Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Bartle Test needs a new category 'Entertainees'
KenFisher
Member UncommonPosts: 5,035
This post shares a concept that I've been kicking around. I'm sharing this as food for thought and discussion. It's just my musings after observing what I think is a flaw where the Bartle Test cannot identify a player profile given the evolution of MMORPG design.
Summarized: The evolution of MMORPG gaming both in terms of design and player expectations has introduced a 5th category of player profiles, one not specifically covered in the Bartle Test.
The original 4 categories are: Achievers, Explorers, Killers, and Socializers.
My proposed new category is: 'Entertainees'.
Entertainment is the process of being amused through active or passive participation in an event. Listening to music, watching television, reading a story book, and playing a game are just a few examples of entertainment.
A conversation about crafting needing a mini-game that is 'fun', got me thinking about how being entertained by an MMORPG wasn't common in old-school MMORPG design, but has received considerable attention in more recent designs.
As I see it, old-school MMORPGs weren't fun if the player was not one of the 4 profiles described by Bartle. I believe this was because MMORPGs of that era were designed specifically to cater to those 4 profiles.
In my perspective, new-school MMORPGs have evolved so that a 5th profile is now being catered to. I think of them as 'Entertainment Consaumers', a term I shorten to 'Entertainees' as a way to fit with the Bartle Test description of profiles with a single word.
For example, if a person plays SWTOR with their main enjoyment of the game being the interactive storyline, they don't fit easily into the 4 Bartle Test profiles. So how would they be classified?
In SunAndShadow's mini-game style crafting system where the intent of the mechanics is to provide an entertaining approach to crafting, this too does not seem to me to fit in with the Bartle Test profiles. So how would a SandPark crafter who enjoys the mini-game crafting be classified?
Can you see what I'm trying to express?
A paraphrased example might be: "I'm not in the game to achieve, explore, kill, or socialize. I'm here to have fun and be entertained."
As I see it, Bartle doesn't address this profile of player.
Thoughts?
Summarized: The evolution of MMORPG gaming both in terms of design and player expectations has introduced a 5th category of player profiles, one not specifically covered in the Bartle Test.
The original 4 categories are: Achievers, Explorers, Killers, and Socializers.
My proposed new category is: 'Entertainees'.
Entertainment is the process of being amused through active or passive participation in an event. Listening to music, watching television, reading a story book, and playing a game are just a few examples of entertainment.
A conversation about crafting needing a mini-game that is 'fun', got me thinking about how being entertained by an MMORPG wasn't common in old-school MMORPG design, but has received considerable attention in more recent designs.
As I see it, old-school MMORPGs weren't fun if the player was not one of the 4 profiles described by Bartle. I believe this was because MMORPGs of that era were designed specifically to cater to those 4 profiles.
In my perspective, new-school MMORPGs have evolved so that a 5th profile is now being catered to. I think of them as 'Entertainment Consaumers', a term I shorten to 'Entertainees' as a way to fit with the Bartle Test description of profiles with a single word.
For example, if a person plays SWTOR with their main enjoyment of the game being the interactive storyline, they don't fit easily into the 4 Bartle Test profiles. So how would they be classified?
In SunAndShadow's mini-game style crafting system where the intent of the mechanics is to provide an entertaining approach to crafting, this too does not seem to me to fit in with the Bartle Test profiles. So how would a SandPark crafter who enjoys the mini-game crafting be classified?
Can you see what I'm trying to express?
A paraphrased example might be: "I'm not in the game to achieve, explore, kill, or socialize. I'm here to have fun and be entertained."
As I see it, Bartle doesn't address this profile of player.
Thoughts?
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
Comments
I can see what you are saying and on the surface it makes sense. Except the "achieve/explore/kill/socialize people are also being entertained by their actions and what they get out of their participation.
Perhaps it' being taken too literally?
One could say that the person who is only playing SWTOR for the story is "exploring the story content". It's just a different type of exploration. They might also feel a sense of achievement from finishing it just like a person might feel the same from finishing a good book.
