篇目1，探索性格模型分类对游戏设计的指导作用

作者：Bart Stewart

[本文综合参考了多个游戏心理学系统，旨在制定一个统一的模型，以帮助游戏开发者针对特定的玩家类型设计游戏。]

过去十多年相继出现了不计其数的玩家心理模型。在早期的简单模型中， Bartle分类法被认为是最有参考价值、最具持久性的模型之一。我认为，这是因为Bartle分类法能够反映玩家的游戏性格（即游戏状态下所表现出来的个性）。换而言之，Bartle之所以长期被引以为参考，是因为它借鉴了其他有效的一般性格模型。

事实上，一些流传已久的游戏类型和游戏设计模型在概念上可谓“资源共享”。所以，我的第一个主张是，无论是Bartle分类法，或者Caillois、 Lazzaro、 Bateman提出的游戏类型模型、 还是Edwards、Hunicke/LeBlanc/Zubek等人提出的游戏设计模型，都是本文所谓的统一模型的变体。

（游戏邦注：作者在本文中引用的Richard Bartle、David Keirsey、Christopher Bateman等人的文献参考，是其本人的理解。因此，读者不必将其当成原作者的本意。）

Bartle分类法的四种玩家类型

最初的四种Bartle分类法（提出者在他的书《Designing Virtual Worlds》中已将其拓展成8种）的正式描述出现在游戏Multi-User Dungeon (MUD)的联合制作人Richard Bartle所写的文章《Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs》中。

提出这个分类法的基础是，观察和分析玩家在多人游戏模式下所表现出来的行为。根据Bartle分类法的描述，可以把玩家分成四种类型，即杀手、成就者、探索者和社交家：

杀手：干扰游戏世界的运作或其他玩家的游戏活动。

成就者：通过克服游戏世界的挑战，不断积累声望等。

探索者：探索控制和运作游戏世界的系统。

社交家：与其他玩家沟通交流游戏内容，从而形成社交关系。

这四种类型的玩家是根据“内容”和“控制”，这两种主要的游戏玩法喜好分化而来的。“内容”和“控制”具有两种相互排斥的形式——“内容”强调单纯而直接地对游戏世界中的物品施加行为，或与游戏系统的深入互动；“控制”着重于玩家通过两条途径，即其他玩家的动态行为或相对静止的游戏本身，来体验游戏。

杀手和成就者的兴趣主要是对物品或人物施加行为，他们把物品和人物当作外部目标。而探索者和社交家更倾向于与物品或其他玩家建立更深刻的互动关系，即更关注内在品质。

与此类似，杀手和社交家热衷于与游戏中的其他玩家之间的动态互动；而成就者和探索者的主要关注点是控制存在于游戏世界本身的、由开发者定义的游戏内容物。

Bartle分类法的理论基础是两组互补的玩家目标：动作或互动（内容）和玩家或游戏世界（控制）。Bartle据此画出了一个四分坐标图，每个象限对应一种玩家类型。玩家可以根据以上四种类型的描述和四分坐标图找到自己的对应类型。例如，偏好动作且更关注游戏世界的玩家在游戏时，更可能属于游戏中的成就者。

以下是Bartle 分类法的四分坐标图（游戏邦注：本图实际上是把原图顺时针旋转了90度，原图出自《Players Who Suit MUDs》，至于原因，请读者耐心往下读，自会明白）。

Keirsey性格模型的四种性格类型

上世纪70年代，心理学家David Keirsey把Myers-Briggs人格模型中描述的16种类型提炼成四种一般类型。在他的（合作者Marilyn Bates）《Please Understand Me》一书中，Keirsey描述了这4种“性格”，同时给出名称：

技师（感觉+理解）：现实主义、策略、操作（对像为人或物）、实用主义、冲动、行动导向、感觉导向

守护者（感觉+判断）：务实、逻辑、等级、组织、注重细节、占有、过程导向、安全导向

理性者（直觉+思考）：创新、战略、逻辑、科学/技术、前景导向、结果导向、知识导向

理想主义者（直觉+感情）：想象、交际、情绪、关系导向、引人注目、“以人为本”、身份导向

在这本书的第二版本《Please Understand Me II》中，作者和Richard Bartle一样，把他的4种性格类型划分为四个象限，以体现四者在内部结构上的联系。然而，在他提出这个模型时，我已经得出另一个稍微不同的分类版本。

我认为最基本的人类行为分类是，内在（偏向可能性和抽象性） vs. 外在（偏向具体性和现实性）和改变（自由和机遇） vs. 构建（规则或组织）。如此一来，四种性格就各自综合了外在/内在和改变/构建这两对元素：

保留Richard Bartle的四种类型，再替换上我个人主张的坐标轴，我们就得到了新的Keirsey性格模型。如下图所示：

Keirsey和Bartle

本文我主要探讨的是Keirsey 和Bartle主张的分类模型。首先，我们谈谈David Keirsey描述的四种性格类型——技师、守护者、理性者和理想主义者——分别对应 Richard Bartle描述的四种玩家类型：

Bartle认为对游戏玩家施加作用的倾向，映射到性格理论上，就是偏向于内向或外向改变。以此类推，在Bartle分类法中，关注游戏玩法的倾向，在性格理论中的描述是，关注动态的玩家或静止的游戏世界的倾向。我个人版本的Keirsey性格模型认为，玩家通常倾向于改变或构建。我认为因为Bartle分类法和Keirsey性格模型之间存在两种基本的价值动机的类比，所以由这些动机产生的类型和性格之间也存在类比。

下图是Keirsey性格模型和Bartle分类法的结合版：

以下是关于各个组合的简要描述，表现了Keirsey和Bartle如何根据相同的基本动机总结出各种性格/玩家类型。

理想主义者/社交家：Bartle如此描述社交家：“……对人感兴趣，他们认为游戏玩家之间的关系很重要……玩家的成长是个体性的，随着不断成熟，唯一基本上有意义事就是……渐渐知道他人、理解他们、形成美妙持久的关系。”

以上描述与Keirseian对理想主义者的描述颇有联系：理想主义者充分意识到他人是自我发现（内在改变）的生命之旅中的一部分。一定程度上，想象力丰富的理想主义者总是在进行角色扮演——他们不断地创造自己的（或他人的）意象，为了达到自己渴望的感觉，他们觉得应该通过自己的行动来模拟。

守护者/成就者：对于守护者而言，游戏世界是一个危机四伏的地方，所以有必要通过积累物质财富来保护好自己……只是为了以防万一。因此，守护者注重收集金钱、争夺稀有资源、购买和储备上好货物、形成稳定而持久的团体关系、利用财富（外向构建）锁定自己与游戏世界的联系，从而保持自己在游戏世界的地位。

Bartle对成就者的描述是这样的：“成就者把积分和升级当作主要目标，……成就者为自己在等级制度森严的游戏世界占据正统地位而感到自豪，为自己能在如此之短的时间内达到这样的地位而骄傲。”升级、领导和积累大量掉落物品等行为都受到安全导向型动机的驱使，而其他动机，如强大的觉察力、对自我成长的理解则没有这样的激励作用。

这就解释了为什么守护者/成就者热衷于“重复刷任务”的行为，而其他玩家丝毫看不出这种行为的乐趣所在。对守护者/成就者而言，所谓一分耕耘一分收获，奖励应该与投入成正比。当某款游戏围绕简单明确的、能够积累地位标识的任务设计时，它必定能吸引安全导向型玩家的目光。

理性者/探索者：理性者的处世行为一成不变——探索原始数据（内向构建）背后的组织性结构能给他们带来快乐。这些原始数据可以是空间（地理）或时间（形态）特征，也可以是因果特征（要求）或关系特征（联系）。基本上，理性者的快感来自从战略的高度上理解作为整体的游戏系统。

Bartle对探索者的描述如下：“真正的乐趣来自探索和收集最齐全的游戏地图。”在核心动机——找感觉、找安全、找知识和找身份中，作为“发现”的探索最接近于理性者的知识引导倾向。对理性者/探索者而言，一旦数据背后的规则水落石出了，这就足够了——理解本身就是一种奖励。这些玩家可以从知识分享中得到乐趣，但他们向别人传授知识并不需要或期望得到额外奖励。

技师/杀手：最后，我们再说说杀手（或者我更偏向于称他们为“操纵者”）。就游戏玩法而言，这些人非常难理解，因为大多数虚拟世界的编码规则已经把他们的操作风格作为“不安定因素”（即使其他玩家焦虑不安）给边缘化了，且试图扑灭杀手风气。正如Bartle所言：“杀手的快感是建立在把自己的行为强加给别人的基础上。”他还指出，杀手“希望只表现他们凌驾于他人之上的一面。”

这种渴望掌控一切的力量与Keirseian 对技师的描述遥相呼应。技师（如他们的性格标签所示）喜好技术型操作。技师/杀手是工具使用者、亢奋狂人、天生的政治家、战斗专家、冒险的赌徒和卓越的谈判者。无论是什么战略情形，找到并表现出优势几乎是他们的本能。为了保持最大限度的个人自由（外向改变），他们表现出统治自己世界的要求。

在2011年的GDC的游戏开发者演说上，Ryan Creighton展示了他的硬币收集游戏，其中有个“社交工程”部分（“social engineering”），我们可以从中找到以上描述的力证。为了获得游戏的胜利，守护者/成就者会在遵守游戏规则的前提下，满屋子地找别人要硬币；理性者/探索者会淡定地坐看硬币的交易，试图发现游戏的本质；技师/杀手会不断地研究如何缩短游戏时间，并且，作为天生的谈判专家，他们很轻易地能说服别人把一袋子金币拱手相让。看吧，事情就是这样。

如果参与者需要听什么人的慷慨陈辞，那个人肯定是操作者。他们只是等待着时机出现，然后在精心设计的社交游戏规则中引起一点小混乱。（详见Ryan的第一手描述，个人认为这是个研究技师/杀手的经典视角。）

最后注意一下Keirsey/Bartle的结合版模型：Keirsey性格模型和Bartle分类法在某些方面的视角可能并不一致。这是因为Bartle分类法来源于多玩家环境，倾向于外向型玩家，而性格模型则兼顾了外向型和内向型两种玩家。

