Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.
-
Hmm: I'm surprised "escapism" isn't on the lists of reasons to game.
That could be important to designers, because realism doesn't necessarily appeal to those wanting to take a break from reality.For example, I've already got a real life job where things decay and break, and I have to maintain them, and I haven't liked that mechanic in games!
In that sense, the counter of escapism would probably be "simulation".
-
@Zori sorry totally disagree with you. Games are played for for the purpose of HAVING FUN. When I decide to invest a few of my precious hours to diving into playing all I want is to have fun. I don't WANT to 'learn' things. I just want to be immersed in a world that is different from the one I am stuck living my RL in. I want to run around in and explore a different world, do things I can't do in RL, and possibly be a freaking hero! Nice social interaction with in game friends is also a bonus, but not mandatory.
As for all the 'science' behind the game, that's great for the devs if it facilitates their ability to deliver a product that fulfils the promise of being fun.
The only box a game has to check for me is am I having fun.
-
Thats why we have 'science', so now you can have fun batter by understanding what's make things more fun for you.
but like I said, I'm not here to try and convince anyone to change their minds, I'm here to share what is out there and what we've learned over the years of developing games and the science behind it.
While most people are content with just being a 'consumer', I'm certain that there are others who are curious and wants to understand what's fun for them and how they can find more of the things that are fun for them.
The main reason why we're on the Alpha test is for the very specific reason of testing out both the internal mechanics and structure of the game and provide feedback upon it.
Peoples feedback are much more valued if they actually have an understanding of the science behind the idea of their fun, but alas as I said before, a lot of people just want to "try" the new and upcoming thing and if there's the thing that they didn't understand happened, they dislike it and provide a negative or non-contextual feedback.
I hope you understand the bigger picture out of this and not just your "I'm only here to have fun" when you can't even understand the layers of nuances involved in what's "fun" for you and how they relate to the game, and how you as an "Alpha tester" can provide feedback based upon it.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563219301153
Hopefully a quick read would enlighten you. I'm not expecting you to read it, nor to understand it but this information is available there for you.
-
I was curious so here is my profile:
They did calculate it preetty correctly.
I'm all about social aspects + mastering the gameplay. Social aspects are what drives me, and I don't care much about completitionism. I also like to become good in what I do, mastering the playing skills.
Detailed story is not that important for me, however, aesthetic game design is.
-
@Gothix
It would be interesting if more people would post their results.edit: link to the survey: https://apps.quanticfoundry.com/surveys/answer/gamerprofile/. Credit to @Ekadzati on the previous page, post 18.
This is mine
-
-
Ok, I'll chime in and share my results as well
-
Now that we're all here I guess i'd pitch in too.
I wasn't expecting a high social score considering how i'm generally rough around the edges lol
-
Here we go:
-
@Zori You call it filling the gap, I call it "Diversity"....... And saying I'm not a dedicated gamer after nearly 50 years, is not only incorrect, but pretty insulting.
-
-
You might want to put a context on your response next time, but I suppose articulation doesn't come naturally for all of us, hence why education is highly encouraged.
You can feel insulted as much as you'd like, doesn't change the fact that things are more than just... "I'm only here to have fun" after 50 years? of gaming.
and if your only credential is your age, then hell you must be an expert at stone tools.
-
@Zori said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
You might want to put a context on your response next time, but I suppose articulation doesn't come naturally for all of us, hence why education is highly encouraged.
You can feel insulted as much as you'd like, doesn't change the fact that things are more than just... "I'm only here to have fun" after 50 years? of gaming.
and if your only credential is your age, then hell you must be an expert at stone tools.
Games -are- about fun. Developers who forget or ignore that are either incompetent or exploitative.
Incidentally, credentialism is bullying. I respect vocational individuals who earn their living in reality far more than those who have learned through an insulated environment to parrot knowledge they did not discover, and use their credentials as a club against the non-credentialed.
One test of a truly learned individual is the ability to recognize and provide the next step of knowledge to someone else, and more importantly, the humility to accept the blame if they cannot transfer that knowledge.
