Player who suit MUDs, Richard A. Bartle
Today, we looked at the paper Richard Bartle produced detailing how
different styles of player suit different styles of games and whilst reading we
were asked questions.
The first we were asked was how do different styles of player relate to
the game world?
Well this is an easy one. Like Mr Bartle points out in his paper, there
are four “main” styles of game … personas, I think is the best word, that a
player will adopt should they become immersed in the game. Bartle referred to
this as
“labelling the four player types abstracted, we get: achievers,
explorers, socialisers and killers. An easy way to remember these is to
consider suits in a conventional pack of cards: achievers are Diamonds (they're
always seeking treasure); explorers are Spades (they dig around for
information); socialisers are Hearts (they empathise with other players);
killers are Clubs (they hit people with them).”
Which by all means is a good way of remembering it but the more
familiar way nowadays is known as the Gamer Zones. In the Gamer Zones players
have four different categories of gamer, like the above, that they can class
themselves on based on their own game style -
though they are known as follows;
·
Pro – Gamers who like competitions and high
octane matches with players of high skill levels
·
Recreation – “Relaxed” gamers who enjoy the
thrill of gaming
·
Family – Players who aim to have fun with the
whole family or younger players (though it should be noted that this persona is
rapidly dying out fast due to players not wanting to class themselves as this –
more about this later)
·
Underground – the Gamers who are only after the
top prises and achievements not really caring about the placing in game results
While players are free to label themselves as any style they want it is
a good way to really be able to class someone’s skills as a player. For
instance Recreation Gamers are players who play games specifically for the fun
of it, meaning that they are relaxed even if they are losing. But like Bartle
says, it’s hard for a player to be just one “type” of gamer all of the time
meaning that recreation gamers will get angry at some games just like the rest
of us – we’re all human after all.
How do different styles of player relate to themselves and
others?
The Problem with labelling yourself is that until you actually play the
game that is how other gamers see you, and as with all things in life, some
gaming personas don’t play well with others. I mean that a player whose gaming
style is classed as “Family” (generally parents and children, or people who
want to stay away from harsh language and egos – which as a side note is very
hard to do with online gaming) will be looked down upon by the “Pro” class and
in some instances by all of the other classes, for being “cool” or good enough.
While this persona is legitimate enough, it generally signals to other players
that this particular player will not be a big threat.
So enough about the physical labels they give themselves, what about
the labels that other gamers bestow upon them? Well despite the label a player
will themselves, what really matters is the label that other players see them
as. Players will often give each other these classes after seeing first-hand
what the skills the player displays or doesn’t display in game, with newer
players often being … frowned upon, to put it delicately, simply because they
didn’t know enough about the game to be effective enough to be classed on a
higher level.
But more often than not, this is not this is not trying to single out
players or intimidate them, in fact players need to class others so that they
can each enjoy the game as they want to play. Pro players want to play with
someone who will help them out or provide a good challenge or simply do the
job, not to have to teach new players how to play a game, so instead the player
in question will look to join up with / participate in games with players of
their own skill level or above. This happens outside of the online gaming world
as well, we’ve all been there when you are playing a game – say Rummy – and
there will always be a player who doesn’t know the rules, and sitting there
having to explain in the middle of a game is a hindrance to the skilled
player(s).
This is why Gaming types and classes exist simply to help the player
choose the best suited matches for them so that everyone will enjoy the game.
How does this link to your own game play experiences of online worlds?
In the past, I always aimed to be a kind of Recreation gamer – I simply
like the game for what it is and I’m good at playing it. But as I got older and
better at the games I found that I enjoyed winning so much that I would aim to
win every match I participated in. Oddly, Xbox live picked up on this and started
putting me in matches with more and more
Underground and Pro players forcing me to improve my own style of game play
(polishing it up if you will) and before long I found myself wanting more of
these challenges, causing me to switch my physical label to “Pro”.
I do subconsciously still try to respect all players of all skill types
whilst playing, but like I said before we are all human and more often than not
when in game situations go wrong it tends to be the player with the least
skill’s fault – despite the fact I know that I messed up.