比如，在Bartle分类法中，称注重社交互动的人为“社交家”是合情合理的，但对于偏好单人游戏的内向空想家，似乎担不起”社交家“之名。这些不太讲社交的社交家更喜欢个人化的娱乐方式或抽象游戏，在这点上有些贴近理性者/探索者，因此很难将他们各自区别出来。进一步研究通常需要考虑他们玩游戏的主要原因是找乐子（理想主义者倾向）还是训练思维技巧（理性者倾向）。

Chris Bateman的DGD1模型

即使考虑到了内向性和外向性，并非所有玩家都能在四种基本性格类型中把自己对号入座。 Bartle分类法和Keirsey性格模型都没有好好解决这个现实问题。有些人认为自己既像内向型玩家，但也有外向型的表现，既重视改变也不忽视构建。

由Christopher Bateman编写的书《21st-Century Game Design》，探究了游戏玩法设计的“集群游戏设计”模型（”demographic game design” model (DGD1)），我认为这个模型有利地配合了Keirsey/Bartle模型。 Bateman 提出的模型虽然没有匹配各个性格类型，但形成了次级游戏类型，从而填补了主要游戏类型之间的空白地带。

Bateman 所定义的四种游戏类型元素和硬核/休闲模式一样，不直接映射 Keirsey/Bartle模型，但对应了四种 Keirsey/Bartle类型之间的空白段。下图反映了这种叠加关系（返回看前面几张图，这下明白为什么我说是顺时针旋转90度了吧？）：

Bartle分类法存在“绝对化玩家类型”的缺陷，DGD1的价值（除了实用性和本身作为性格模型的价值）就在于填补这个不足。有些玩家知道自己的类型介于探索者和成就者之间，或混合了策略（理性者）和逻辑（守护者）两种表现，往往“不适合”用Bartle分类法归类，但现在他们可以借助DGD1模型，知道自己倾向于征服者类型。DGD1模型并没有摒弃Bartle分类法的价值，相反，DGD1模型深化、升华了这个分类法，从而引出Keirsey/Bartle/Bateman模型（结构如图4所示）。

注：《21st-Century Game Design》出版后，DGD2模型的问卷随之出现在iHobo网站上。DGD2模型由基于Myers-Briggs的DGG1模型衍生出来，更加明确地围绕Keirsey性格模型构建。DGD2没有破坏或更改DGD1所提出的游戏类型模型，而是采纳了Keirsey性格理论的某些概念，在Keirsey性格模型（和Bartle分类法）的DGD1模型中突出了征服者、管理者、漫游者和参与者类型。（即后来的BrainHex六分模型。）

统一模型

在我研究关于玩家类型和游戏玩法模型的文献时，我很惊讶地发现，许多其他模型也各自提出了三分或四分法。更引人注目的是，不同作者对各自的分类法的说辞非常贴近Keirsey/Bartle模型描述的核心游戏类型。

因此，我的第二个主张是，不仅Bartle分类法是Keirsey性格模型的子类，还有无数个其他知名的游戏和游戏设计模型也是四种基本性格类型的变体。

当然，还存在其他性格和游戏模型并不是四种基本风格的变体，这也是我们必须承认的事实。我明白这个道理，所以我没打算把我见到的所有性格类型都凑成一个。作为一名资深系统设计师，我充分意识到“把各种现象都当成既定理论的实例”是很危险的——我已经尽力避免这种错误，我所做的不过是把各种分类模型的元素对应地列成一个表：

上表使用提出者挑选出的词来表示各种游戏类型或人格模型的基本概念。该表旨在一目了然地展现游戏类型和游戏设计层次模型之间的关联。另外，本表也参考了其他活动团体（办公室等工作场所）成员的性格模型，我还在后面列了三个独立项（动机、问题解决和目标），作为对各个类型的意义解读。

当Caillois和Lazzaro遇到Keirsey和Bartle

统一模型的第一部分把Keirsey的人类性格一般理论与Richard Bartle、Roger Caillois和 Nicole Lazzaro描述的四种基本游戏类型联系起来。

注：尽管Roger Caillois表示他不认为他所描述的四种类型是完整的分类，我个人倒是认为，他的理论比他所想的更好。他提出的六个概念完整地填补了其他人得出的四种核心类型之间的“空隙”。因此，我主张把他提出的模式归入标准模型中，当然，允许读者持有不同的意见。

Caillois描述的“眩晕”（ilinx）的乐趣、亢奋，对应感觉导向型动机，即Bartle和Keirsey各自对杀手和技师的形容。

Lazzaro的“严肃的”或“深沉的”乐趣（游戏邦注：她在关于游戏条件下的情绪反映的群集分析文中，定义四种核心情绪类型，这是其中之一）也指向感觉导向，特别是，寻找来自积极游戏的内在奖励——兴奋和轻松的感觉。再者，这种定位非常接近于技师/杀手在熟练操纵人物或物品（外向改变）时产生的感觉。

无论是Caillois的“眩晕”说还是Lazzaro的“困难的乐趣”论，其在概念上都接近Bartle（成就者）和Keirsey（守护者）所主张的安全导向型动机。“眩晕”和“困难的乐趣”都是关于在遵守游戏竞争规则的前提下得到实在的、外在的奖励——这是成就者/守护者的确凿特征，他们坚信，游戏世界必须有一套完备的规则、且在遵守这种规则的条件下，玩家的付出与收获必须成正比。

Caillois显然把模仿与“模拟”，或者对二次元现实的积极建设相关联。这正是富有创造力的理性者/探索者的所作所为。对于理性者，探索或建立新世界的乐趣反映了他们作为探索者的独一无二的个性，从而使他们能够理解新世界的内部构建。热衷于模仿的理性者/探索者就这样与Lazzaro的“容易的乐趣”搭上了关系。 “容易的乐趣”，描述的是沉浸于游戏体验的玩家偏好。

Caillois描述的第四种游戏模式，即机会，因为是建立在随机性和机遇性的基础之上，所以根据随机的死亡名单或卡片变化，决定结果，就能把公平性加储于所有玩家。对理想主义者/社交家而言，这种方式无可厚菲，因为这与游戏的规则几乎没有关系，运气不仅是可以接受的，甚至可以说是必须公平地散布在结果中。规则是人定的，为的是保证玩家之间（与人类或NPC）的互动。这几乎与Lazzaro构想的“人的乐趣”不约而同，在游戏世界中，这种随机乐趣不仅是可使用的工具，也是要克服的挑战、要理解的系统，还是玩家彼此享受有意义的关系的社交背景。

GNS+和MDA+

除了这些游戏类型模型，还有两种重要的游戏设计模型，在定义上，与 Keirsey的性格模型有关。它们就是：游戏者/叙述者/模拟者（GNS）游戏设计模型（由Ron Edwards最先提出，简称为GNS+模型，但后来被弃置不用了） 和机制/动态/美学（MDA）框架（由Hunicke、LeBlanc和Zubek阐述，简称为MDA+模型）。

三分法的GNS+模型与Keirsey/Bartle的三种分类形成紧密的对应。游戏者设计的风格，注重游戏的操作机制或规则，显然是对应了以规则导向、竞争、难度的乐趣引导为关键词的守护者/成就者。与此类似，理性者/探索者最可能被模拟者的设计风格所吸引，即为建设和投入到复杂而逻辑上一致的游戏世界而到快乐。而“以人为本”、“人的乐趣”的剧情叙述则受到理想主义者/社交家的青睐，而这也是叙述者使游戏有趣的主要手段。

以上解释并没有提及原始的感觉性。第四种设计风格（即我所谓的经验主义者）强调游戏产生强烈的体验的功能——这是我对感觉导向型的技师/杀手的描述。如果经验主义者的有效性受到与游戏者、叙述者和模拟者相同的认可，那么，我们就得到了一个与Keirsey/Bartle模型及其他相关游戏模型完全平齐的GNS+模型。

在我看来，把这种类型补充到GNS模型中未尝不可。在Robin Laws提出的游戏类型模型中，经验主义者的倾向与“亢奋”玩家类型非常相似。另外，喜欢享受激烈的游戏体验正好类比 Caillois所描述的“眩晕”乐趣。

对于MDA游戏设计模型，我打算“故计重施”。与GNS+模型的描述似类，MDA模型只缺少一个着重于直接的动作欣赏的设计类型，也就是游戏设计师想从玩家身上引出的精神层面上的感觉。我主张把“运动”作为MDA+模型中的第四种风格的名称，运动再次对准了Caillois的“眩晕”偏好，即寻找动作导向型游戏中的乐趣（有趣的是，最初的GNS和MDA模型都缺少概念来描述操作如何产生紧张的感觉）。

和最初的GNS模型一样，MDA模型的三个类型对应了统一模型所描述的游戏类型和性格类型。作为约束玩家行为的规则，机制是守护者/成就者的首要选择，他们自然而然地欢迎游戏者的设计方法。 “但你在游戏里到底玩什么？”的最实际的回答就是机制。动态是模拟型理性者/探索者最主要的兴趣所在，他们不由自主地把注意力放在游戏的功能性行为上，因为这能给他们带来独特的二次元生活体验。理想主义者/社交家总是对他人抱着理想的观念，并以此作为游戏的态度，他们能够以最快的速度觉察到某款游戏是否满足美学要求——即这款游戏好不好。

解释完了理论，接下来我们准备研究统一模型的用途。

以统一模型解读当前游戏

有效的模型应该能够解释为什么某种游戏能满足某类玩家的喜好要求。以热门的FPS游戏，如《使命召唤》或《战场》系列为例，这些游戏强调高仿真的面面、在高压情形下做出快速的战略行动、真实的敏捷操作、快感时刻、清楚标记的内部线路、令人眩目的部件组合、可收集的成就/战利品、（多人模式下）激烈的竞争、基于角色的合作、团体领导的地位标记。所有的这些特征都与外向性（大多是直接的真实体验）有关，而与抽象的内向品质（如思考或感觉）关系不大。

