Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.
-
I think one of the biggest failures of "older" studies are boxing everything to one category but now we're learning that everything is actually a scale.
Perhaps even more so now that at this day and age, vast majority of gamers have tried many different variety of games. Back then 'MMORPG' was just one big category but now we've begun to create sub-categories for it such as sandbox mmo, survival mmo, etc. etc.
This doesn't necessarily mean that old studies are obsolete though, it just means that we need to use it as a foundation so that we can easily understand the very basics of what they're teaching.
In the same sense that we look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs as overlapping aspects, we also gotta look at other concepts in an overlapping manner.
-
"I didn't think I'd score high on the social scale", says the person who posts daily on the forums of an unreleased game which can be played for one week every other month on average. I wasn't surprised at the slightest to see that most people here have at least some social motivation when it comes to MMOs, but the results on the second graph are interesting.
-
says the person who posts daily on the forums
If you look at the way I interact with people, it's kind of combative lmao
but I was surprised with the 'social' aspect on mine as i didn't fully understood what it meant.
The more I think about it though, it does makes sense why it was high; i am looking for an mmorpg after all lolBut perhaps the results don't have as much variation considering we're all generally interested in the same genre.
-
@Razvan I was personally thinking that social part more like an in game thing and not like I behave on daily basis. I like to spend time on forums and discuss about design and development of games but without the connection to the game I would not be here just for having a nice chat. If I think my behavior in game, I do some guild stuff and group content as well but I mainly like to do my own things. Therefore, I consider myself more social outside of the game than how I behave inside. Moreover, if we think of that gaming profile, it was generally about digital games and not just focused on MMOs. Therefore, I guess it is normal to get high Social percentages or low for Action part because we, or at least I, represent MMORPG genre. If that survey would be only about MMOs I believe the results would be somewhat different.
-
@Zori overanalyzing fun is probably a sure way to ruin it. I am pretty sure you have insulted @Stacy555 and those of us who happen to agree with @Stacy555. You should probably apologize. Ok have 'fun' with your ongoing intellectual and articulate analysis. Out
-
@Roccandil I thank you for your support, but I have yet to be successfully bullied in RL or on a Forum, glad to see an educated mind take interest in both sides of a discussion.
@Zori I am confused by the vast array of assumptions you have made about me in my absence.
You are clearly offended by my age .... you seem to have fixed on that as a specific point of interest in several posts, so first the bad news "Still breathing".
And now onto a few of your assumptions and indeed misquotes.
- @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 had issue with me not putting the above in context, what context is needed ? this was a direct response to your comment, I did say it was insulting ... not that I felt insulted,
- I'm sorry if my light hearted outlook on gaming does not conform with your science,
Quote "Hope you understand that we're not living in 1960's or 1970's anymore where we just do things for the sake of doing things, we do things to understand them and relate them to the bigger picture."
The concept of time has not passed me by (excuse the pun), But do you really hold the belief that nothing significant happened in the 60's and 70's ? Science and the bigger picture is not a Millennial exclusive concept.
- I find it interesting that you only respond to my one liners, but when I make an effort to explain my position you ignore it completely ,? why would that be. ?
This.
I'm 63 years old and have been a Gamer since Pong's release in 1972.
I have continuously played, every conceivable type and genre of game, since that first day in the local arcade, not once have I "played", or continued to play based on a theory or a set of constructs that I needed to follow, due to some college graduate who has nothing better to do than "theorise".
I fully understand the need for games developers to follow certain guidelines (Theories) to make a game attractive and hopefully a pleasurable / playable experience, which in turn will stand the test of time, for at the very least a profitable outcome.
But as a "Gamer" first and foremost I need fun, followed by a sense of achievement, no matter that in the greater picture is actually meaningless, this is then taken to the next level by social involvement, welcome to the land of MMO.
