Bartle begins the article by discussing a survey he carried out with 15 top level players involved in a popular MUD at the time. Through this survey he came to the conclusion of finding 4 different categories which all of the players opinions seemed to belong to:
1. Achievement within the game context
This is the notion of setting up goals within the game universe and setting out to complete them. If we relate this to previous readings it can be associated with Doug Churchs article about Formal Abstract Design Tools, because by setting themselves goals the players are offering themselves an intention to continue playing the game. Bartle labels these players as achievers.
2.Exploration of the world
This is the idea that the players would like to explore the entire game world and discover its breadth and depth. This ties in with Church's article in the terms of intention and narrative, because players will want to push forward and discover more about the game world whilst also discovering the story behind it. Bartle labels these characters as explorers.
3. Socializing with others
This, along with the fourth category, ties in with Church's article in relation to cooperation and conflict in video games. Socializing with others relates to the idea of using the games communication facilities to have a conversation and interact with other players. Bartle labels these players as socializers.
4.Imposition upon others
As is known in MUDs, these are the trolls, griefers and annoying people that are found in games. Occasionally there will be a good person who will attempt to help other players, but the majority of the time they utilize the game system in order to antagonize the other players. Bartle labels these characters as killers.
He then continues to relate the stereotypes with a decks different suites: Achievers are diamonds. Explorers are Spades. Socialisers are Hearts and Killers are spades. These different types are often crossed into and no player is clear cut into a specific section, however, players will tend to have a 'regular' pattern when gaming and will often fall back into it if they are not attempting anything.
Bartle begins to go into more detail about each of these stereotypes:
Achievers
Always aiming to gain the maximum amount of treasure, points or maximising their level. These players will explore to discover new treasures or areas to gain more levels. They may socialise to discuss new methods of maximising their points and they may kill their rivals or people who interfere with their achieving.
Explorers
Explorers devote themselves to discovering the hidden machinations of the game, discovering its bugs and tend to only gather points when necessary to continue exploring, the same with killing and socialising.
Socialisers
Socialisers utilise the game as a backdrop and spend more time interacting with the players, communicating amongst themselves. Socialisers avoid killing and only tend to explore and gain points in order to access more levels of communication, or to get into the 'loop' about what everyone is talking about.
Killers
As the name suggests, these types of players enjoy killing others. They often do this for satisfaction in order to cause aggravation in other players. These players will often explore and gain points in order to find more entertaining methods of killing people, yet tend to avoid socialising unless it is to further taunt and antagonise a target.
The MUD itself can change what type of players are found within its midst, an example would be Star Wars: The Old Republic. This game is very story focused and offers many hidden objects to be found by exploring. However, there are also different servers for different types of players. This helps keep the types of players segregated, allowing less frustration from those not wishing to be disturbed by killers(PVE servers) and offering a place for players to actively attempt to kill each other(PVP servers.)
There is a balance between the players, if there is more of one type then there could be a decline in the others. As Bartle states, an admin would need to try and ensure the 'balance' but this is up to them how it is achieved and how they would like their MUD to 'feel'.
Below there is a graph that Bartle uses in his article in order to further explain the interests of each player type.
ACTING
Killers | Achievers
|
|
|
|
|
PLAYERS -------------------+------------------- WORLD
|
|
|
|
|
Socialisers | Explorers
INTERACTING
Following the Graph above, it allows us to show how each player archetype would act in a MUD.
1.Achievers
Achievers are ACTING within the WORLD, immersing themselves within the game world. They do not care much for sharing it with other players.
2. Explorers
Explorers are INTERACTING within the WORLD, they explore the entire world in its entirety, exploring its depth and breadth. They could easily reach the top, but choose not to.
3. Socialisers
Socialisers simply use the game as a backdrop and INTERACT with the PLAYERS. Socialisers enjoy getting to know the other players and care little for playing the game in the same depth as other types of players.
4.Killers
Killers are often ACTING with PLAYERS. They enjoy performing acts towards other players, often without their consent. Killers have to achieve in order to prove their superiority over the other players.
In MUDS it is possible to modify the MUD to suit one of the extremes on the above graph, however by moving towards one extreme it can ruin a part of the other.
If you are making a MUD more oriented toward PLAYERS, then you would need to provide more sources of communication, this will make the game less of a MUD and more of a chatroom.
If you are making a MUD more oriented towards the WORLD, then you need to add a bigger world, and create a world where people may rarely meet. This could alienate the Socialisers, because they would not be able to find anyone to socialise with.
If you are making a MUD more oriented towards ACTING, then you will be introducing tasks that are constantly repetitive and boring for the players.
If you are making a MUD more oriented towards INTERACTING, then it involves restricting a players freedom so that they are able to only take a specific path. This causes the player to be watching the game more than playing.
