Neither of them. I i think the old categories(Killer, Explorer, Archiever, Socializer) is really enough. (Bartle Test WikiLink)
Edit: And by the way, i think WoW really is a lot more to the progressionists, because of the endless item grind. It would be more Qualitists, if you cut off endgame.
Bartle is about how people play, this is about why people play.
Ultimately the Bartle classification is useful to provide people ways to play the game, and to acknowledge what they will be doing and how they will form communities and interact. Wildstar (I think that's the name) is an upcoming game taking a focused approach on this. Should be interesting.
However there is a distinction between players who are interested in obtaining future content, and those who are looking at current content that exists regardless of the Bartle score.
Also, I agree with those who say that people fall somewhere in between. That's true for most classifications.
Does other player's similar progression affect you? Does it make your achievements seem less impressive since you see other players at the same point everywhere around you? That's a pretty big immersion killer to me, and it doesn't really make it seem like I'm progressing in any meaningful sense. Unavoidable, of course.
My example would be with Rift. Right now when they release Infernal Dawn 10% of the playerbase will be in Tier 3 raid content. Maybe 55% will be in Tier 2 raid and the other part will be below tier 1 raid. They hype 1.8 as the introduction of a new 20 man, but in reality I know I will not actually go in there until sometime next year.
It almost kills my will to play the game knowing I will be so far behind the content because I am not in pure progressionist. That is the hype behind GW2 because my enjoyment of the end game does not depend on 19 other people deciding if they want to log on or not.
One thing about GW2 that does have me hyped is the fact I know that when they release new content I will see it that day and not have to wait MONTHSSSSSSSSSSs for it to be nerfed.
I'd be completely satisfied with a game that featured ZERO progression....that's right, your character has no greater inheriint abilities after 10 years of play then the day he came out of the character manager. But then again I'm also the type of player that enjoys FPS games or Wargames.
i think that is reasonable but it makes me ask what is the difference between what you are describing and the online version of many FPS and stradegy games other than size of the map? and perhaps that is exactly what you mean. again I think its totally reasonable. Its not a game I would play much but I think there is a market for it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Does other player's similar progression affect you? Does it make your achievements seem less impressive since you see other players at the same point everywhere around you? That's a pretty big immersion killer to me, and it doesn't really make it seem like I'm progressing in any meaningful sense. Unavoidable, of course.
My example would be with Rift. Right now when they release Infernal Dawn 10% of the playerbase will be in Tier 3 raid content. Maybe 55% will be in Tier 2 raid and the other part will be below tier 1 raid. They hype 1.8 as the introduction of a new 20 man, but in reality I know I will not actually go in there until sometime next year.
It almost kills my will to play the game knowing I will be so far behind the content because I am not in pure progressionist. That is the hype behind GW2 because my enjoyment of the end game does not depend on 19 other people deciding if they want to log on or not.
I really do get where you are coming from as this is what I see wrong with the progressionist game. But if you find the progression fun than you should play, the rift encounters are some what enjoyable since you get world player interaction instead of just always playing with the same few people over and over chasing raid gear. Although them not setting the base price at $8.25 for everyone is a douche move that I just cannot look past. So I will forever be a Rift Lite player until I move on to the next game. Neither Trion Worlds nor the current subscribing player want us in their game, sometimes you just have to move on. If I was a subscribing player of any current MMO out I would be screaming at the top of my lungs to give new players a max character, and 1 set behind in raid progression gear at the least. If they didn't meet these demands I would unsubscribe. Sorry but these games rely on players to populate the world, without gamers the world will be empty. Get them in there, make them feel useful, and start strengthening bonds between gamers. And enough with the stupid currency and auction house grinds already.
One thing about GW2 that does have me hyped is the fact I know that when they release new content I will see it that day and not have to wait MONTHSSSSSSSSSSs for it to be nerfed.
I would go qualitative but prefer to have the snakes and ladders progression of the sandbox where progress is relative to others and not guaranteed with time spent.
I'd be completely satisfied with a game that featured ZERO progression....that's right, your character has no greater inheriint abilities after 10 years of play then the day he came out of the character manager. But then again I'm also the type of player that enjoys FPS games or Wargames.
i think that is reasonable but it makes me ask what is the difference between what you are describing and the online version of many FPS and stradegy games other than size of the map? and perhaps that is exactly what you mean. again I think its totally reasonable. Its not a game I would play much but I think there is a market for it.
1) Scale (Map Size & Number of Players)...
2) How you interact with other players (i.e. You are doing other things besides just fighting)
3) Persistance.... what you do has some effect on the world....
4) I love RPing....
5) Immersion...
Basicaly there are many different elements to an RPG....Progression is just one of them..... and most people look at "Progression" from mechanical stand-point in terms of personal power/levels/skill/wealth/achievment points, etc.
To me I'm not really interested in that very much..... Now if we start talking about things like reputation among other players, participation/advancment in story arcs, the position of ones faction/allegiance in the game world...then that stuff does have interest.... the "Ding" or "You have acieved to Gold Star of MuktyMuk because you have visited all 7 Points of Interest and killed 39 kobolds".... not so much.
Comments
Bartle is about how people play, this is about why people play.
Ultimately the Bartle classification is useful to provide people ways to play the game, and to acknowledge what they will be doing and how they will form communities and interact. Wildstar (I think that's the name) is an upcoming game taking a focused approach on this. Should be interesting.
However there is a distinction between players who are interested in obtaining future content, and those who are looking at current content that exists regardless of the Bartle score.
Also, I agree with those who say that people fall somewhere in between. That's true for most classifications.
My example would be with Rift. Right now when they release Infernal Dawn 10% of the playerbase will be in Tier 3 raid content. Maybe 55% will be in Tier 2 raid and the other part will be below tier 1 raid. They hype 1.8 as the introduction of a new 20 man, but in reality I know I will not actually go in there until sometime next year.
It almost kills my will to play the game knowing I will be so far behind the content because I am not in pure progressionist. That is the hype behind GW2 because my enjoyment of the end game does not depend on 19 other people deciding if they want to log on or not.
One thing about GW2 that does have me hyped is the fact I know that when they release new content I will see it that day and not have to wait MONTHSSSSSSSSSSs for it to be nerfed.
i think that is reasonable but it makes me ask what is the difference between what you are describing and the online version of many FPS and stradegy games other than size of the map? and perhaps that is exactly what you mean. again I think its totally reasonable. Its not a game I would play much but I think there is a market for it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
1) Scale (Map Size & Number of Players)...
2) How you interact with other players (i.e. You are doing other things besides just fighting)
3) Persistance.... what you do has some effect on the world....
4) I love RPing....
5) Immersion...
Basicaly there are many different elements to an RPG....Progression is just one of them..... and most people look at "Progression" from mechanical stand-point in terms of personal power/levels/skill/wealth/achievment points, etc.
To me I'm not really interested in that very much..... Now if we start talking about things like reputation among other players, participation/advancment in story arcs, the position of ones faction/allegiance in the game world...then that stuff does have interest.... the "Ding" or "You have acieved to Gold Star of MuktyMuk because you have visited all 7 Points of Interest and killed 39 kobolds".... not so much.