There very well could be a social aspect as one then can discuss the story with other players.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
On a graph like this, I am halfway between Scientist and Planner. (On the original 2D version this would be halfway between Achiever and Explorer). I do feel that both versions of the graph leave out traditional RPG-style enjoyment of story and interacting with NPCs though, both of which are as important to my enjoyment of games as planning out experiments (and then carrying them out).
8 kinds of fun, kinds of players (this is the middle section of a longer thing about game design, you might want to go back and look at the introduction if this piece out of the middle doesn't make sense by itself.
https://gamedesignconcepts.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/level-8-kinds-of-fun-kinds-of-players/
Personality and play styles, a unified model (incorporates some myers briggs personality stuff (I'm basically the Rational/Explorer/Simulationist type in the unified model)
http://http//www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6474/personality_and_play_styles_a_.php?print=1
There was one more that was a description of (8?) types of game designer, where some of the types were clearly interested in fun and others were clearly not, but my google-fu has failed me so far.
What kind of designer are you?:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2902/the_designers_notebook_what_kind_.php
Designing For The Player (my blog response):
http://www.gamedev.net/blog/90/entry-169078-designing-for-the-player/
Please do. That's exactly what brought me here. I'll get yelled at for saying this, but I don't think the older designs were built for entertainment style fun (outside of doing the 4 Bartle stuff). I see them as mostly work, risk, and achievement.
Really long flashback. WoW Vanilla, my first week. One of my impressions: "Amazing simulation, but this is not a game. This is way too much like a job to be a game." A quote I recall from another player: "Anyone who thinks WoW isn't a job, is just a dabbler." Of course compared to pre-WoW MMORPGs, WoW itself was faceroll easy, so think of how much 'work' those other MMORPGs must have been.
Noted for reference since we've talked about related in the past. "and others were clearly not," I think my own thinking about MMORPG design tends to fall in this second group. I question if my perspective is wise, and how I came to it. Others clearly express disapproval for 'grind' and yet to me 'grind' is a central part of PVE MMORPG gameplay. While I enjoy the rewards of grind, the grind itself isn't 'fun' and at best is at the fringe of 'entertaining'. It's work that I do to achieve a reward.
Thanks again for your discussion. It's greatly appreciated.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I've seen this but never gave it more than a passing glance.
"I do feel that..." Yes, so do I. And I see this as a fundamental flaw to designing based on Bartle (1 or 2). Neverwinter Nights (Bioware SP on PC) and Morrowind / Oblivion both did well at making NPC interaction fun and meaningful. In MMORPGs the closest I've seen to this was Age of Conan - Tortage.
RE: Puzzles - A long time ago there were games (Quicktime based?) where you would enter a room and have to solve a puzzle that was part of the room in order to get a door open or have a clue drop that you would need to progress. That's another entertainment activity that is unrepresented. I haven't played many MMORPGs, but I don't think I've ever run into content where thinking (other than combat strategy) was required.
I'll have to look for the 3D test online. It would be interesting to see where I score.
Interesting observations. It could easily be that I'm taking the original test too literally.
I watch the development videos on YouTube, where designers talk about game design and reference 'fun'. I've come to the conclusion that 'fun' (entertainment, enjoyment) varies by individual. That has me looking at how and why some things are fun.
edit: trimmed ramble
As far as the kayak vs. the movie, personally I think that the unique power of games, maybe even the raison d' etre of games, is to combine these two types of fun. In my opinion the ideal game uses bits of movie to show you why you should build a kayak, illustrate the different crafting steps, then show you celebrating by riding your finished kayak down the river; in between these bits of movies the game gives you puzzle-like or strategic gameplay through which you can interactively build the kayak.