There are debates that compare MUDS as either social or gamelike. These means that games either operate below the 'x-axis' if they are more social, as is stated in the article, or above the axis in regards to being gamelike. The article compares the two arguements and also shows how a MUD can be considered both, such as a gamelike MUD having socialisers, or a social MUD having killers.
The different player types often interact with one another, as is shown below:
Achievers vs Achievers.
Achievers are often very competetive towards one another. They will often work together and do not need encouraging to start playing a new MUD
Achievers vs Explorers.
Achievers vs Explorers.
Achievers do not regard Explorers in high regard. They treat high level explorers in good regard though because they often know what to do.
Achievers vs Socialisers.
Achievers vs Socialisers.
Achievers tolerate socialisers, they are often used as the 'gossip' of the competition but otherwise they are not needed.
Achievers vs Killers. Achievers dont like Killers. They believe that killers are necessary but do not like the way that they act within MUDs
Explorers Vs Explorers
Explorers hold good explorers in great respect, but are merciless to bad ones. One of the worst things a fellow explorer can do is to give out incorrect information, believing it to be true. Other than that, explorers thrive on telling one another their latest discoveries, and generally get along very well.
Explorers Vs Socialisers
Explorers consider socialisers to be people whom they can impress, but who are otherwise pretty well unimportant. Unless they can appreciate the explorer's talents, they're not really worth spending time with.
Explorers Vs Killers
Explorers often have a grudging respect for killers, but they do find their behaviour wearisome. It's just so annoying to be close to finishing setting up something when a killer comes along and attacks you. On the other hand, many killers do know their trade well, and are quite prepared to discuss the finer details of it with explorers. Sometimes, an explorer may try attacking other players as an exercise, and they can be extremely effective at it.
Socialisers Vs Achievers Socialisers like achievers, because they provide the running soap opera about which the socialisers can converse. Without such a framework, there is no uniting cause to bring socialisers together (at least not initially). Note that socialisers don't particularly enjoy talking to achievers (not unless they can get them to open up, which is very difficult); they do, however, enjoy talking about them. A cynic might suggest that the relationship between socialisers and achievers is similar to that between women and men.
Socialisers Vs Explorers Socialisers generally consider explorers to be sad characters who are desperately in need of a life. Both groups like to talk, but rarely about the same things, and if they do get together it's usually because the explorer wants to sound erudite and the socialiser has nothing better to do at the time.
The number of explorers in a MUD has no effect on the number of socialisers.
Socialisers Vs Socialisers
A case of positive feedback: socialisers can talk to one another on any subject for hours on end, and come back later for more. The key factor is whether there is an open topic of conversation: in a game-like environment, the MUD itself provides the context for discussion, whether it be the goings-on of other players or the feeble attempts of a socialiser to try playing it; in a non-game environment, some other subject is usually required to structure conversations, either within the software of the MUD itself (eg. building) or without it (eg. "This is a support MUD for the victims of cancer"). Note that this kind of subject-setting is only required as a form of ice-breaker: once socialisers have acquired friends, they'll invariably find other things that they can talk about.
Socialisers Vs Killers
This is perhaps the most fractious relationship between player group types. The hatred that some socialisers bear for killers admits no bounds. Partly, this is the killers' own fault: they go out of their way to rid MUDs of namby-pamby socialisers who wouldn't know a weapon if one came up and hit them (an activity that killers are only too happy to demonstrate), and they will generally hassle socialisers at every opportunity simply because it's so easy to get them annoyed. However, the main reason that socialisers tend to despise killers is that they have completely antisocial motives, whereas socialisers have (or like to think they have) a much more friendly and helpful attitude to life. The fact that many socialisers take attacks on their personae personally only compounds their distaste for killers.
Killers Vs Achievers
Achievers vs Killers. Achievers dont like Killers. They believe that killers are necessary but do not like the way that they act within MUDs
Explorers Vs Explorers
Explorers hold good explorers in great respect, but are merciless to bad ones. One of the worst things a fellow explorer can do is to give out incorrect information, believing it to be true. Other than that, explorers thrive on telling one another their latest discoveries, and generally get along very well.
Explorers Vs Socialisers
Explorers consider socialisers to be people whom they can impress, but who are otherwise pretty well unimportant. Unless they can appreciate the explorer's talents, they're not really worth spending time with.
Explorers Vs Killers
Explorers often have a grudging respect for killers, but they do find their behaviour wearisome. It's just so annoying to be close to finishing setting up something when a killer comes along and attacks you. On the other hand, many killers do know their trade well, and are quite prepared to discuss the finer details of it with explorers. Sometimes, an explorer may try attacking other players as an exercise, and they can be extremely effective at it.