I played WoW from day 2, I decided the lagfest of day 1 would take away from my "Fun", over the next 8 years I quit 4 times, not due to the theory or concept the game was based on being incorrect, simply because it stopped being "Fun", being in a social group and taking part in Raids and chasing that next piece of "Uber" gear, became a drudge, so I walked away, only to return when I felt there was a chance the "Fun" would return.
So back to 1972, Have you played Pong lately with a couple of mates and a few beers ??.....................Soooooo much fun, and not a "Theory" in sight, if it ain't fun ..... no one "Plays"
Just to add an apology for the use of speech marks "It's a bad habit".
Finally, this is not a rant, I am calmly sitting at my keyboard with no intention of becoming a Warrior, (once a Ranger, always a Ranger.), I shall take the test and see why science thinks I am a gamer, (I already know), but one lesson in life that you should learn is that talking down to someone who does not agree with your idea, is not the way to change their mind, Been playing games a lot recently, retirement is awesome, having fun ....... still breathing.
-
@Zori This was my first post on this thread.
@Stacy555 said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
I read the first 6 lines and realised this was stating the obvious ...... and trying to make it sound complicated. It's "a game" ..... guess what I do with it ...... "Play".
No offence intended, but do we really need a theory for playing ?
And now I have ticked the boxes, what does The Bartle test tell me ? "Oh no ...... It states the obvious", as I said why do I need a theory or test ??
The Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology
You are 67% Explorer
What Bartle says:
Explorers delight in having the game expose its internal machinations to them. They try progressively esoteric actions in wild, out-of-the-way places, looking for interesting features (ie. bugs) and figuring out how things work. Scoring points may be necessary to enter some next phase of exploration, but it's tedious, and anyone with half a brain can do it. Killing is quicker, and might be a constructive exercise in its own right, but it causes too much hassle in the long run if the deceased return to seek retribution. Socialising can be informative as a source of new ideas to try out, but most of what people say is irrelevant or old hat. The real fun comes only from discovery, and making the most complete set of maps in existence.
You are also:53% Socialiser
40% Achiever
40% Killer
-
@Stacy555 said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
It states the obvious", as I said why do I need a theory or test ??
If you keep asking that question then I guess we're back to square one.
I'll just let you re-read everything that you and I discussed and hopefully something sticks with you.Good luck, i genuinely wish the best for you.
-
@Stacy555 said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
I find it interesting that you only respond to my one liners, but when I make an effort to explain my position you ignore it completely ,? why would that be. ?
cause you've failed to address anything that i've pointed out to you so you can rebut with out of context remarks that does not encourage further discussion.
That is why you keep asking the exact same question of " why do I need a theory or test"
cause you respond not to understand the other persons perspective but to interject with your own.Does that sound like someone with a growth mentality? or stagnated and are content with what they think they already know.
Now if you can address anything that i've said to you about why these theories and concepts exist and their importance, in a manner that is conducive to an intelligent discussion, i'll entertain your personal biases as it'll actually have some degree of weight.
and the mere fact that you think that i took offence to you using your age as a credential already shows where we're at.
I never took offence on anything, i pitied you for being unable to practice critical analysis; but what do i know, im just some 'college boy' playing a game.
-
@Zori "cause you respond not to understand the other persons perspective but to interject with your own." (its because) yes I'm also in the spelling police... sorry !
It's called a difference of opinion.
I have at no point said you are wrong, or needed to dispute any of your theories, this is where you appear to have turned left at the lights instead of continuing on, I'm not saying these analysis of peoples choices are not relevant, they clearly have some valuable use in gaming development...... never disputed.
so maybe it's you reading between the lines and assuming this is what I am saying ?
What I have said on a few posts, that you continue to ignore, is that there is an element that is not represented by the test or it's results. That element "fun" is not a combination of 4 elements it's "more" and that for me is the part of the equation, If all games designed around theories and surveys, which as you have stated they are ?, then what makes one stand above another ? if not "The fun factor" ?