I have in fact played some MMOs with puzzles in them, most notably Myst Online: Uru, and Dofus has some (annoying) multiplayer puzzles involving getting several players to stand on buttons or pull levers. Puzzle-like minigames are a bit more common, as seen in MMOs like Puzzle Pirates and A Tale In The Desert. But the real king of mini-games is NeoPets, one of the oldest virtual pet sites. If you aren't familiar with virtual pet sites, they are like an MMO with no world to walk around in. Generally they combine a forum with a 2D avatar and/or pet system and a minigame gallery. (NeoPets' Freaky Factory is one of my favorite minigames ever; maybe second only to Vasebreaker in Plants Vs. Zombies 1.) Players earn their "daily wages" by playing the minigames, then spend this money on the pets and/or avatars. Some games give the player additional things to spend money on, like in Gaia Online there are a house, a car, and a fishtank; maybe more now since I haven't logged into GO in quite a while.
http://www.uoguide.com/Khaldun
http://www.uoguide.com/Doom_lever_puzzle
As for these player type definitions, none fit my play style adequately. Blame BoF or Dragon Quest or any of the other early console rpgs that supplied a world to explore and diversions(crafting, fishing, puzzles, gambling, etc) when battle got tedious and the storyline allowed some leeway(not to mention being able to log in and out without penalty).
Then my first MMORPG, UO came along and gave me all of that plus housing and other players to share it with... a steep learning curve in many ways but unfortunately it also left deep boots to fill and I've yet to find another "game" that has been fully successful.
Sure, some have great graphics, even some great stories, any kind of combat a player could want, occasionally they may tack on housing in some fashion and perhaps even fishing and now farming sims, but they all seem so shallow compared to what came before, they don't seem to have the depth of gameplay that the earlier mmorpgs had, let alone act like they care if their players are so engaged in their world that they don't want to leave and are willing to pay a yearly sub to be able to stay. Now it's all about the fast buck because it seems there's an endless supply of gamers, heck even grandmas play games online now, let alone all those basement dwellers....
In conclusion, I suppose if I must be labeled, I'm one of those dirty casuals because I like to play the whole game and actually actively try not to reach endgame(yes even in my console games) because if I'm enjoying it, why would I want it to end?
Furcadia, Ultima Online, and Achaea MUD. Are you suggesting that the designers of these games did not design content for passive entertainment? It seems like that's what you are presenting. Could you give examples of "entertainment style fun"?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Odd, blurry, vague understanding / definition of entertainment style fun is likely. Especially when it comes to gaming, something I struggle to understand.
"... did not design content for passive entertainment?" No, that's not implied as an absolute. 'Placed less emphasis on passive entertainment' is closer to what I was trying to express.
Some things I see that are characteristics of a game with emphasis on entertainment: Bioware style (possibly FF / TSW style) storyline, automated grouping, automated merchandising, actiony combat, faceroll combat, arcade-like pacing and presentation (moves fast, lots of flashy effects), fast progression, and quickly rewarding players for activity.
What I'm seeing is a blurring between work and play in my head, that I'm having a hard time differentiating. The general pattern looks to me like old-school games were more work oriented with slow progression and reward, and that the streamlining as done in modern games that makes them more convenient reduces the work and adds more entertaining activity and entertaining characteristics (as mentioned above).
In looking at this, maybe the 5th category is redundant. Much of my perceived old-new difference seems to boil down to pacing: more story faster, faster grouping / merchandising, faster combat (and other activity), and more / faster reward and progression. And through those changes, more 'entertaining'.
"not really understanding the player types you're looking at". Agreed. Achiever is achiever, slow or fast paced.
Thanks for the comment !!!
I see mini-games as active entertainment. Or more specifically, entertainment activity as opposed to work activity.
Well I suppose you could intentionally put dull repetitive mini-games and have it feel like work. But I don't think that's why most would use them. They add diversity to mechanics, right?
I'm fairly comfortable with active vs. passive, but I am hung up on work versus play, and work versus fun.