Socialisers Vs Achievers Socialisers like achievers, because they provide the running soap opera about which the socialisers can converse. Without such a framework, there is no uniting cause to bring socialisers together (at least not initially). Note that socialisers don't particularly enjoy talking to achievers (not unless they can get them to open up, which is very difficult); they do, however, enjoy talking about them. A cynic might suggest that the relationship between socialisers and achievers is similar to that between women and men.
Socialisers Vs Explorers Socialisers generally consider explorers to be sad characters who are desperately in need of a life. Both groups like to talk, but rarely about the same things, and if they do get together it's usually because the explorer wants to sound erudite and the socialiser has nothing better to do at the time.
The number of explorers in a MUD has no effect on the number of socialisers.
Socialisers Vs Socialisers
A case of positive feedback: socialisers can talk to one another on any subject for hours on end, and come back later for more. The key factor is whether there is an open topic of conversation: in a game-like environment, the MUD itself provides the context for discussion, whether it be the goings-on of other players or the feeble attempts of a socialiser to try playing it; in a non-game environment, some other subject is usually required to structure conversations, either within the software of the MUD itself (eg. building) or without it (eg. "This is a support MUD for the victims of cancer"). Note that this kind of subject-setting is only required as a form of ice-breaker: once socialisers have acquired friends, they'll invariably find other things that they can talk about.
Socialisers Vs Killers
This is perhaps the most fractious relationship between player group types. The hatred that some socialisers bear for killers admits no bounds. Partly, this is the killers' own fault: they go out of their way to rid MUDs of namby-pamby socialisers who wouldn't know a weapon if one came up and hit them (an activity that killers are only too happy to demonstrate), and they will generally hassle socialisers at every opportunity simply because it's so easy to get them annoyed. However, the main reason that socialisers tend to despise killers is that they have completely antisocial motives, whereas socialisers have (or like to think they have) a much more friendly and helpful attitude to life. The fact that many socialisers take attacks on their personae personally only compounds their distaste for killers.
Killers Vs Achievers
Killers regard achievers as their natural prey. Achievers are good fighters (because they've learned the necessary skills against mobiles), but they're not quite as good as killers, who are more specialised. This gives the "thrill of the chase" which many killers enjoy - an achiever may actually be able to escape, but will usually succumb at some stage, assuming they don't see sense and quit first.
Killers Vs Explorers Killers tend to leave explorers alone. Not only can explorers be formidable fighters (with many obscure, unexpected tactics at their disposal), but they often don't fret about being attacked - a fact which is very frustrating for killers.
Killers Vs Socialisers
Killers regard socialisers with undisguised glee. It's not that socialisers are in any way a challenge, as usually they will be pushovers in combat; rather, socialisers feel a dreadful hurt when attacked (especially if it results in the loss of their persona), and it is this which killers enjoy about it.
Killers Vs Killers
Killers try not to cross the paths of other killers, except in pre-organised challenge matches. Part of the psychology of killers seems to be that they wish to be viewed as somehow superior to other players; being killed by a killer in open play would undermine their reputation, and therefore they avoid risking it (compare Killers v Explorers).
If i was to attempt to relate to this article then I would bring my attention to more modern versions of MUDs, commonly known as MMOs. Within these MMOs i would classify myself as part Achiever and part Explorer. By using this article I am able to relate because I personally dislike the types of players who would go around causing grief, and are often related to 'trolls'.
Killers Vs Explorers Killers tend to leave explorers alone. Not only can explorers be formidable fighters (with many obscure, unexpected tactics at their disposal), but they often don't fret about being attacked - a fact which is very frustrating for killers.
Killers Vs Socialisers
Killers regard socialisers with undisguised glee. It's not that socialisers are in any way a challenge, as usually they will be pushovers in combat; rather, socialisers feel a dreadful hurt when attacked (especially if it results in the loss of their persona), and it is this which killers enjoy about it.
Killers Vs Killers
Killers try not to cross the paths of other killers, except in pre-organised challenge matches. Part of the psychology of killers seems to be that they wish to be viewed as somehow superior to other players; being killed by a killer in open play would undermine their reputation, and therefore they avoid risking it (compare Killers v Explorers).
If i was to attempt to relate to this article then I would bring my attention to more modern versions of MUDs, commonly known as MMOs. Within these MMOs i would classify myself as part Achiever and part Explorer. By using this article I am able to relate because I personally dislike the types of players who would go around causing grief, and are often related to 'trolls'.
I enjoyed reading this article because of the above reasons and it allowed me to discover what type of player I am classified as.
Hi Dan,
ReplyDeleteDo remember to check that you have covered all the topics for the Introduction to Critical Games Studies module.