在FPS中，高速、激亢的战略行动的直接受众是外向型的技师/杀手。外向型的守护者/成就者的喜好是处理写得一清二楚的操作规则、收集游戏内物品和成就（这是他们采取行动的目的）。一定程度上，如果一款游戏高度强调以上两方面元素，那么这款游戏既能受到技师/杀手的青睐，也能博得守护者/成就者的好感。这种混搭组合放在Chris Bateman的DGD1模型中的休闲游戏模式中，可能有些奇怪——纯FPS的游戏通常是非常紧张刺激——但它符合Chris Bateman描述的“休闲”游戏的概念，根据这种概念，玩家在游戏中没有投入多少情绪，所以想玩就玩，想退就退，游戏主题很实在，也很容易理解，且针对的是大众市场。

站在实时动作/竞技游戏类型对立面的是冒险游戏，如《神秘岛》、《无尽的旅程》和创意游戏，如《Minecraft》或回合制策略游戏《文明》。这些游戏的内在特征既强调剧情，又注重与情绪和思考有关的元素，正是强调动作和竞争积累的外向型FPS的实例。我们有理由认为，大多数带有强烈的FPS倾向的游戏玩家不喜欢冒险游戏，而大多数自认为是冒险游戏玩家的人并不待见典型的FPS。这正是标准模型，结合互相对立的硬核（剧情/益智）和休闲（动作/积宝）倾向，根据游戏类型分析做出来的预测。

如果统一模型有效，那么它应该也能够解释“出乎意料”成功的游戏（如《Minecraft》）的吸引力所在。在我写这篇文章时，《Minecraft》仍在测试阶段，现在它已经为开发商积累了数千万美元的收益。该作的着力点有二：创意探索和刺激求生。当玩家探索洞穴或搭建筑物（都是探索导向型的活动）时，玩家的角色可能会突然被猛兽攻击。杀手最看好这或战或逃的刺激反应，另外，搞破坏、从高处跳下、（被推）落入致命的岩浆中等实实在在的感觉也颇讨杀手的欢心。

理性者/探索者和技师/杀手的结合相当于Chris Bateman的DGD1模型所描述的强调策略/战略的“管理者”游戏类型。Chris Bateman将“管理者”描述为，可以在自己确实喜欢的游戏上奋战数小时的“复杂引导型玩家”，他们的类型“与精通和系统有关”。这几乎解释了《Minecraft》为什么能够对那些喜欢按自己的设计重置游戏的玩家群体产生强大的吸引力。

（有趣的是，《Minecraft》的主设计师在游戏中增加了成就系统，将以“冒险升级”为名发布。这些新的功能特征可能受到守护者/成就者的欢迎，因为当前的守护者/成就者从他们的角度出发，抱怨《Minecraft》高度非指向性的游戏玩法很无聊很难讨喜。吸引成就者的新功能特征发布后，《Minecraft》能否保持探索型杀手的忠实，是个值得探讨的问题。）

在下表中，我列出了各种游戏在统一模型中的对应类别：

统一模型的另一个潜力是，通过玩家声称的在玩游戏来定位玩家自然游戏类型。这一定程度上受到个体玩家对“游戏玩家”文化的投入程度的影响。玩家越是积极地把玩新游戏当成生活习惯，统一模型就越能准确地推断他们的一般性格类型。

另一方面，如果一个人只是玩一点轻型的或大众化的游戏（如《大富翁》），要判定他的性格类型，统一模型的预测性的精度可能极低。在这种情况下，没有任何模型能够起作用，因为做推断的信息实在不足。 即使是强调多人游戏的Bartle分类法也很难对那些偏爱单人游戏的玩家作出判断。

此外，个人的游戏选择有可能不能完美地对应到四种主要类型中。此时，可以考虑他们可能是DGD1模型所描述的四种类型之一。在DGD1模型中，各个类型都是Keirsey/Bartle模型描述的两种主要类别的组合。

通常情况下，玩家玩的游戏越多，他们对游戏玩家文化的投入程度就越高——统一模型对他们的性格类型的定位就越精确。反之也成立：玩家玩的游戏越少，统一模型的推断精度越差。这不是统一模型的缺陷，而只是缺少足够的归类信息。

统一模型促进新游戏设计

统一模型本身并不涉及游戏玩法功能特征。但它有可能把玩法功能特征与特定的游戏类型倾向联结起来——不同的活动显然满足不同的需要。这样，设计师就可以根据各种功能特征的适应性来制定有针对性的设计目标。

下表反映了游戏玩法功能和游戏类型的对应：

假如，你将设计一款令人兴奋的、“有大量奖励”的游戏。根据上表，你可以看到“令人兴奋的”对应的应该是技师/杀手风格，而“奖励”显然偏向守护者/成就者。那么你所需要的就是，一种综合了两种元素（如果可能）的游戏玩法，但至少确保涉及其中之一。

所以，理想的游戏概念可能是一些街机风格的赛车游戏。这类游戏需要高度物理性环境，使玩家可以直接精确地操作赛车（但为了顺利得到奖励，玩家必须技艺精湛）。要让游戏的核心机制既强调紧张的操作动作，又注重简单的满足感、清楚的奖励收集目标、就必须保证所有针对这两种游戏类型的对象参与其中。尽管，高度调强物理性和物品丰富的动作、同时取悦技师/杀手和守护者/成就者的游戏，非常少见。根据上例，统一模型的作用就是促进新游戏的设计，因为它强大的测试的建设性作用可能会启发开发者考虑到不太常见的游戏业型组合。

那么，同时迎合理想主义者/社交家的内向改变目标和技师/杀手的外向改变渴望的游戏是怎么样的呢？（对应DGD1模型的“漫游者”类型）这样的游戏，如果不掺杂理性者/探索者和守护者/成就者的模拟者或游戏者的构建倾向，可能会变成很混乱的、高度社交化的、狂事突发的环境。（事实上，这听起来非常像《第二人生》，对吧？这样的东西能像单人游戏那样运作吗？ Facebook 游戏又怎么样呢？）

融合守护者/成就者和理想主义者/社交家这两个对立的倾向为一体的游戏也不太常见（对应的类型应该是DGD1模型中的“参与者”游戏风格）。为了完整地构成这种独特的品质，这类游戏必须强调基于规则而产生社交关系和活动的游戏功能特征。如此，成就者可以欣赏社交的稳定性和“社交升级”，同时社交家也可以欣赏到创造关于玩家的强大工具。（尽管这类游戏大概已经存在了——《模拟人生》不正是综合了这两种游戏风格吗？其他参与者风格的游戏不正是《模拟人生》的翻版吗？）

结论

虽然没有什么人类行为模型堪称完美，但现实问题只是，一个既定的模型是否能够帮助游戏设计师有效地预测玩家的需求、解释需求的原因、启发满足需求的办法。就这点看来，我认为我所主张的统一模型再加DGD1模型，不失为一套充分地解释和预测玩家偏好的整体理论。

有些人当然会反对统一模型的某个方面，或甚至否认所有“把人框架化”的性格模型的整个概念。 我不指望这些人承认该模型的巨大启发价值。毫无疑问，许多人也各自观察得出不少独特的关联组合，如Ethan Kennerly探索Bartle分类学和David Keirsey性格模型之间的相似性。Christopher Bateman也在他的DGD分类法中详述许多游戏类型模型的组合。

我认为统一模型给我们提供的是一种深刻的研究视角，即不止是一两种知名的游戏操作或游戏设计理论互相或与一般性格模型之间存在紧密的关系，无数种理论都是相辅相成的。

包括统一模型，各种理论的提出者都达成共识：玩家希望根据一般性格类型来表达自己的游戏类型。我指出多种模型共享的特征，旨在为正在思考玩家动机以设计出更优秀游戏的设计师提供一个理论框架。

如果有其他模型能够更好地展示解释和预测的力量，那么，我会很乐意地抛开现在这个模型，热心的接纳新模型。重要的不是我个人的“正确”，而是有志于创造好游戏的人可以拥有一种实用的概念工具。

如果有人可以拿出更易解读和预测游戏类型的模型，玩家和游戏开发者、发行商都将从中受益。

我希望设计师在谈论或设计游戏时，这个统一模型可以对他们有所启发。

附录

以下表格表现了各个类型的信息。这不仅反映了各个分类法之间的概念联系，还可以充当特定游戏玩法要求的设计指导。

注：“Keirsey”到“Covey”这几行文本的第三列是直接摘自各个游戏类型或性格模型的主张者的文献或展示。Caillois部分的文字出自Meyer Barash对原文《Les Jeux et Les Hommes》 的英译版。GNS+中的“经验主义”和MDA+中的“动力学”（Kinetics）完全是我个人的说法，因为三个模型中都不存在这些概念。

篇目2，解析对玩家产生作用的5种吸引力类型

作者：Jason Tocci

我曾经见过弟弟们尝试在游戏中驾驶SUV飞下悬崖。这是许多年前的事情，那时《侠盗猎车手3》还算是新游戏，但已经可以很容易从网络上找到让汽车飞行的作弊码。在将近1个小时的时间里，他尝试让汽车滑过河面冲入足球场。最终，他们穿过足球场的墙面，成功让汽车停在球场中，发现场上的粉丝们正在叫喊某个球队的名字。

当我阅读各种有关为何我们认为游戏“有趣”的理论时，时常会回想起这件事。有些最流行的参与度理论认为，游戏需要提供优化级别的挑战，包含令人愉快的“流程”。诚然，这些东西能够增添游戏的趣味性，但是游戏的趣味性还涉及到其他的内容，例如有意打乱物理规则带来的兴奋感，以及最终产生的黑色幽默。

同时，通用于各种不同类型玩家的理论可以用来探究游戏对我们产生的影响，但其中的内容绝非挑战性这么简单。

但是，这些理论在尝试简化和代码化玩家想法的过程中，在探究游戏如何以不同方式或在不同背景下产生影响，以及如何处理与精心构建的模型不相符的游戏吸引力时遇到了许多问题。

我在本文陈述了5种吸引力类别，描述我们参与到游戏中的不同方式（游戏邦注：有些方式可能包含多种吸引力类别）。

这个吸引力框架形成于2008至2011年间开展的研究，包括网络资源的分析（游戏邦注：比如从公共论坛讨论和博客评论中收集资源）和实验研究（比如在街机店中同他人一起玩游戏）。