But dismissing 50 years of "Gaming" not breathing is condescending and "wrong", I have a valid opinion based on why and how I game in the real world, not on a questionnaire or any results that may have.
This was the basis for my comments, if you do not agree, that's fine I have no issue with either that or you personally, but if you continue to dismiss other peoples views on a subject, it's not them who will lack the ability to learn.
-
@Stacy555 said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
but if you continue to dismiss other peoples views on a subject, it's not them who will lack the ability to learn.
Oh that is rich lmfao
Yeah it's quite evident where you're really at, just have a read through your responses on this thread and you'll see where the "dismiss other peoples views on a subject" really lies.Your perspective on things is, "I'm going to dismiss other peoples opinions, views and perspective and call this a 'difference' in opinion, but once my hypocrisy gets addressed, or if someone enlightens me with their view, i'm going to try and flip the narrative on them."
Know what that's called now a days? Schrodingers douche bag where a person says something stupid but then tries to take a moral high ground once they've been called out on it.
Now let's try to get back on topic.
Your question of "why do I need a theory or test" has already been answered, if you refuse to read through it to expand on that discussion then that's your deal. Not once your points were dismissed, as a matter of fact they were the very basis of my responses, you on the other hand would much prefer to read the 'first 6 lines' of a message then start talking as if they already know what its about, hence why they keep asking the exact same question over and over again.
It's why they never learn.
"What I have said on a few posts, that you continue to ignore, is that there is an element that is not represented by the test or it's results. That element "fun" is not a combination of 4 elements it's "more" and that for me is the part of the equation, If all games designed around theories and surveys, which as you have stated they are ?, then what makes one stand above another ? if not "The fun factor" ?"
and if you had just learned to read first before you ran your mouth, you'll learn that this was expanded on by many other players here, yet somehow you're the only person here who came in with the assumption that you already know everything.
-
@Zori Wow ..... triggered much ?
You have a great knack of cherry picking the negative in every post and ignoring everything else, I'm done trying to have a debate with a such closed minded individual as yourself, feel free to respond, but this will you will be pleased to read will be my last post on this thread.
Chill out mate.
-
@Stacy555 said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
@Zori Wow ..... triggered much ?
You have a great knack of cherry picking the negative in every post and ignoring everything else, I'm done trying to have a debate with a such closed minded individual as yourself, feel free to respond, but this will you will be pleased to read will be my last post on this thread.
Chill out mate.
"negative in every post and ignoring everything else"
Have you not been reading anything that I wrote to you at all?That is a typical attitude of someone who does not want to hear anything at all other than their own opinion, once they've been called out on their behaviour, they try to flip it around and act as if they were some sort of a victim.
Like I said to you before in response to your questions.
-
Why do I need theories - Already been addressed on my very first response to you.
What did you respond with? - "I'm 63, am a gamer, been playing pong since 1972" Does that have anything to do with the topic? no. -
"But as a "Gamer" first and foremost I need fun, followed by a sense of achievement, no matter that in the greater picture is actually meaningless, this is then taken to the next level by social involvement, welcome to the land of MMO."
Which is hilarious cause this was literally expanded on on the very first topic but ofc you missed it out cause you only read 6 lines, as a matter of fact many other players have commented on this as well but naturally you didn't see that, why? cause of assumptions that you already know everything.
Hence why I reiterated that players need to understand 'theories' and 'concepts' so they can be more articulate and not be limited to a "it's fun" vocabulary.
Once someone posted a response to ENLIGHTEN US ALL with a gamer profile, what did you respond with?
"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 !!!!!!"
You tell me if that's someone keen on learning. Funnily enough once everyone contributed and did the profile, somehow you felt compelled to make your own lmao, ran out of time to choose a different hairstyle or something?
So what was the response that i've given to you? naturally i had to repeat myself in a simpler sense to get the point across, what did you respond with?
"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."