It’s strange but within the past year of my gaming life I have kept
tabs on players who have impressed me in game (good team mate, rivals, just
good had good time playing with) and added them as friends but of them not one
of them is classed as a family gamer which I suppose proves that game personas
don’t all play nice together – mainly because they just aren’t into the same
kind of games, I’ll suspect. But does that mean that certain types of player
are drawn to certain types of games?
Well… yes and no. Like Barton says, even though players have their
class, that doesn’t mean that they must stick to that. I mean, I am a die-hard
gamer who loves to shoot zombies or what have you but that doesn’t mean I don’t
love games like Wii sports (boxing is hilarious) and Hell, I even have the game
“Kung Fu Panda” sitting on my shelf right now that I simply didn’t get rid of
because I still like playing it. I’m great at shooting games: it’s the sort of
core of my gaming skills, but race games? Fighting games? My time on Dead or
Alive (fighting game) online was four hours of me getting my arse kicked by
other Pro gamers who could see that I simply was outclassed in every way. Now,
I don’t quit easy but it got to the point where I was even laughing at how
inadequate my “skills” were. And I couldn’t get my head around it because it
should be noted that I am pretty darn good at “DragonBall: Raging Blast” online
where I can hold my own against most people even though it is a fighting game
also.
Now this doesn’t mean that in time I won’t get better at the game or
that I will forfeit my shooting skills in favour of a quest to be the best
fighter around, all it means is that I am classed as a threat in shooting games
whereas in (most) Fighting games I am not.
So I suppose the long and short of it is that gamers will always label
themselves and others depending on the in game skill they show, and this in
turn differs between games and experiences.
Using Stories and Narrative
So today, we get to look at something close to my own heart - a subject
that I am very, very interested in. Creating stories in games.
Being specific, one of the things I personally noticed whilst creating
stories is it has a distinctive love / hate relationship. By this I mean that
when you believe in the story that you want to write - and I mean completely
heart and soul (also known as the Disney Believe) - then the story can flow out
of you like a freaking river. It’s the kind of thing where you wake up at 3am just
because you had a new idea for something that could happen. But if you don’t
believe in the story then it just won’t come to you. You end up staying up til
3 am looking at it thinking to yourself “Dear God, this is worthless.”
Relax, it’s happened to the best of us, just a natural part of the
process I’m afraid. Anyway, to take your mind off of it, let’s have a look at
this week’s questions on “Gamasutra - Features - What Every Game Developer
Needs to Know about StoryBy John Sutherland”.
“The real substance of a story is conflict.”
Well that’s true. Conflict in games is the driving force that the story
needs to get the protagonist from point A to point B. But it’s not as simple as
that, in fact like all good stories it needs to be made up of three Acts. The
first act is setting up the pieces; we get to know everybody and what is going
on around in the game. To get the ball rolling there is often some kind of
tragedy in place to give the hero the push they need, or we get to experience
conflict in some way, shape or form.
Then we get to the second act where the darker sides of the story come
into play. Things go wrong, bad stuff is flung at the hero in hopes of driving
them down. Perhaps a friend is lost, or something beyond the hero’s control has
created a gap between the hero and the rest of the world he/she thought they
knew.
Finally, we get to the third act. This is where the story has been
building up to. The hero gathers his/her strength and moves forward. They are
forced to face the evil or whatever darkness they are presented with and need
to overcome it. Often in games, the third act continues as the darkest part
right up until the last moment when an event happens where the hero ends up
triumphant.
What are the basic conflicts in stories?
According to John Sutherland – by the way this book is very very good
in terms of the old story writing tips – we have a fair few conflicts that the
hero can face.
·
Internal Conflict. I love this one; it’s where
the hero is forced to confront a situation where his/own morality and thoughts
are creating the conflict. It’s a defining moment, for example let’s say our
hero is part of a group of bandits and the leader tells our hero that he must
burn down a house that turns out to be an orphanage. This is where the internal
conflict happens. The hero suddenly thinks “Hey hang on a minute this is not
something that I want to be doing.”
·
External Conflict, This is the basis of every
action game ever made. You see that Baddie over there? Club him over the head.