我将在下文中提供的吸引力不一定都是“优秀”的吸引力，这个框架中包含受部分设计师批评的吸引方法，但是它们可以让你明白哪些内容可以让游戏显得有趣，以及如何融合不同种类的吸引力来鼓励甚至阻止不同种类的参与度。

玩家和吸引力类型

我有意从游戏和玩法特征的角度来描述这个理论，而不是玩家自身的特征。无论你讨论的是区别“休闲”和“硬核”的常识还是利用社交心理学的更科学化的方法，玩家个性模型和人口统计学都因其简单性而极具吸引力。

尽管如此，从玩游戏的角度来描述参与度似乎更加有效，主要原因有3点。

第一，“玩家类型”理论往往无法同人们玩游戏的真正实验性和见闻性证据相匹配。我们在不同的游戏中会呈现出不同的“个性”，甚至在提供各种不同机制的同一个游戏中也会如此。

比如，以本文开头的故事为例，我的弟弟们不断地驾驶汽车从悬崖飞下。那么，根据Bartle的玩家分类，他们属于何种玩家类型呢？

算是不断探索游戏系统和故事世界的探索者吗？他们试图进入游戏内的足球场，想知道游戏逻辑是否允许他这么做，他们想要知道足球场中究竟有什么。

他们努力打破基于规则的挑战，算是成就者吗？这是个他们自己设立的挑战，但是仍然有完成的条件，最终发现的内容也可以被视为奖励。

他们会同其他人一起玩游戏，共同探索游戏中的故事，这样算是社交者吗？诚然，合作体验游戏并分享笑点也能够算是游戏的吸引力。

他们试图颠覆游戏的规则，算是杀戮者吗？如果他们没有使用作弊码的话，就不能以这种方法来体验游戏。

如果我们发现，在其他情况下他们会独自玩游戏，遵从游戏规则并将注意力集中在故事情节上，那么这是否会改变我们的上述论断？或者，如果我们发现他们以完全不同的方式来体验其他游戏，比如在竞争性运动游戏中回避所有“作弊”或探索作法，那么是否也会改变我们的论断？

坦诚地说，Bartle的这个模型原本就不是用来描述所有的游戏玩家，而是用来描述MUD玩家。他甚至还强调，有3种玩家完全没有将MUD视为“游戏”，而是将其视为“消遣之物”、“运动”和“娱乐”。他承认，多数玩家多少都会涉及到四种类型的特点，但总体上会更偏向于某种特定类型。

所以，我的目标是专注于小群体玩家或单个题材来揭示问题。玩家在不同的游戏或不同的社交背景下会展示出不同的个性和行为，所以不能以个性和内在的“类型”来作为愉悦的根源。我的弟弟们以特定的方式来玩游戏，不只是因为他们属于何种玩家，当时的情境背景也很重要：所有人都是同自己熟识的其他玩家分享游戏，而且他们在玩的是一款允许他们采取不同玩法的游戏。

这种想法给我带来了第二个问题，基于玩家类型而不是行为类型来描述我们如何参与到游戏中。围绕玩家类型来设计游戏，玩家类型的不确定性便是我们面临的风险。

这种风险造成的危害可能同我们错失部分我们不知道其存在的玩家一样无足轻重，有些玩家不能被简单地划归“硬核”或“休闲”，也不能被定为是杀戮者、成就者、探索者或社交者。但是，由此带来的更大问题是，带着区分玩家类型的想法来设计游戏，可能会落入“强迫”玩家体验某种游戏的俗套。

在Bartle的原文中，他对“杀戮者”的描述并不恰当。他认为，从根本上说，杀戮者是种无法与他人和谐相处的玩家类型。Bart Stewart的综合模型将这类玩家的行为视为多数游戏不愿考虑的玩法类型，但是事实在于，原本的分类方法确实将这类玩家魔鬼化。同时，《战争机器》之类游戏的发布表明，鼓励“杀戮者”玩法的游戏的确存在一定的市场，此类游戏提供了各种击败对手的残忍方法。

但是，错失用户带来的更大问题是，因为假设某种游戏只适合于某种玩家“类型”，所以在无意间便忽视了其他类型的玩家。这种风险可能在公开分类中比较少见，通常是将玩家类型与游戏类型直接联系起来，比如我们习惯假设女性更有可能是“休闲”玩家，对快节奏的第一人称射击游戏不感兴趣。

坦诚地说，有些研究确实在不同的玩家类型中观察到不同的特征，有些人也曾试图解释这种差异，比如男性和女性间天生的认知偏差。但是，重点还是要考虑到，情境在玩家感觉中所占的位置。或许换个环境和背景，这些玩家就不愿意尝试游戏。

比如，Diane Carr的研究发现，当女孩们有机会频繁在舒适和无审判的气氛下玩任何她们想要体验的游戏，那么老式和实验性证据的经验都会失效。确实，男性对第一人称射击中的导航确实较为熟悉，但是这或许并非许多女性不玩此类游戏的主要原因。事实上，游戏更适合某些玩家，这可以作为考虑谁会选择玩游戏的因素，而不是判断哪类玩家能够从中感受到乐趣。

但是，从设计更具参与度的游戏这一出发点来看，我觉得考虑“游戏吸引力”的最重要原因在于，可以更容易地思考如何融合不同的吸引力而不是个性。通过设计，我们可以使采用不同玩法的用户均能从游戏中获得乐趣。或者，我们也可以有意削减游戏提供的吸引力数量，这样它们才不会发生冲突。但是，在我开始提供如何思考的方式和范例时，我想要先阐述个人认为有用的吸引力类别。

5种吸引力类型

近些年来，流行游戏并没有专注于挑战性，出现了更多能够引人思考而不是单纯提供娱乐的“严肃”游戏，所以此刻似乎是时代将行业注意力吸引到更宽广概念上。

当然，我也会遵循学术传统，借鉴我最喜欢的理论来组成自己的理论。Bart Stewart的统一模型在识别某些玩家行为上似乎很有用，呈现具体化的玩法风格，可以指导游戏的设计。“悲伤”不只是种情绪，也可以构建到游戏中来吸引某些需求和兴趣。

Mitch Krpata的《New Taxonomy of Gamers》区分了不同种类的挑战、沉浸度和娱乐。Michael Abbott的《Fun Factor Catalog》提供了一套基于数据得出的吸引力，但是目前还未被严密和系统化地组织起来（游戏邦注：仍处在总结过程中）。

同时，Hunicke、LeBlanc和Zubek的MDA（Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics）框架提供的可能是最容易理解的系列方法，让玩家参与到游戏中，但是对某些层面的探索略显不足。少数理论化方法甚至将“屈服”当成人们玩游戏的原因。

综合上述内容，我总结出的5种游戏吸引力类型为：

1、成就：涉及外在和内在奖励的吸引力。

2、想象：涉及伪装和故事讲述的吸引力。

3、社交：涉及友好社交互动的吸引力。

4、娱乐：用于调整身体、精神或情感状态的吸引力。

5、颠覆：涉及打破社交或技术规则的吸引力。

尽管我自己的研究主要专注于电子游戏，但是我注意到以上许多吸引力类型同样可以用于分析其他类别游戏的设计。对于每种类型，我都阐述了几种属于该类型的吸引力，但它们并非是其类型所包含的全部内容。

成就

成就指来源于“胜利”或在游戏中所获成功的奖励感。相关吸引力包括完成（完成游戏，获得所有的奖杯、成就和解锁内容）、完善（玩游戏的技能获得提升）、统治（成为所有玩家中的最强者）、财富（通过努力获得奖励）和建设（使用游戏来创造艺术或对象）。

这里，我从Mitch Krpata的说法处获得灵感，区分了完成和完善。在我自己的调查中，完成是激发玩家赚取《光晕3》中每项成就的吸引力，但激发他们尽量提升多人游戏排名的则是完善。统治也是后者中的一个因素，但是玩家打败其他玩家时总是会产生满足感，即便玩家并没有提升自己的技能（游戏邦注：比如骨灰级玩家有时以碾压差劲的对手为乐）。

但是，必须注意到的是，完成并不一定只包含通过个人技能来精通游戏，还包含在游戏中获得胜利。玩家在玩赌博机时看到3个草莓连成一线或及时收获他们在《FarmVille》中的所有作物时也同样觉得有趣，即便这个“胜利”过程并不涉及到任何技能。这也正是我添加了财富这种吸引力的原因，它代表无需任何能力甚至不用付出任何精力而产生的完成感。

描述完所有这些吸引力后，或许你会觉得“建设”的存在很古怪。但是，我将其划归这个类型的原因在于，游戏中的创造性行为都是面向目标的，往往伴随着成功或失败的外部指示器。

无论最终结果是用《FarmVille》中的农作物拼出《蒙娜丽莎》的造型、一个极具吸引力的《上古卷轴：天际》角色还是《Minecraft》中精心构建的城堡，建设呈现的是用户自定义的“完成”，游戏只是实现这种完成的平台。

想象

想象指伪装的做法，特指故事讲述和模拟。相关吸引力包括旁观者（“观看”故事）、管理者（“制造”故事）、角色扮演（假装自己是另一种身份）和探索（假装存在于虚拟环境中）。

不同的游戏所强调想象吸引力的类别和程度有所不同。比如，《上古卷轴：天际》特别强调管理者和探索。查看网络上的《天际》论坛，你会发现有大量玩家分享他们的冒险故事和意料之外的事情，每个人的故事都存在不同之处。游戏中有角色扮演的空间，许多玩家为自己的角色生成故事和额外的背景，但是游戏本身并没有让玩家这么做，至少没有直接引导玩家这样体验游戏。

相比之下，《质量效应》提供的探索就比较少，游戏中呈现的是线性化的探索路径，但游戏更侧重于直接引导玩家进入角色扮演，而且内容更专注于旁观者，通过电影化的过场动画和主角明确的个性来呈现。玩家仍然带有管理者的感觉，他们会在论坛上讨论自己如何做出不同的决定并讲述不同的故事，但是叙事的范围相比《天际》显得较为狭窄，因为游戏更多地整合好莱坞的叙事技术。《战争机器》的战役模式未提供管理者玩法，但是通过对话、过场动画和音乐，游戏仍然提供了让玩家扮演旁观者的机会。

