Building Players: Revisiting Bartle’S Taxonomy of Players
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Building Players: Revisiting Bartle’s Taxonomy of Players SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE Thomas van Dam 10002918 MASTER INFORMATION STUDIES GAME STUDIES FACULTY OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM August 24, 2015 ! 1st Supervisor 2nd Supervisor Dr. ing. S.C.J. (Sander) Bakkes Dr. Frank Nack ISLA, UvA ISLA, UvA Building Players: Revisiting Bartle’s Taxonomy of Players Thomas van Dam University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Informatics Science Park 904, Amsterdam [email protected] ABSTRACT substantially since 1996, logically there are new ways to behave in games which the Bartle Taxonomy of Players is not In order to better classify single-player games by the tuned to. However, this does not mean that Bartle's model is behaviours they facilitate, we propose a player model based on without use. It has been shown that numerous different player Bartle’s Taxonomy of Players. Through use of a questionnaire models are closely related to Bartle’s model and that the we evaluated the performance of this model compared to approach he takes with this model has its merits [19]. As we Bartle’s model, but were unable to find strong evidence that will discuss in more detail in the background chapter these made the new model stand out. We also argued that creative models come with their own shortcomings. Most notably a player behaviour should be considered as a unique and separate lack for expressing creative behaviour in games, which we kind of behaviour. This notion was supported by the data, as believe is important enough to consider separately. So for this the creative behaviour served as a significant identifier for study we take Bartle’s Taxonomy of Players and modify it so sandbox style games. that it caters to a wider variety of games, including games that focus on creative behaviour. In addition, we will look whether Keywords creative behaviour in games is worth giving its own category. Player modelling, Bartle’s Taxonomy of Players, sandbox, So briefly put the main research questions for this study are: games • Can a new model differentiate between single-player games better than Bartle’s model? 1. INTRODUCTION • Is it worthwhile to consider creative behaviour in With the ever increasing pace at which new games are released games separately? it becomes more and more difficult to find games that we like to play. While the internet can help in finding new games that 2. BACKGROUND we might like, either through professional reviews or In order to better understand what we set out to do it is comments from other individuals, the information provided is important to consider the context of this research. We will first mostly a subjective view of how the game was experienced. look at player modelling in a broader sense, before diving into While genre classifications offer some guidance, there can still the specifics of Bartle’s Taxonomy of Players. We will then be a wide variety of games within a genre that might or might take a look at other existing player models and their relation to not appeal to one’s personal taste. By looking at the kinds of Bartle’s, before finally considering the position of creative behaviour that games facilitate and players can enjoy, it is gameplay in player modelling. possible to create a model that provides an objective base for reviewers and consumers to evaluate the games they play or 2.1. Player Modelling maybe want to play. This is known as player modelling, and its Player modelling is a research area that focuses on analysing uses go beyond simply finding fun new games to play, both for how players go about in playing the games that they play, and academic purposes as business purposes. The academic value then using this information for various ends [4,15,20]. In lies in its usefulness as a common ground for researchers to addition, there are multiple ways to go about player modelling base their ideas and theories on. This ensures that the parties [4]. In this thesis we will exclusively deal with constructing a involved in the academic discussion are on the same page model based on the behaviour of the player displayed within a game. However, instead of working from the game’s point of regarding the observations made on player behaviour. view to gain insight into the player, we use the model to Additionally, this means that researchers can focus more on classify games based on the kinds of behaviour that they their subject matter, rather than having to explicitly explain facilitate. So rather than gaining insight into the individual how they are interpreting displayed behaviour. For a business player as to modify the game for optimal enjoyment, we focus player modelling can be useful since they could use the model on a more general view of the game, looking at how multiple of a certain player to recommend new games to the player that players play the game to gain insight into the game. This dual facilitate behaviour in line with the gathered model. purpose of player models makes them very versatile, which is why it is used in game development [15,20] as well as game A common player model that has been referenced numerous analysis [6,19]. times and keeps generating interest is the Bartle Taxonomy of Players [19]. Perhaps the reason for this is that it was one of 2.2. Bartle’s Taxonomy of Players the earliest, or that it is one of the more simple models, but nevertheless it remains one of the most well known models out 2.2.1 The model and player types there [19]. Yet there has been a fair amount of criticism Barte’s Taxonomy of Players grew out of a long discussion about the reasons why players play MUDs. While summarising regarding Bartle’s model, including by Bartle himself, who the contents of this discussion Bartle saw a pattern emerging; claims that his taxonomy might be incomplete for other types most reasons for playing could be grouped up in four distinct of games besides MUDs [7]. Games have evolved quite new cards for Magic: The Gathering [16]. They use a cast of Figure 1: Bartle’s Taxonomy of Players three player types: Timmy, Johnny, and Spike, which roughly correspond to Bartle’s Socialisers, Explorers, and Achievers. In addition, they also allow for players to associate with multiple playing styles in varying degrees of intensity. A possible reason for not having a Killer equivalent in the model Wizards of the Coast employ might be that the multiplayer aspect of the game is in most cases mutual. Players agree to play a game with each other, whereas in MUDs the players are placed in a game with random other players. 2.2.3 Shortcomings of Bartle’s Taxonomy In a world where new games and game genres pop up on a regular basis, the fact that Bartle’s model is twenty years old does not do it any favours. Since then games have moved at a breakneck speed, introducing various new ways to enjoy games along the way. Bartle’s Taxonomy is simply not equipped to classify behaviour in most modern games, categories [6]. This formed the base for his taxonomy, which although this does not mean the model itself is flawed. It is just can be observed in Figure 1. that when an industry develops so rapidly a twenty year old Bartle constructed two axes to map his four categories to, model can hardly be expected to have the same relevance. based on the sources of interest that each category has in the Which brings us to another shortcoming of Bartle’s Taxonomy game. On the x-axis there is a focus on players on the left, of Players; that it was initially designed for MUDs only, a quite versus a focus on the game world on the right. The y-axis goes specific kind of game which was popular at that time. This has from a focus on acting at the top, to a focus on interacting on made it difficult to use the model in different games, even the bottom. The player types are situated in the quadrants Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games, which share associated with their interests. A closer look at each of the many similarities with MUDs [7]. This greatly reduces the player types follows effectiveness of the model, especially when considering the 1) Achievers fact that MUDs (and MMO’s in general) are steadily declining in popularity [8]. Achievers focus on acting on the game world, which boils down to doing things in the game. They care little about the Pigeonholing Bartle’s model even further is the fact that it was other players in the game, or about the intricacies of the game developed based on an online multiplayer game. This means if it does not result in them gaining more points. that all games which focus more on delivering a single player experience are hard to classify using Bartle’s model. 2) Explorers Explorers are interesting in interacting with the game world, 2.3. Other Player Models always looking for new things in the game. They thrive on Up to now we have almost exclusively dealt with Bartle’s being surprised by the game, but not so much by other players. Taxonomy of Players, but there are numerous other models out 3) Socialisers there that aim to categorise players by their playing style. A particularly interesting model is the Four Keirsy Temperaments As the name suggests, socialisers focus on interacting with [13], which uses a categorisation very similar to Bartle’s.