It also helps to understand that we live in a universe so diversity dense it takes an army of specialists to begin to describe it. We may therefore assume everyone we meet has direct experiential knowledge of something we do not.
I've found that that point of view makes meeting new people interesting, especially since people in general like to talk about themselves.
-
@Roccandil said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
@Zori said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
You might want to put a context on your response next time, but I suppose articulation doesn't come naturally for all of us, hence why education is highly encouraged.
You can feel insulted as much as you'd like, doesn't change the fact that things are more than just... "I'm only here to have fun" after 50 years? of gaming.
and if your only credential is your age, then hell you must be an expert at stone tools.
Games -are- about fun. Developers who forget or ignore that are either incompetent or exploitative.
Incidentally, credentialism is bullying. I respect vocational individuals who earn their living in reality far more than those who have learned through an insulated environment to parrot knowledge they did not discover, and use their credentials as a club against the non-credentialed.
One test of a truly learned individual is the ability to recognize and provide the next step of knowledge to someone else, and more importantly, the humility to accept the blame if they cannot transfer that knowledge.
It also helps to understand that we live in a universe so diversity dense it takes an army of specialists to begin to describe it. We may therefore assume everyone we meet has direct experiential knowledge of something we do not.
I've found that that point of view makes meeting new people interesting, especially since people in general like to talk about themselves.
"credentialism is bullying" is an interesting perspective, but I think you'd find it really interesting how this 'credentialism' unfolded if you back read through this thread. I'm sure you'll find that people randomly dropping their many years of 'breathing' in this world out of context, in order to deny people or to shut down conversation to be quite 'interesting'.
Sure, meeting new people with a different perspective is interesting, but there are some more interesting than others for sure.
Once again, i'd urge you to back read to some of this 'well learned' individuals comments regarding theories and concepts of this game and how they shouldn't matter at all and that only having fun is whats important.
Sadly they couldn't even articulate what the fun thing is for them, and understand how or why they find certain things engaging so when something they don't like happens, watch them flip out and throw a tantrum instead of understanding it.
-
This gamergrrrrl turning 61 years old today doesn't have much use for stone tools, but does agree that credential-waving can be counterproductive if the goal is to invite someone into a new way of understanding. There's a line btw pedagogy and pedantry that's easy to cross, so it's important to be aware of it, right?
That said, refusing to acknowledge the value of another person's way of understanding - and being dismissive about it, to boot - isn't a sign of wisdom either. Dismissiveness is, imo, unattractive at any age but esp. in those who are old enough to know better.
Like any art form, game creation has folks who are natural talents & also those who spend years studying the history & technique involved in their medium, in order to make a living at it. I am just an end user, having fun in my own ways, but I find learning about the theory to be fascinating right up until the point that my eyes glaze over
my profile turned out like this:
-
This gamer profile thing was really interesting and now when I have analyzed a little bit more the results, I have to say that it somewhat surprised me. Having Story only 21% is odd because I mainly like the story lines if game have those at first place. Having Social 52% could be less tbh and Action only 18% sounds pretty low. If I think Bartle's Taxonomy I guess I would put myself to Achiever category, however, I am kind of all around player why I see Bartle's theory kind of problematic, at least when thinking myself. Anyhow, most of the percentages are kind of what I expected but perhaps I waited more for the Achiever part, because achieving goals represents fun for me.
-
@Tuoni said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
This gamer profile thing was really interesting and now when I have analyzed a little bit more the results, I have to say that it somewhat surprised me. Having Story only 21% is odd because I mainly like the story lines if game have those at first place. Having Social 52% could be less tbh and Action only 18% sounds pretty low. If I think Bartle's Taxonomy I guess I would put myself to Achiever category, however, I am kind of all around player why I see Bartle's theory kind of problematic, at least when thinking myself. Anyhow, most of the percentages are kind of what I expected but perhaps I waited more for the Achiever part, because achieving goals represents fun for me.
I was quite surprised myself that i scored quite high on social, but when I reflect upon it, on the broader perspective a lot of the activities that I enjoy tend to be socially oriented.
As for Bartle's Taxonomy, you gotta keep in mind that this was written and published more than 20 years ago. It became a cornerstone for many mmorpg theories but naturally, things have evolved overtime and more layers of nuances were uncovered through the years of studying and applying it so it wouldn't be 'fully' applicable for every situation, particularly with us who have peculiar/developed taste when it comes to mmorpgs. The technology has made leaps and bounds that allowed us to have/use concepts that weren't possible before.
-
@Zori said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
"credentialism is bullying" is an interesting perspective, but I think you'd find it really interesting how this 'credentialism' unfolded if you back read through this thread. I'm sure you'll find that people randomly dropping their many years of 'breathing' in this world out of context, in order to deny people or to shut down conversation to be quite 'interesting'.
How long someone has lived seems a valid argument if simply used to bolster what they've learned about what they themselves enjoy. After 50+ years, I'd think someone would know what they like!
Using credentials to say their point of view of what they enjoy is incomplete, imprecise, or ignorant seems clumsy at best (if not outright arrogant).
Oh, and I agree with the axiomatic assertion that games should be fun.
Some people may indeed enjoy analyzing why, and I'm not going to knock that (I do it myself), but some people may find that dissecting the fun spoils the fun, while still others may see the danger that analyses and models and marketing can obscure the fundamental concept of fun.
And at least in games, fun should never be forgotten.
-
@Roccandil said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
@Zori said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
"credentialism is bullying" is an interesting perspective, but I think you'd find it really interesting how this 'credentialism' unfolded if you back read through this thread. I'm sure you'll find that people randomly dropping their many years of 'breathing' in this world out of context, in order to deny people or to shut down conversation to be quite 'interesting'.
How long someone has lived seems a valid argument if simply used to bolster what they've learned about what they themselves enjoy. After 50+ years, I'd think someone would know what they like!
Using credentials to say their point of view of what they enjoy is incomplete, imprecise, or ignorant seems clumsy at best (if not outright arrogant).
Oh, and I agree with the axiomatic assertion that games should be fun.
Some people may indeed enjoy analyzing why, and I'm not going to knock that (I do it myself), but some people may find that dissecting the fun spoils the fun, while still others may see the danger that analyses and models and marketing can obscure the fundamental concept of fun.
And at least in games, fun should never be forgotten.
How ignorant for a person to assume that there isn't much left to learn or understand just cause they've been doing something for a number of years.
No one disagreed to the statement that games should be fun, the discussion was being able to articulate what makes something 'fun', so that it can be better understood, replicated and fleshed out, so you know for games that are being developed, we can discuss things better and not just limit our vocabulary to "it's fun".
Sadly, people are getting caught up with certain keywords cause they're limited to certain ideologies.
but hey, what else can we expect from people who thinks that all they need is to be breathing and living, and does not have a need for articulating themselves.
-
@Zori said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
@Tuoni said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
This gamer profile thing was really interesting and now when I have analyzed a little bit more the results, I have to say that it somewhat surprised me. Having Story only 21% is odd because I mainly like the story lines if game have those at first place. Having Social 52% could be less tbh and Action only 18% sounds pretty low. If I think Bartle's Taxonomy I guess I would put myself to Achiever category, however, I am kind of all around player why I see Bartle's theory kind of problematic, at least when thinking myself. Anyhow, most of the percentages are kind of what I expected but perhaps I waited more for the Achiever part, because achieving goals represents fun for me.
I was quite surprised myself that i scored quite high on social, but when I reflect upon it, on the broader perspective a lot of the activities that I enjoy tend to be socially oriented.
As for Bartle's Taxonomy, you gotta keep in mind that this was written and published more than 20 years ago. It became a cornerstone for many mmorpg theories but naturally, things have evolved overtime and more layers of nuances were uncovered through the years of studying and applying it so it wouldn't be 'fully' applicable for every situation, particularly with us who have peculiar/developed taste when it comes to mmorpgs. The technology has made leaps and bounds that allowed us to have/use concepts that weren't possible before.
Yeah I know, I am somewhat familiar with Bartle's Taxonomy or at least I have watched some videos related to the topic. The main problem imo is that players are categorized only to those four specific categories and having no other options or different variations. Therefore, I liked more of this gamer profile thing because it calculates every aspect individually.