我还认为，旁观者不仅包括玩家参与到正在玩的游戏的故事中，还包括在观看其他人玩游戏时参与到故事中。虽然“胜利”在玩家享受游戏的乐趣中扮演着重要角色，但游戏的故事和进程同样具有非凡的吸引力。

社交

社交指玩家使用游戏来与其他人联系的各种方法。相关吸引力包括对话（在游戏中通过游戏聊天系统实现，或通过游戏内置消息系统实现）、协作（在游戏期间支持和帮助他人）和慷慨（单方向的帮助性行为，比如赠送礼物或帮助低等级玩家更快升级）。

当然，你或许会辩解称，社交是任何娱乐媒介的吸引力，从与好友讨论最喜欢的书籍到与许多人讨论电影都是如此。但是，游戏往往通过特别的设计来鼓励这种玩家间的社交行为。

比如，《Rock Band》在多人游戏时比较有趣，原因不只是在于参与人数较多，还因为它体现出协作感：玩家依靠他人，也能够帮助他人。如果有个玩家表现很不好，所有人的歌曲都会结束，所以其他玩家必须注意，通过触发“加速传动”模式来挽救那些落后的队友。

许多基于团队合作的动作游戏都仰赖于队友间的对话，玩家之间不只谈论每天的生活（游戏邦注：虽然有些玩家会借助游戏作为与他人探讨日常生活的工具），而且还会分享战术信息，规划对抗对手的方式。

但是，单向慷慨机制并没有被正式挖掘出来。这似乎听起来有点矛盾，如果你设计出的系统能够识别到帮助他人的玩家，那么难道不应当奖励这个慈善的玩家？将这样的系统描述为协作不是更为合适吗？我想要说的是，在游戏中帮助他人不一定都会获得回报，而这样的系统依然能够让玩家感到满意。

比如，《FarmVille》允许玩家免费向他人赠送礼物。玩家可以要求对方回赠（游戏邦注：许多玩家往往也这么做），但是有些玩家喜欢使用这个功能，仅仅是因为他们喜欢向他人赠送礼品。

不幸的是，这样的系统被开发商视为营销工具而不是吸引力，结果玩家的好友经常会收到不想看到的Facebook信息，通知他们好友向其赠送“礼品”。有些MMORPG还提供正式化的“导师系统”（例如《Shadow Cities》或《最终幻想11》），这表明确实这种吸引力确实存在发展空间。

娱乐

娱乐指怡情和消遣的时间，通常指使用游戏来调节人的心理或心理状态。相关吸引力包括情绪管理（面向放松、高兴、乐趣或其他情绪）、压抑（积极避免思考令人痛苦或困难的事情）、沉思（考虑发人深思的问题）和努力（通过玩游戏来充实体能）。

这些吸引力中，覆盖面最广的是情绪管理。我将此作为单独一种吸引力，而非针对每种吸引力（放松、娱乐、活跃等）分别提出一种情绪管理方式，不仅仅是因为扩展开来的话会更冗长，而是为了明确区分基于玩法行为的吸引力及其产生的情感状态。

也就是说，值得注意的是，情绪管理包含更多种的状态，不只有“感受到乐趣”。《flow》是款节奏缓慢且令人镇静的游戏，专门用来展示游戏可以鼓励人们放松，并非只会让玩家兴高采烈。《旺达与巨像》和《最终幻想7》有时受人褒奖的原因在于游戏会让玩家产生悲伤的情感。玩家根据一定的背景来选择不同的游戏，比如游戏的开发公司和玩家希望从游戏中获得的情感。

沉思也是种相关吸引力，甚至可能是情绪管理的一部分。比如，《Passage》就是款带有精妙内涵而非明显“趣味性”目标的短游戏。这款游戏的目标是让你思考，而不是让你体验乐趣。压抑是另一种相关吸引力，听起来似乎没什么价值，因为它的作用是让玩家去克制自己无谓的想法（游戏邦注：比如赌博上瘾）。但是，正是因为有这种吸引力，游戏成为医院中使用的重要工具，用非药物的形式减轻病人的痛苦。

我认为需要将娱乐作为独立类型的主要原因在于，它包含让许多所谓的“休闲”游戏获得成功的主要吸引力，包括Facebook和手机“社交游戏”和Wii及其他系统上的肢体控制游戏。无论评论家或设计师有何看法，《FarmVille》和《Tiny Tower》等非技能游戏的成功都表明，这些游戏提供了玩家需要的东西。

所以，我们应当认识到玩家的确从这些游戏中获得了所需的东西，这样玩家才愿意体验这些游戏。尽管许多传统玩家批判Wii游戏并没有充分发挥体感技术的优势，但是该系统的销售势头依然不减。即便是那些最简单的Wii游戏，也让玩家在客厅中获得娱乐和放松。

颠覆

颠覆指与社会或游戏逻辑所定义的常态和期望相反的行为。相关吸引力包括挑衅（通过“不恰当”行为主动成为其他玩家的对手）、破坏（打破游戏逻辑）和违犯（做出“邪恶的”行为，比如杀害友好的NPC）。

我提出的这3种吸引力都涉及到打破某种规则。“挑衅”显然打破的是游戏中众玩家和睦相处和礼貌互动的社交规则。“破坏”打破的是游戏代码所制定的规则，如果你利用这种规则打破在多人游戏中获得优势地位，那么也算是打破“公平”游戏的社交规则。

“违犯”往往被视为是这三者中攻击性最小的，它打破的只是广义的文化准则，这种行为往往被其他玩家和游戏规则所默许。然而，我将这种违犯与其他颠覆吸引力相并列，是因为这种行为背后的趣味来源也是“成为恶棍”。以上这些行为的基本吸引力都是做某些被认为不应当做的事情。

我将此视为有效的吸引力，并没有把它们当成玩家的作弊和不当行为，因为乐衷于做这些事情的玩家如此之多，所以已经不能将其视为异常的行为。那么，设计师要如何对待这种吸引力呢？

当然，最显而易见的答案就是，完全保持中立。设计师怎么能够鼓励玩家打破规则或者让玩家从打破规则中寻找兴奋点呢？但是，现实情况不一定要如此。设计“邪恶”玩法也是提供吸引力的一种方法：比如，在《辐射3》中，玩家通过与凶手共进晚餐或将小孩卖给奴隶贩来打破非游戏逻辑规则，但是仍然可以选择符合叙事期望和社交常态的传统玩法。

设计师甚至还可以将挑衅的内容融入游戏中，之前提到的《机器战争》中玩家间的暴力和挑衅正是此例。这些游戏都向玩家提供了打破普通社交规则的方法，但游戏本身的规则并不受到破坏。

坦诚地说，既要鼓励玩家打破游戏规则，又不想冒游戏整体受到破坏的风险（游戏邦注：至少多人游戏部分不受到影响），这的确是件很困难的事情。作弊码等现象呈现了一种受批准的颠覆，在可控范围内打破游戏规则。

我们能否想象出一款有意鼓励玩家颠覆游戏规则的游戏？玩家尝试各种打破规则的方法，确实让游戏有受破坏的风险，但是有些开发者依然尝试使用这种吸引力。现在，“颠覆”或许是最未被开发者重视和探索的吸引力类型。

吸引力间的互补和冲突

看过这些吸引力后，你或许会注意到，它们并没有完全相互排斥。事实上，这才是重点所在。这使我们可以讨论各个交叉点的好处和坏处，以及如何设计游戏来利用这些交叉点。

比如，寻找和挖掘游戏的过失，提供了一种打破规则的“颠覆”吸引力，但是它或许也能够提供“完成”吸引力，比如揭示游戏系统中的秘密。《劲舞革命》提供“完成”吸引力，玩家在高难度歌曲中努力获得高分，在于其他玩家一起跳舞时能够感受到社交吸引力，游戏同时还通过让玩家移动肢体来感受娱乐吸引力。

有时，不同游戏吸引力对应不同的游戏机制，但是两者间并非一一对应关系。游戏可以提供与“完成”吸引力完全分离的“想象”吸引力，通过呈现感觉完全与玩家输入无关的叙事过场动画来实现，但游戏也可以通过对话互动来融合想象和完成吸引力，甚至呈现挑战成分。

比如，《质量效应2》中的对话场景提供了管理者吸引力，允许玩家选择如何回应，但是这其间缺乏“完善”玩家技能的吸引力。有些回应客观上比其他回应更好，但是最好的回应会用显眼的颜色标出，只要你保持在游戏中选择“友善”或“恶意”的回应，都能够取得最优的结果。

相比之下，《黑色洛城》和《杀出重围3：人类革命》等游戏中的对话场景拥有额外的挑战层面，要求玩家根据角色的面部表情和肢体语言来选择最有效的回应。

当然，预想不同吸引力之间的冲突同融合吸引力同等重要。这使设计师可以区分功能的先后次序，或者为功能提供额外的背景，其基础就是设计师最想要引入的吸引力。比如，我曾经在Eludamos的一篇文章中描述过，“死亡”在游戏中往往是令人不悦的故事情节，但是可以通过某些恰当的方法让玩家感觉到他们的行为可能导致失败和死亡。

换句话说，以牺牲“想象”吸引力为前提来获得传统意义上的“完成”吸引力。但是，有些游戏的确预想到了吸引力间的冲突，并试图做出挽救和补偿，比如通过叙事方式绕过死亡的威胁：《生化奇兵》中会以克隆体的形式复活。或者将死亡作为可以挽回的失误，比如《波斯王子：时之沙》中的做法。

最戏剧性的方法是完全去除某些功能，确保你最想要鼓励的吸引力显得最为突出。比如，考虑下游戏设计师需要如何处理想象吸引力和社交吸引力之间的潜在冲突。《无主之地》或《战争机器》中的协作性多人战役提供了与好友开展社交的机会，甚至还有助于让挑战变得更具趣味性，但这些吸引力的存在可能需要牺牲想象，因为你和好友可以直接在游戏中交谈。

