Today I address something commonly argued about, especially on forums. What is the best way to classify a gamer? Casual to hardcore? Using Bartle's theories? Or the Markzewski type pioneered off of Bartles version? First, though, I answer the question of a poster on the IGN boards.
Can't I just be a gamer?
Yes, yes you can. This person brings attention to the fact that, however we classify ourselves, we are all still gamers. Therefore, this is nothing to fight with other people about violently. "Casual" should not be used as and insult, and a "Hardcore" person shouldn't assume they are better than others. This applies to other classifications as well.
To fully understand this debate, you need to understand these systems. Allow me to explain them.
First, there is the "Casual-Hardcore" axis, between casual, hardcore, and intermediate players. This defines players by the games they play. It's generally agreed that games that provide a one-time disposable experience are casual games. By this I refer to games like Bejeweled, where you play one game with little or no bearing on the rest of the game and few dynamic options with one goal. Casual gamers would then be people who would play these games. Here the quality (how casual the game is) of the game is worth more than the quantity of time playing the game for judging purposes. Some one may play seven hours of bejeweled a day and still be a casual gamer. Now a "hardcore game." Hardcore games are significantly harder to define. Generally games that require fast reactions, adaptive strategies, and/or large amounts of time to complete or master. At least two of these categories should be met to consider it a hardcore game. Hardcore gamers are people that play these games, but there are more restrictions on being hardcore than casual. Hardcore gamers must both play hardcore games, and play them much and frequently. An intermediate (sometimes called "avid") player would be between the two, playing a mix of the types.
Secondly, their is Bartle's game classification. Here there are four basic types, an achiever, killer, socializer, and explorer. An achiever is a player who hopes to master the game, or get the most awards. There is some relation here with the hardcore gamers of the previous model. A killer is a player out to kill things, generally other players, but it may be expanded to include other destroyable or killable things or NPC's as well. A socializer is someone who plays the game to talk to people, and generally participates in MMO's or the like. Finally, the explore tries to find the secrets of the game. Contrary to the achiever, their goals are created by themselves, as opposed to given to them by the game.
Third, and last among the choices I give, are Marczewski's user types, which will be abbreviated to MUT. MUT is similar to Bartles, and was formed as a response to the previous. Here there are socializers and achievers that function as Bartles do. Then he has free spirits, whose goal is to create and explore, similar to Bartle's explorers. There are then players, people motivated by rewards. There are philanthropists, players motivated by improving the lives of others. Disruptors are people who want to change the system, either by introducing unknown elements, or doing unexpected things, slightly similar to a killer. The final two, as well as the socializers, primarily inhabit online multiplayer games.
First, I believe that the Casual-Hardcore model does not work. It is far too narrow and does not account for players behaviors. Additionally, people often form stereotypes from the terms, and may use the term "casual" in an insulting manner. The self diagnosed hardcore players become rude, and tend to develop a sense of entitlement and superiority. This system would work best as part of another, as in a "hardcore explorer" or a "casual achiever."
That brings me to the Bartle system. Bartles system is good, but is limited. It does not cover mischievous people whose focus is not necessarily the other players, but the designer, or the world itself. It also does not apply to people who play only for the satisfaction of continuing on, not for achievements, but because the game rewards you for it. It attempts to cover all, but falls slightly short, which is where the MUT system falls in.
In my opinion the MUT system is the best of the classifications. It takes Bartle's system and adds some essential missing parts. In addition to the gaps mentioned in the above paragraph, it also provides the position of Philanthropist, which covers a small but important group that many would easily overlook. Needless to say, MUT provides all the key parts. All that is, but one I believe is necessary.
There are some people who play games more for the story for anything else. So a story driven type is necessary. An argument could be made that this is a reward driven view (play the game for the reward of finding the story) but I believe that it falls distinctly separate, and is large enough to warrant it's own group. I myself have found the story the strongest reason to continuously play a frustrating game.
Given the above examples and explanations, I stand firmly on the side of MUT, with Bartle's version too narrow, and the hardcore-casual axis too vague and controversial. MUT manages to fit all foreseeable types, with a notable exception above, and still make sense and provide a grouping that is not offensive or vague. The MUT system is clearly the most sophisticated and advanced, and applies to the current times more than the others.
The following are solely for me and my work on making this into a full paper for citation reasons. My information was gathered from the below variably. Due to the nature of the topic, most are expert opinions, or hypothesis/theories formed by experts.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/11/29/246747168/hard-core-and-casual-gamers-play-in-different-worlds
http://ask.metafilter.com/108110/Casual-vs-Avid-vs-Hardcore
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131397/from_casual_to_core_a_statistical_.php?print=1
http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
http://marczewski.me.uk/user-types/#.UvbIbPs3lC8
http://voices.yahoo.com/why-hardcore-casual-game-labels-worthless-6447066.html
http://gamestudies.org/1102/articles/woods
No comments:
Post a Comment