Player Types

Based on a paper by Richard Bartle, the Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology is a series of questions designed to categorise players into certain groups: Achievers, Explorers, Socialisers and Killers. It has become so well known that video games designers have used it to determine what type of games they should make based on a particular target audience.

While several people have questioned the validity of this test (the idea that people can be grouped into only 4 disting groups is a bit of a stretch), the main idea of the test ( organising player types and preferences) is valid. While various sub-types may appear (mixes between types -which leads me to believe that there are more than the 4 main types and that the mixes should become types as well), the test is a good framework to start from.

After taking the Bartle Test I found out that I am an Explorer/ Achiever. So, judging from the graph bellow, I'm interested with interacting with the environment as well as acting on it and changing it to my needs and desires.

I had a vague notion that I might end up in these categories. I tend to like exploring the games (getting into the story, getting to know the characters, learning about how to best use the various pieces of the games, whether those are moves, various weapons or artifacts, or maybe just cheats that will ultimately enable me to better enjoy the game- although cheating as a way of increasing the gaming pleasure is a different topic altogether), so I am a typical Explorer. On the other hand I do get a sense os satisfaction from high scores and winning, so again, I have typical Achiever traits. But given the right incentive, I could easily fall into the other two categories: Socialiser or Killer, depending on my mood or my objective.

I believe that most people tend to go through all of the types at various points either in the game or maybe even in their lives. How much your real persona influences the game persona is a contention point. Although I'm sure that our personality plays a part in how we play games, the reason we play games is to experience a different reality, and that usually includes a different persona. You play a game because you get a sense of freedom you wouldn't experience in real life (you wouldn't shoot someone in the head like you so freely and happily do in games such as Call of Duty, or steal a car like in Grand Theft Auto, you certainly  wouldn't try to use spells or weapons to defeat wolfs or bear in real life as you do in Skyrim). Some people create entirely different personas and life in a sort of wish fulfillment through games such as Second Life or World of Warcraft.
You could say that people who choose to create a different game persona are still creating it based on a player type (the character they create may be a sorcerer who spends time learning spells, thus he or she can be termed an Explorer, or maybe the character is a worrier only interested in killing and maiming opponents , thus being a Killer), but everyone needs different things at different times and to try to force a person into a mould based on a single game type (MMORPG), or a certain time frame, I think, is a mistake. Again, the premise is good, but the detailes need to be sorted out to avoid muddling.

In the end, I think a successul game should have something to offer each player type, because in concentrating on just one you eliminate a huge market of potential players, as well as leading to a dwindling of all the other players (Mr. Bartle shows in his thesis how all player types are interconnected, each one "feeding" on the other, so a balance is always needed)