《恶魔之魂》也有着协作性和竞争性多人游戏机制，但是它优先呈现想象吸引力（游戏邦注：比如营造紧张的气氛），将其置于社交吸引力之上（比如同好友交谈）。你无法直接使用语音聊天系统与其他玩家交谈，但是可以通过短消息来间接交流。通过强迫性地将玩家分割在自己的世界中，使游戏显得风格迥异。

虽然有时候吸引力间的冲突及其原因并不明显，但根据这种方法来描述游戏功能至少能够知道现有游戏中功能是否会起作用。我希望，这种方法可以使行业将来出现更多富有创新性和探索性的有趣游戏。

结论

这种游戏吸引力理论只是试图涵盖所有类型的游戏。也就是说，我并没有将此作为通用法则，这只是思考游戏潜在价值的起点而已。

此外，我还看到了更多其他吸引力存在的空间。无需技巧的“社交游戏”是否含有更为复杂的方法，而不仅仅是我描述的只含有娱乐和完成吸引力？Wii和Kinece体感游戏或运动类游戏是否应当独立于娱乐，自成一体？我自己还会继续探索这些问题，而且我希望其他人也能够提供建议。

但是，除了理论解析游戏吸引力之外，我还希望以上的讨论能够引导我们设计出更多种类的有想法和创新的游戏。当设计师和开发者将游戏定位为主要目标是提供“趣味性”的产品时，便自然忽视了参与度和体验成分。当我们将玩家描述为只接受与自己玩法相符的游戏时，我们不仅忽视了可以从多种层面上触发和取悦玩家的问题，而且还有失去部分玩家的危险。

篇目3，分析8种游戏玩家人格的类型及特点

作者：Steve Burke

尽管这种分类法遭受诟病，但将我们的游戏玩法风格与相应模版对号入座仍不失为一种趣事。通过这种分类，我们也可以快速发现自己可能会喜欢或者容易厌烦的游戏类型。

完成主义者

此类玩家关心的是成就和进展，其主要目标是完成游戏的主要目标，其次是游戏的次要目标，之后才是游戏中的其他内容。如果这是一款多人游戏，完成主义者就会就会致力于炫耀自己的状态和累积财富。如果游戏可以被击败，那么你就会去打败游戏，如果游戏要求收集物品，你就会去收集物品。你就属于那种会多次回应开放游戏的人，无论身为“善”“恶”，都会打败游戏，或者回应游戏所呈现的其他选项。

如果游戏要求获得更高的分数，或者呈现新的冒险路径，你总会想法让自己找到最佳选项。你很在意游戏提供的所有内容，并从中找到最合心合意的东西，时常发现自己对取得进展的过程颇为上瘾。你就是那种在《天际》中挑战“硬核模式”，只是为了一看究竟的群体。无论游戏是线性还是开放性，只要它存在目标，你都将永往直前。

你最喜欢的可能是：RPG、MMO和具有挑战性的游戏。

典型游戏：《Morrowind》、《天际》、《SWTOR》、《Baldur’s Gate》系列、《无冬之夜》、《Cave Story》。

破坏者

没有什么游戏难得倒你，你会研究最佳战略，最强大的方法，地图布局，攻击方向，或者很擅长杀戮（无论你是否分析了自己运用的方法）。如果游戏中具有杀戮元素，你就会杀个片甲不留。破坏者喜欢想出全新而创造性的方法打败他人，在可向服务器中所有玩家展示技能的多人游戏中尤其如此。

无论这是一款潜行游戏，开放攻击游戏，还是一款《虚幻竞技场》与《雷神之锤》结合的多人游戏，只要可以消灭竞争对手，你就会大行其道。你最关心的是点数和杀戮-死亡率，如果是在单人游戏中，你就会尽量发挥创意以消灭自己的宿敌。无论有意还是无意，你都极具竞争力。

你最喜欢的可能是：FPS、RTS、技能型游戏。

典型游戏：《反恐精英：起源》、《Day of Defeat》、《Red Orchestra》、《Company of Heroes》、《StarCraft 2》、《Planetside 2》、《Age of Chivalry》和《Battlefield 3》。

创造者

原创性、创意性以及扩展性是你玩游戏时最重视的因素。你喜欢建设、创新或者修改游戏。对创造者来说，搜集资源、建设城市以及创造内容的乐趣远甚于杀戮和完成目标。你情愿投入数小时安装修改版游戏或建设城市而非完成目标。你经常向自己的好友展示作品，无论他们是否在意。你因自己的创造力，以及富有创意地利用有限的资源而骄傲。

但你也有弱点：你很容易厌倦游戏，或者质疑游戏究竟有何意义。

你最喜欢的可能是：开放式RPG、基于Mod的游戏、建设型游戏（游戏邦注：例如《Minecraft》和城建游戏）。

典型游戏：《Minecraft》、《Tycoon》系列，《Terraria, X3: Albion Prelude》、《Dwarf Fortress》、《Spore》和《Hinterland》。

思想家

你是游戏领域中正在消失的一类人，但你发现自己在所有游戏群体中最具战略性和先进性。你在游戏中会目光长远，极具战略性地扩展自己的帝国——思想家专注于做出有益的妥协，以便最大化自己将来的收获，最小化潜在风险。解决复杂的问题，无论是谜题，贸易通道的盈利性，还是攻击路径都是你最喜欢做的事情。你讨厌束手束脚的感觉，希望游戏能够让你自己解决问题。

你喜欢（或者可能喜欢）桌面野战游戏或者谜题游戏。你最关心不同的帝国建设类型或者谜题解决方法，并会多次完成同一款游戏，只是为了以不同方法解决同一个问题。你甚至可能会“自找麻烦”让一款原本毫无内涵的游戏变得更加有趣。

你最可能喜欢的是：回合制战略游戏、RTS、谜题游戏。

典型游戏：《全面战争》系列、《Hearts of Iron》、《Aperatus》、《Frozen Synapse》、《SpaceChem》、《传送门 2》。

探索者

对你来说，最重要的莫过于找到开发者所提供的最广阔、激动人心的场景，你十分重视探索和冒险元素。探索者会从缺乏目标的旅程起步，以便查看游戏中最令人印象深刻的区域。你喜欢不同的视觉效果和居民，以及游戏世界的可信度，甚至会为了看到更多区域而耽误了游戏的主要任务。

探索者倾向于在游戏中收集无意义的道具（游戏邦注：例如书册、武器、小工具），并将它们展示给所有人看（即使是单人游戏）。与多数朋友不一样的是，你是以自己用最快的速度探索完整个地图为骄傲。探索者很擅长在游戏中“自得其乐”，这与创造者有点相似。

你最可能喜欢的是：MMO，开放式RPG，扩展型游戏。

典型游戏：《Morrowind》&《Skyrim》、X3系列、《Minecraft》、《Trine 2》、《Divinity II》、《SWTOR》和《Dwarf Fortress》。

休闲游戏玩家

“为什么要这些累赘的玩意儿？我只想在自己有空时坐下来玩玩游戏而已。”你对游戏并没有那么着迷，。你只在自己闲暇的时候玩游戏，享受非竞争性，无压力的游戏体验。休闲游戏玩家会玩简单的游戏——手机游戏、社交游戏、独立游戏、益智游戏，并且与思想家颇有关联。你可能会觉得AAA游戏存在不少问题。

你并不想大开杀戒，因为你不喜欢这种重复性和令人抓狂的行为，也不喜欢无限地完成目标，或者花费数天时间建造一座城堡，你只想不费太多力气获得放松，如果游戏不太残酷，你偶尔也会觉得游戏很有趣。

你最可能喜欢的是：休闲游戏、益智游戏、平台游戏、街机类游戏。

典型游戏：《Audiosurf》、《Beat Hazard》、《Droplitz》、《Scribblenauts》、《Spectraball》、《Zombie Driver》和《Orcs Must Die!》。

挑战者

纯技能、精致而讲究速度的游戏对你最有吸引力，你喜欢精通一款游戏，并在其中获得最记分的感觉。如果你们抱怨游戏太难，你却会感叹：“接受挑战吧！”然后你会煞费苦心地想出最怜惜的解决方法，保存体力并积累点数。

对你来说，不存在折磨人的平台游戏，也没有什么街机游戏会让你劳神。你就是那种为了挑战而玩《星际争霸》的玩家。挑战者通常会在单一的关卡上投入数个小时，只是为了以最为准确的方法控制时间和完成目标。对你来说没有什么目标算是困难的。

你最可能喜欢的是：平台游戏，街机游戏。

典型游戏：《I Wanna Be The Guy》、《Silver Surfer (NES)》、《Super Meat Boy》、《VVVVVV》、《Bit.Trip Runner》、《Jamestown》、《AaAaAA!!! – A Reckless Disregard for Gravity》、《N+》。

冒险家

这是探索者和破坏者的合体，冒险家喜欢游戏中的剧情和刺激感。他们最可能一次在游戏中沉浸数个小时，也最容易被游戏中的故事和美妙的景色所吸引。冒险家喜欢搞破坏，但只破坏与故事有关的内容（或者他们厌烦的时候，就会无故展开杀戮）。你会尽量看到更多内容，完成故事，同时让自己乐在其中。你并不像完成主义者那样希望完成游戏中所有的事情，但却像探索者一样易因许多有趣的元素而着迷。

你的弱点也在于冒险精神：你很容易发现游戏中的瑕疵，频频发现其中的故障，以及故事中的漏洞。你很擅长找到其中不协调的因素，而如果这会让你抓狂，你也会看在好故事的份上尽量对其妥协。虽然你并不像探索者那样讨厌线性游戏，但还是更喜欢开放式游戏。