I used to run around a mid-level zone in Runes of Magic doing nothing but harvesting. I'd throw it all in the bank, and when I had enough I'd sell it on Auction House. The only combat I had while playing was avoiding attacks from random junk overland mobs. I played like this for several months and enjoyed it. It was work, not hard work, but it was effort producing monetary reward and it was an amusing time waster for me, and I got to be in the game and had something to do.
If I'm working and amused, is that having fun? I doubt many would think so, but I enjoyed it.
See how the two blur for me? I enjoy dull repetitive tedious activity, even when the reward isn't all that great. It keeps my mind occupied and takes my thoughts away from daily life stress.
It's quite a dilemma for me. I think it's safe to say that RL2 isn't fun, but I enjoy playing it. I think I'm shooting my game in the head by sticking to the design, but speaking frankly I expect so few players anyways that I doubt it matters.
And I'm not alone in liking it. I had a tester hit level cap with the comment 'The game is bare bones, but nonetheless I had fun'.
How could s/he have fun? It's just grindy progression. Combat, gear, level, train, combat, gear, level, train, and so on.
Then again, how can I have fun with the same reasons. It doesn't make sense, but I do.
I have to be misunderstanding something.
I think that all games are inherently a work activity, whether that work is combat or minigames or persuading NPCs through dialogue choices. The interactive element that makes it a game rather than a movie is the fact that the player is doing something, and the success/fail/scoring element that makes it a game rather than a toy is the fact that the player must plan and struggle to accomplish goals, in other words, work.
I also agree that games have become more entertaining over time, but that's been an issue of technical limitations more than anything; designers and players wanted games to be entertaining since at least the invention of carnivals. From the beginning carnival games have incorporated bells and other sound effects, bright paint, decorative mirrors, written jokes, and surprising physics like bowling pins flying around. Duck-shooting gallery games such as inspired the NES game Duck Hunt date back to when they had to have a human turn a crank to make the targets move. Pinball a game well known for its sound effects, bright colors, and entertaining physics, is a clear ancestor of video games, as are slot machines; both existed before 1900, though they were particularly popular between 1920 and 1940, the boom era of amusement parks and arcades. A slot machine shows a very clear alternation between player activity (pulling the lever) and passive 'entertainment' (spinning fruits and numbers that are kind of interesting and hypnotic to watch. They aren't strongly entertaining, but they're a little entertaining. This alternation seen in the slot machine is directly comparable to 8 and 16 bit single-player RPGs where combat alternated with story scenes, whether these were scripted scenes acted out within the game engine or pre-created movie clips.
If we say that games are inherently work, and also inherently time-wasters, why do we choose them over real work that might be profitable or useful? Fun. As humans we have instincts to seek out things that are surprising, especially in a way that turns out to cause laughter, which is an instinctive response to finding out a surprise is non-threatening. I think that various sources of fun, from buzzers, bells, and flashing lights, to watching interesting physics like balls bouncing chaotically, to hearing, reading, or watching bits of story, are the reason that games are preferable to and distinct from work. I can enjoy some grinding myself - for example, I love Plant Tycoon, which involves repeated experiments and waiting, and I also love the Harvest Moon series, which involves repeatedly planting seeds, watering crops, harvesting crops, mining ore, chopping wood, and talking to NPCs to farm rep with them.
But just because some activities feel like work doesn't mean they are entertainment-free. It's almost impossible to make a game which isn't entertaining at all. Entertainment is relative to the audience, and any game is going to be much less entertaining to some people than others; even award-winning biggest-game-of-the-year games are going to be boring to some audiences. On the other hand, pretty graphics, sound effects, and background music, while subtle, are entertaining enough to make just walking around interesting to most players of modern RPGs. Interacting with others through a market system is also entertaining in a way rather similar to slot machines. If you're working and amused, I do think that's fun, though you might want to qualify it as "a little fun" and ask if you want to intensify or diversify that fun to make it more fun or fun to a wider range of people.
If I remember correctly the 3D version is the same way, where you wouldn't sum yourself up as a singular 3D coordinate, but rather you'd be some mix of all 8 attributes.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver