supporters upon creating this blog, but has never actually been able to read it. Racewalkchamp, being rebellious, refused to take the test. I see him as an Explorer/Achiever, but I have never really played a game with him. He mostly ignored me and watched YouTube videos.
Reflecting upon this, I find it rather strange, as according to Bartle, Explorers are the rarest type, (Worth noting - there is no data backing this up, so I'm taking him straight on his word.) yet my friends were all Explorers. This set me thinking - Perhaps groups of friends tend towards the same gaming type. I have no information to back this up, however, so I will look more into it.
Here is a full citation of Bartle's article (Because citations are cool, and for the amount that I used this article, it's truly deserved. Also, legality.).
Richard A. Bartle "Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players who suit MUDs." Web. Accessed 12/10/13. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment