Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.
-
@Tuoni said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
I would say that griefers could be a sub-category for killers.
When examined today, I see the most flaw in Bartle's theory that Killers and Achievers are set as an opposite types, because those can easily go hand by hand as well. Perhaps back then there was no serious goals for PvP and it was just having fun to kill other players without anything particular to achieve. Today PvP offers so much more and typically has a key role in many MMOs, especially in sandbox games. WoW is a good exmaple where these two aspects are combined using a PvP ranking system. Later the PvP evolved from open world to arenas and battlegrounds to offer more goals to achieve on top of the PvP action.
Now that you've mentioned it a lot of game mechanics/goals are now tied to many PVP aspects, so perhaps some of the achievers are beginning to explore other aspects of the spectrum.
Perhaps some become puritans and solely focus on 'achieving' what they can achieve, hence why we have players who became 'market savvy'.
this really did opened up an interesting topic though.
-
@Stacy555 said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
Oh dear lord .... a Gamer motivation profile .... damn I'd rather spend my time choosing a hairstyle that looks good in blue.... Motivation profile ... Really ?? ROTFFL !!!!!!
I don't know if you missed the point or just didn't bother to consider it, but there is more than one context at work in this thread, and that's not even the running scene in your head, where this is all about you.
Or, to put it baldly, why could, should, or would it matter what your preference is when I was talking about mine?
Are you one of those people who can't just be comfortable around different perspectives? If so, might I suggest just adding me to your ignore list now and putting us both out of your misery?
Thanks.
For those interested in gamer motivations, the GDC presentations by Yee are really fascinating watching and educational.
For those interested in gaming theory, I'd recommend taking up basic economics and behavioral economics before it, as the gaming industry has a woeful habit of reinventing the wheel as a matter of pride (i.e., engines in particular until very recently)... significantly more insight and relevance is found in economics.
For those interested in how companies go about figuring out "what their product is" and all elements implicit therein, that's called "product management" in the business world, am I'm retired from a career in it. There are significant areas of crossover that could benefit gaming, but the creative/studio model is loathe to accept more structure, even when it offers significant cost avoidance and savings.
Happy to answer any questions and equally so to refer to extensive resources... please don't mistake my courtesy for weakness - if you make a target of me, bring a lunch.
