Header Ads

What kind of gamer are you?

I have been participating for a while, I don't know why, of discussions about whether Billy is a retro, casual, hardcore and I don't know how many other labels more followed by the word "Gamer". It always seems to be something subjective after all. If a boy considers the PSX as something retro, it is in all his right I think.

Let's not even talk about casual vs. hardcore. The aesthetics of the game is often associated with the type of audience it is aimed at. Nintendo usually receives this type of unfair punches many times, because of the colorful and childish that are some of its franchises. Those who play those games will know that, many times, we are facing challenging and much more difficult games than others considered "hardcore" (except for Kirby and Yoshi, almost all Nintendo games have a respectable difficulty).

But about the illusion of difficulty (which doesn't really exist: O!), I want to talk to you in another post. Today I wanted to spend some time talking about the "official" definitions of Gamer's types. Then, it will be up to you to decide which quadrant you belong to!

First, a little history...

Someone got busy at doing something close to a gamers classification system. Of course, he didn't do it because he had free time, but because he was a developer who tried to find an efficient way to categorize the audiences to which one, as a game developer, point with our creations.
This boy is Richard Bartle, who made one of the first MMOs, MUD1. If you do not know, here is a picture:

The good Ricardo suggested, back in 1996, that there is a map with 4 quadrants in which the archetypes in which most gamers have a place depending on their behavior in the games. Bartle's classification today is considered obsolete, especially because of how the context of videogames changed and with the speed that it did. Even so, it still has some value as you will see later. It's also a good way to see how developers think of the players they target to with their games.

How players are classified according to their behavior in games.

The division proposed by Ric consisted of two axes: Acting to Interact, and Players to World.

  • The Players who acted on Players were called Assassins, and they are the ones who like the fighting. We could put the lovers of PvP games in this category. PUBG, Fortnite, Apex ... all those fall there.
  • The Players who acted on the World were the Achievers and are the ones who play to fulfill the goals that the World sets for them. Do you know someone fan of taking out all the achievements of the game and completing each secondary quest? Well ... those are the ones who enter this group.
  • Those who interact with players are the Socializers and play only for the social aspect, whether talking about their experiences in the games or playing cooperatively. Nowadays there are games that point directly to this, such as RecRoom for Virtual Reality on PSVR, Second Life and Sea of ​​Thieves too.
  • Finally, there are those who Interact with the World, and were called Explorers. They play only for the pleasure of exploring, without giving a damn about the main quest or the objective of the game. If you ever hung Zelda for more than 100 hours exploring all of Hyrule before going to help her in Breath of the Wild or got lost in Touissant with Geralt marveled at the landscapes and details in each place ... you are happy members of this category!

According to Bartle, most players fall into one or two of these categories and develop different skills and interests when they play. Even more important, it also defines the objective of a game and how the players will enjoy it. Returning to the example of Breath of the Wild, we can have players who find satisfaction and a challenge in completing every possible altar and temple, while for another gamer the fun will be in exploring every corner of the map up to 100%.

And you ... what kind of gamer are you?

Personally, I believe that I fall into all categories except that of Achiever. The idea of taking out the last trophy or achievement even in games that I loved was never seducing to me. I recognize that it must be fun to squeeze the game with situations or actions that perhaps if it were not for the achievement itself you would never tried on your own, but it is something that I simply do not enjoy doing.
And you ... where do you fall in this classification? Considering that it is obsolete, what classification do you think it would be necessary to add there today?

El Geek Gourmet
Con tecnología de Blogger.