There’s your external conflict right there. It’s when the hero physically
confronts something and proceeds to deal with it however the hero deems
necessary
·
And finally we have Interpersonal conflict. This
means that the hero is confronting something or someone that means something to
him, and has often wronged him in some way. Let’s say that the hero’s brother
has taken over the hero’s kingdom by exiling the hero. When the hero catches up
to the baddie we got a Thor verses Loki situation on right there.
In what fundamental way dies game story development differ from
storytelling in other forms of media?
One thing that I have noticed whilst reading is the fact that Games are
related to movies, yes it’s true, but even this isn’t a close relationship.
Unlike films or books or plays, Games are the one piece of media where the
storyteller has no control over their hero.
Nope, Instead, all the story teller can do is set up the problems and
the conflicts that the hero must face, and sometimes they might even give the
player the illusion that the story teller is dictating what the player must do
and the player will do it.
But that’s the thing about games. The player is in control and
(depending on how vast the game universe is) they will deal with the conflict
in the way they deem fit. My favourite example of this is in the game The
Matrix: Path of Neo, where right at the beginning the player had the choice to
take the red pill and play the story or bug out and take the blue pill. Sure it
meant that the game was over when you took the wrong pill, but it gave the
player the choice that they hadn’t been able to see with the films, they could
tell old Morpheus to stick the Matrix up his CPU port.
Things like Skyrim, where the player is given a task “Steal this item”.
Now the player can go up to the shop and sneakily steal the item. They can go
in bright day time and try to distract the shop keep whilst they steal it.
Hell, they may even do the direct approach and walk into the shop and kill the
shop keeper and take every item. This is point; it’s the player’s
choice.
What practical use is 'The Hero's Journey' to story tellers and game
developers?
Then I came across this question. Is this a joke? The hero’s Journey is
perhaps the best guide to storytelling I have or ever will read.
It boils down everything into how a story is built from the foundations
upwards, telling you exactly what traits characters need to become the
characters they need to become. It tells about how the game world should work,
and why the hero needs to fight for it.
It allows story tellers and game designers (who are often different
people entirely) to relate to an issue in a way that they can both understand.
For example, a game designer can show the story teller the code in the game and
the story teller won’t understand it. The story teller will will show the game
designer how something is critical for the story to move forward or to create
drama for the reader and the game designer will not understand it (maybe). But
the book allows the game designer and the story teller to get together and say,
“The reason that the story needs to move forward here is because of this, and
here the player will need to do this” etc.
It’s a good book.
Simple Level design
Ed Bryne’s passage about building simple levels teaches its
readers more than a few lessons about what one needs to keep make sure that the
level is successful (in terms of entertaining the player and challenging them).
·
There are 8 concepts needed for a level to be
“complete”. If the level designer can nail all of these (Concept, Environment,
Beginning, Ending, Goal, Challenge, Reward, Failure) then the players will be
able to enjoy the level no matter how long/short it seems
·
Designers should be able to make the Goal of the
level clear without having to outright point the player to it. This may be as
simple a as message in the beginning hinting (or even telling) the player what
they need to do, but it must not tell the player how to do it. In some of the
most successful games, the player only needs to be told once what the overall
goal is and they will do the rest
·
Designers have to take into account the genre of
the game i.e. puzzle and fit the gameplay mechanics around it. Also Designers
must not deviate from the characters set abilities, for example, if the player
can only jump and move left and right, designers shouldn’t randomly introduce a
mechanic halfway through that allows the character to interact with the
environment via switches etc
·
For the reward of completing the level, it is
often enough to move the player onto the next level, though sometimes the
player may receive a small animation to tide them over – but there doesn’t have
to be a huge fuss made each time they complete the level
·
As for failure, players will simply have to
restart the level or if the designers are particularly evil, the entire game
again
·
Players need to feel immersed in the level, so
the less hints or advice the game gives them, the better they will feel once
they have completed the level. Basic psychology actually
·
Another lesson is based on failure, mainly not
giving the player reason to hate the game or specifically the level because
they can’t find a way to complete it. Give the player all the tools they need
to complete the challenge and try to make it obvious to the player what they
need to do with each tool when they pick it up without having to outright tell
them. For example, if there is a leaking pipe and the player can see a wrench
lying around – generally speaking – the player will know what to do from there