Did that actually addressed anything that I pointed out? again, no. Cause you're reading to respond not to understand, you know common attitude of people who are content with their minimal knowledge.
so now here we are with a simple summary, like i said before you lack critical analysis and that is why you keep asking the exact same questions over and over again cause you refuse to read and understand and would much prefer to hear the exact same things over and over again.
-
-
@Gibbx said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
@Zori overanalyzing fun is probably a sure way to ruin it. I am pretty sure you have insulted @Stacy555 and those of us who happen to agree with @Stacy555. You should probably apologize. Ok have 'fun' with your ongoing intellectual and articulate analysis. Out
" overanalyzing fun is probably a sure way to ruin it." lmao, you think this is 'over analysing'?
i do feel bad for you then. Have I insulted Stacy? if I have then thats her issue, not mine.and just because you're incapable of some depth in your analysis doesn't mean others are incapable of it, perhaps if the topic is a little out of your depth, it'll help you out to read and learn as well so next time you'd feel a bit more confident to chime in with a well thought out analysis.
but i guess not all of us are willing to cross their comfort zone so they refuse to learn. I'll go have fun with my 'intellectual' analysis over here, when these things are pretty much surface level topic, but i guess that's too much for some people. If you got offended by a simple discussion, you're more than welcome to report/complain about it.
-
@Gibbx now if you want to continue a discussion or if you feel comfortable enough to have something to add to this discussion, this was the last thing that I said to you.
@Zori said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
@Gibbx
Thats why we have 'science', so now you can have fun better by understanding what 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.
So are you capable of having a productive discussion or would you rather ignore what other people are saying to you and just hear your own opinion?
I really hope you're much more than that, now you can have an actual discussion or you can continue being some sort of a quasi-social police, its your choice.
-
Oh I know I promised not to post anymore...... but you just proved your lack of any interest in anyone other than yourself or those that agree with you.....
" overanalyzing fun is probably a sure way to ruin it." lmao, you think this is 'over analysing'?
i do feel bad for you then. Have I insulted Stacy? if I have then thats
Her issue, not mine.I'm a Man ..... Hilarious, oh and you're spelling is getting worse with every post, calm down.
Last post ... I promise.
-
@Stacy555 said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
Oh I know I promised not to post anymore...... but you just proved your lack of any interest in anyone other than yourself or those that agree with you.....
" overanalyzing fun is probably a sure way to ruin it." lmao, you think this is 'over analysing'?
i do feel bad for you then. Have I insulted Stacy? if I have then thats
Her issue, not mine.I'm a Man ..... Hilarious, oh and you're spelling is getting worse with every post, calm down.
Last post ... I promise.
Thanks for the input, Stace, now if you have anything intellectual to say you're more than welcome to post and respond to this thread.
Not that you've addressed anything that was said to you anyway.
"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 !!!!!!"
Not dismissive at all. lmfao
-
I admit I have not read every post in the thread but commenting on the first one I think there are at least two types left out:
The griefer. This is the person who loves nothing other than causing other players problems, cheating the game and just otherwise causing mischief.
The capitalist. Someone only playing the game to turn it into real profit. They run bots and could care less about anything the game has to offer.
-
@Farlander said in Bartle's Taxonomy and this game.:
I admit I have not read every post in the thread but commenting on the first one I think there are at least two types left out:
The griefer. This is the person who loves nothing other than causing other players problems, cheating the game and just otherwise causing mischief.
The capitalist. Someone only playing the game to turn it into real profit. They run bots and could care less about anything the game has to offer.
i think this is a very good point as we have seen more of this on a larger scale recently.
but are they really considered gamers though at that point when it seems that they have an ulterior motive? particularly capitalists?i remember playing a certain mobile game at one point in time where the devs didn't care too much about the bots in their game because those botters are selling resources/items to players in-game and they use the profit to purchase items on the game itself, so in the end they're still getting profits anyway.
-
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.