你最可能喜欢的是：RPG、基于故事的MMO游戏。

典型游戏：《辐射》、《天际》、《Baldur’s Gate II》、《龙腾世纪：起源》、《无尽之夜》、《Icewind Dale》、《生化奇兵》、《刺客信条》。

篇目4，以四种玩家类型衡量游戏的社交互动性

作者：Steve Bromley, Graham McAllister, Pejman Mirza-Babaei, Jonathan Napier

为何社交互动如此重要？

在多人游戏中，社交互动成为了一种越来越重要的主题。Wii的成功以及它所强调的休闲多人游戏，如《Wii Sports》或者《Just Dance》，都证明了让玩家与好友一起玩游戏，能够让游戏获得更广泛的用户基础并创造出更深刻的体验。

对于开发者来说，他们必须掌握现有的社交互动类型，并在游戏开发过程中衡量自己所侧重的类型。从Relentless Software和Vertical Slice的合作中，我们得出了一套方法论，能够帮助开发者从最早的游戏原型设计中便开始评估游戏的互动性。

这种方法不仅能够让开发者明显地衡量游戏中的互动形式，同时也能够帮助他们更好地明确目标游戏玩家，针对特定的玩家类型去开发游戏。

理解社交互动

为了衡量社交互动，游戏开发者必须先定义多人搭配游戏中的不同互动类型。

Voida, Carpendale和Greenberg在他们的学术论文《The Individual and the Group in Console Gaming》中分析了玩家在《吉他英雄》，《马里奥派对》以及《马里奥赛车》等多人社交游戏中的行为。通过观察并记录玩家在这些游戏中的不同行为，他们将互动性分为六大类型，如下表所示。Ackermann同样也展开了一项研究，即通过观察并分析LAN party（游戏邦注：由一群人暂时性、通常也是自发性的带著他们的电脑，在一个地方将电脑以局域网路连结的聚会）中玩家的互动形式，并记录下一些相似的互动分类。

将这些人的研究与Relentless Software早前关于可用性测试所得的数据结合起来，得到了以下关于互动性的分类：

Bart Stewart最近讨论了关于不同玩家类型的模式的使用，并注意到基于Bartle的四种玩家分类所得出的最受欢迎的模式。我们就使用Bartle的玩家类型理念去分辨每个玩家的个人动机。

在Bartle的理论中，每个玩家都会因为不同的游戏动机而分属于不同类别，如游戏中有80%的杀手，10%的社交家以及10%的成就者。

我们在这项研究中使用了Bartle Test，即在明确不同Bartle玩家类型之前先问玩家30个问题。并通过分析结果而确定玩家的类型。

衡量社交互动性

为了明确不同玩家类型的社交互动，并呈现我们是如何使用这一方法衡量社交互动，我们进行了8次实验测试，每次安排2名相对的游戏玩家，规定他们共有30分钟的游戏时间，并通过三角测量法和生物计量法以及所获得的玩家访问信息更好地理解他们在游戏期间的社交互动形式和效率。

这些玩家是来自于一些现有的社会团体，以此能够更容易推动他们进行互动。让两名玩家一起玩《Buzz! Quiz World》（游戏邦注：这是一款由Relentless Software开发的社交益智游戏）。

在游戏过程中，开发者使用了基于Processing的特定工具以记录不同形式的社交互动，并自动为这些数据进行分类，从而帮助开发者做进一步分析。

通过获得GSR（皮肤电反应）数据，而衡量玩家身体对于游戏事件以及不同社交互动形式所做出的反应。

GSR与一些较为鲜明的情绪（如激动或沮丧）具有直接联系，并且会表现出非特定性的情绪反应。GSR数据是先呈现于时间轴面上，再与社交互动数据联系起来。

游戏后，玩家需要在一张空白的方格纸上写下自己的游戏体验，并进行评注。这个过程是采访玩家未给予提示的行动，以此确保玩家能够即时准确地回忆起游戏过程中的感受以及各种互动事件，并对此进行客观的评估。

然后玩家将观看关于他们游戏过程的视频（以此让他们更好地回想起自己在游戏期间的想法）并接受采访。当GSR信号达到最高点或者出现明显的社交互动行为时，玩家将描述他们在那一时刻内心的真实想法。这一过程能够帮助开发者更好地明白玩家为何要这么做而不只是回答玩家是如何做的。

我们发现了什么？

就像之前所说的，我们通过四种不同的玩家类型区分不同的互动形式，以此更好地理解不同互动形式背后玩家的游戏动机。

杀手

正如我们所提到的，杀手最喜欢击败其他玩家，明显地展现出“讲废话”行为，侮辱并刺激对手。

同时我们还必须注意到，杀手在GSR测试下的情绪反应和社交互动级别会在他们即将获得胜利时出现明显的下滑——因为他们只对那些“实力相当”的对手感兴趣，这点将在后来的访问中得以证实。

建议：

他们希望游戏能够采用嘲弄机制，以此更明显地突出自己的胜利，就像战士那样。

对于这类型的玩家，开发者可以通过提供给玩家更多获得胜利的机制而确保游戏的用户粘性。早前游戏，如《马里奥赛车》或者《Buzz! Quiz World》决赛中的“rubber banding”机制便都体现了这一点，即在最后游戏关卡中将玩家之前所获得的分数变成其最后一回合的抢先优势。

成就者

成就者总是希望能够明显地展露自己在游戏中获得的成功，当游戏能够清晰地展示出他们的进程时，其社交互动和情绪反应便会达到最高级别。

《Buzz! Quiz World》的“Pie Fight”回合特别强调了这一点，即玩家如果回答错误便会遭到馅饼的袭击；以及在“Over the Edge”回合中，当玩家落向烂泥槽时，其情绪反应级别便会明显地向上窜升。

而在互动方面，成就者是宁愿放弃自己所具备的优势也希望有机会说出自己知道问题的答案。

在像《Buzz! Quiz World》这类型的小游戏中，如果对手不知道问题的正确答案，对于玩家来说便具有优势；但是对于成就者来说，他们希望能够大声说出答案，以此显示自己的知识渊博，即使必须以游戏失败为代价。显然，对于这类型玩家来说，声望比起任何游戏目标都重要。

建议：

成就者希望能够获得游戏更深层次的奖励，就像他们希望其他玩家能够在游戏中高颂自己的名字那样。

如此，针对于成就者的游戏设计必须让他们能够尽可能在每回合游戏中多展现自己的成就，不只是停留在徽章或奖杯上，还应该通过游戏机制，如统计值或游戏的支持等表现出来。

（在“Over The Edge”回合中，当玩家落向烂泥槽时，成就者的GSR信号（绿色）便会达到最高值。）

社交家

很明显，社交家们之间会展开频繁的合作活动。社交家们愿意与对手共事，讨论不同回合间的选择，以此确保彼此都能够享受到游戏的乐趣；与此相比，其他类型的玩家更愿意选择那些对手们表现欠佳的类别。

社交家具有较高级别的“共享意识”，愿意进行口头互动并共同讨论问题的答案。与成就者不同，社交家的互动具有协作性，主要关于两名玩家一起思考并想出问题的正确答案。同时，社交家对于游戏进程并不感兴趣，并且比起其他玩家类型，他们关于游戏内部事件的GSR情绪反应程度较不明显。

建议：

当社交家在与其他玩家进行交谈时将会呈现出较高级别的情绪反应，所以那些针对于社交家的游戏设计必须强调玩家间的交流，即使是在竞争类游戏中。设计者可以通过创造游戏情节或者在游戏中添加幽默元素体验出来。

探索者

探索者总喜欢不断摸索并理解游戏的广度和深度以及游戏机制，同时他们还具有较高级别的合作互动性，就像社交家那样，愿意与其他玩家在游戏中相互协作前进。

当遇到新挑战，如选择新一回合的主题，发现回合中的机制或者遇到新问题时，都会呈现出较高级别的互动性。除此之外，探索者也对游戏中的视觉要素非常感兴趣，如关于某个时间段其角色在游戏中做了些什么的描写等。与社交家一样，他们不会被《Buzz！》中明显的成功目标所吸引，探索者甚至会说“我并不在乎自己的成败。”

建议：

针对于探索者创造游戏时，设计者必须尽可能多呈现出游戏内容，不论是通过游戏机制还是图解展示。收集类小游戏如《WarioWare》和《马里奥派对》便是很好的例子，它们都鼓励探索者们在游戏中进行社交互动。

切记

开发者必须清楚，因为众口难调，针对于任何一种玩家类型设计游戏都会导致其无法适用于他类型的玩家，以此设计团队必须慎重考虑这个问题，自己评估采用这个方法的结果是否有悖于他们最初的开发目标。

总结

与Relentless Software合作共同进行游戏开发，采取区分不同社交互动形式的方法能够帮助开发者明确地是哪些元素引起玩家的不同反应。在开发过程中使用这一方法论能够帮助设计者针对特定的互动形式或者不同的玩家类型而定制游戏。

这一研究主要呈现了社交小游戏《Buzz! Quiz World》中不同玩家类型，包括喜欢嘲弄别人的高度竞争型杀手玩家，夸夸其谈的成就者，以及重视团体协作的社交家等所体现出的不同社交互动形式。而不同游戏类型，从第一人称射击游戏到角色扮演游戏对于这一方法的使用也将体现出不同玩家类型的不同交互特征。同时这一方法也能够帮助开发者更好地探索更大群体玩家间的社交互动变化。

篇目1，篇目2，篇目3，篇目4（本文由游戏邦编译，转载请注明来源，或咨询微信zhengjintiao）

篇目1，Personality And Play Styles: A Unified Model

by Bart Stewart

[In this comprehensive analysis, multiple psychological systems of gameplay are surveyed, to try and arrive at a unified model in which player behavior can be understood and, crucially for game developers, catered to.]

Numerous models of gamer psychology have been proposed and debated over the past couple of decades. One of the earliest and simplest has proven to be one of the most referenced and most enduring: the Bartle Types. I believe this is because the Bartle Types are a functional model of human personality in a game playing context. In other words, the Bartle typology works because it’s a subset of a more general personality model that works.

In fact, several of the best-known play style and game design models share many conceptual elements. So I’m also proposing here that the Bartle typology, the play style models of Caillois, Lazzaro, and Bateman, and the game design models of Edwards and Hunicke/LeBlanc/Zubek are all variations on a single Unified Model of play styles.

(Please note that any and all references I make in this article to the works of Richard Bartle, David Keirsey, Christopher Bateman and others that aren’t clearly sourced as quotations are my own interpretations. As such, they should not be considered official descriptions of these authors’ ideas.)

The Four Bartle Types

The official description of the original four Bartle Types (which have been expanded to eight types in Richard Bartle’s book Designing Virtual Worlds) is preserved in the paper “Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs” by Multi-User Dungeon (MUD) co-creator Richard Bartle.

This model, which was based on observing and analyzing the behaviors people playing together in a multi-user game, holds that there are four different kinds of play style interests, each of which is given a descriptive name: Killers, Achievers, Explorers, and Socializers.

Killers: interfere with the functioning of the game world or the play experience of other players

Achievers: accumulate status tokens by beating the rules-based challenges of the game world

Explorers: discover the systems governing the operation of the game world

Socializers: form relationships with other players by telling stories within the game world

These four styles emerged from the combination of two primary gameplay interests, which I’ve called Content and Control, each of which has two mutually exclusive forms. Content is defined to mean either acting simply and directly on objects in the game world, or interacting more deeply with world-systems. Control refers to how players want to experience the game world — either through the dynamic behaviors of other players, or with the relatively static world of the game itself.

Killers and Achievers both turned out to be mostly interested in acting on things or people, treating things and people as external objects. At the same time, Explorers and Socializers both seemed to prefer a deeper level of interacting with things or other people, focusing on internal qualities.

Similarly, Killers and Socializers both seemed eager to have the opportunity to control how they are able to play dynamically with others in the game world, while Achievers and Explorers seemed most interested in controlling their relationships with the developer-defined objects in and properties of the game world itself.

The bases of the Bartle Types are thus two pairs of complementary player goals: Acting or Interacting (content), and Players or World (control). Bartle represented these interests as two lines at right angles to each other to create a grid with four quadrants, each quadrant corresponding to one of the four observed play style preferences. By determining his preference for Acting vs. Interacting and for Players vs. World, then looking up the play style in the quadrant corresponding to that combination, any gamer could easily identify his naturally preferred play style. A gamer who prefers acting over interacting and is focused more on the world of the game than other players, for example, would most likely demonstrate Achiever behaviors when playing a game.

Here’s a diagram showing how the four Bartle Types emerge from the conjunction of the two major gamer concerns with content and control. (Note: This table is rotated 90 degrees clockwise from the version presented in “Players Who Suit MUDs” for reasons that will become apparent later in this article.)

The Bartle Types

The Four Keirsey Temperaments

In the 1970s, psychologist David Keirsey identified four general patterns from the sixteen types of the Myers-Briggs personality model. In his book (co-written with Marilyn Bates) Please Understand Me, Keirsey described these four “temperaments,” giving them descriptive names much as Richard Bartle named his player types:

In the second edition of Keirsey’s book, Please Understand Me II, Keirsey grouped his four temperaments as four quadrants across two axes to show how they were related according to an internal structure, very much as Richard Bartle had. However, by the time he proposed his grouping model in the second edition of his book, I had already worked out a somewhat different arrangement.

Rather than the two dimensions that Keirsey used in his model, I believe the two most fundamentally distinctive dimensions of human behavior are Internals (a preference for seeing possibilities and the abstract) vs. Externals (seeing the concrete and realistic), and Change (which can be thought of as freedom or opportunity) vs. Structure (which can be understood as rules or organization). Each of the four temperaments is thus a combination of External/Internal and Change/Structure:

Here’s how these four styles are represented (using my two axes, not Keirsey’s) with the same kind of four-quadrant format that Richard Bartle used for the four Bartle Types:

The Keirsey Temperaments (Stewart Format)

Keirsey and Bartle

The first of the two major assertions I make in this article is that the four temperaments described by David Keirsey — Artisan, Guardian, Rational, and Idealist — are supersets of the original four player types — Killer, Achiever, Explorer, and Socializer, respectively — as described by Richard Bartle.

Where Bartle sees a preference for interacting with or acting on players in a game context, temperament theory sees a more general preference for internal or external change. And where Bartle focuses in a gameplay context on a preference for dynamic players or the static world, my version of Keirsey’s four-quadrant model has people generally preferring change or structure. I believe that because the basic two-valued motivations are analogous between the Bartle Types and the Keirsey temperaments, the types and temperaments that are generated by these motivations are also analogous.

The following diagram shows the alignment between the four Keirsey temperaments and the four Bartle Types:

Unified Model, Keirsey-Bartle Diagram

Here are some brief descriptions of each combination, showing how Keirsey and Bartle ascribe the same basic motivations to each temperament/type.

Idealist/Socializer: Socializers are described by Bartle as “… interested in people, and what they have to say. … Inter-player relationships are important … seeing [people] grow as individuals, maturing over time. … The only ultimately fulfilling thing is … getting to know people, to understand them, and to form beautiful, lasting relationships.”

This is closely related to the Keirseian description of Idealists, who are very aware of other people as part of their lifelong journey of self-discovery (Internal Change). In a way, the highly imaginative Idealists are always roleplaying; they are constantly creating images of themselves (or others) that they feel they should model through their own actions in order to produce the emotions in themselves that they want to feel.

Guardian/Achiever: For the Guardian, the world is an insecure place, so it’s necessary to protect oneself by accumulating material possessions… just in case. Thus,

Guardians focus on earning money, on competing with others for resources perceived as scarce, on buying nice things and maintaining them, on forming stable and hierarchical group relationships, and generally on working hard to make their place in the world secure by locking down their connections to the world as possessions (External Structure).

Compare that to Bartle’s description of Achievers: “Achievers regard points-gathering and rising in levels as their main goal” and “Achievers are proud of their formal status in the game’s built-in level hierarchy, and of how short a time they took to reach it.” Leveling up, leaderboards, and the accumulation of vast quantities of looted items are all behaviors that are driven more by a security-seeking motivation than by other motivations such as powerful sensations, understanding or self-growth.

This explains why the Guardian/Achiever is willing to persist in long stretches of “grind” that other kinds of gamers don’t perceive as fun at all. To this gamer, rewards should be proportional to the amount of effort invested. When a game is designed around simple, well-defined tasks that enable the competitive accumulation of status tokens, that game is virtually guaranteed to attract security-seeking Guardian/Achievers.

Rational/Explorer: Rationals play in the same way that they do everything else — they find pleasure in discovering the organized structural patterns behind raw data (Internal Structure). These can be patterns in space (as in geography) or patterns in time (as in morphology). Or they can be cause-and-effect patterns (entailment) or relationship patterns (connections). Ultimately, it’s all about achieving a strategic understanding of the system as a whole thing.

As Bartle describes Explorers: “The real fun comes only from discovery, and making the most complete set of maps in existence.” Of the core motivations — sensation-seeking, security-seeking, knowledge-seeking, and identity-seeking — exploration as “discovery” is most closely aligned with the Rational’s knowledge-seeking preference. For the Rational/Explorer, once the principle behind the data is revealed, that’s enough — understanding is its own reward. These gamers can enjoy imparting knowledge to others, but no extrinsic reward for doing so is needed or expected.

Artisan/Killer: Finally, there are the Killers (or, as I prefer to call them, Manipulators). These can be difficult to understand in a gameplay context because most virtual worlds have encoded rules that marginalize their play style as “griefing” (i.e., upsetting other players) and try to prevent it. As Bartle puts it, “Killers get their kicks from imposing themselves on others.” He also points out that Killers “wish only to demonstrate their superiority over fellow humans.”

This desire for power over everything in their world is most closely echoed in the Keirseian description of Artisans, who (as their temperament name suggests) delight in the skillfully artistic manipulation of their environment. The Artisan/Killers are the tool-users, the adrenaline junkies, the natural politicians, the combat

pilots, the high-stakes gamblers, and the negotiators par excellence. They instinctively find and exploit advantages in any tactical situation, and they express this

need for dominance of their world in order to retain the greatest amount of personal freedom possible (External Change).

I believe a very good example of this can be found in Ryan Creighton’s “social engineering” of the coin-collecting game at the Social Game Developers Rant of the 2011 Game Developers Conference. A Guardian/Achiever would have played by the rules and raced around the room begging others for their coins to try to win the game; an Idealist/Socializer would have asked for coins as a way to meet new people or help others win; and a Rational/Explorer would have sat quietly watching the flow of coin exchanges to try to understand the nature of the game. But an Artisan/Killer would instantly see how to short-circuit the designed system, and, as a born negotiator, would find it easy to persuade the person holding one of the bags of coins to hand the whole thing over… which is exactly what happened.

If the attendees needed to hear a rant from anyone, it would be the Manipulator who is out there, just waiting to exploit any opportunity to bring a little chaos to the carefully designed order of a social game. (See Ryan’s description of the event for a wonderful first-hand account of gameplay from what appears to me to be a classic Artisan/Killer perspective.)

A final note on the Keirsey/Bartle linkage: the Keirsey temperaments and Bartle Types may appear not to line up directly where attitudes toward other people are concerned. This is because the Bartle Types were developed within a multi-player environment, which selects for more extroverted, sociable gamers, while the temperaments include both extroverts and introverts.

So, for example, the “Socializer” term that makes sense within the Bartle Types for its emphasis on interacting with other people can seem not to apply to an introverted Idealist who prefers to play single-player games. These less-social Socializers are more likely to prefer individualized entertainment or abstract games, making it difficult to distinguish them from Rational/Explorer gamers. Closer study is usually required to see whether their primary reason for playing is to feel good (an Idealist preference) or to exercise their thinking skills (a Rational goal).

Chris Bateman’s DGD1 Model

Even taking introversion and extroversion into account, not everyone fits neatly into one of the four fundamental temperaments. This aspect of reality isn’t well described by the four-fold Bartle or Keirsey typologies. Some people feel equally drawn to Internals and Externals, or to Change and Structure.

The book 21st-Century Game Design, edited by Christopher Bateman, explores a “demographic game design” model (DGD1) of gameplay preferences that I believe forms a useful counterpoint to the Keirsey/Bartle model of general personality. Rather than matching each of the types and temperaments, the Bateman play styles appear to be secondary styles that fill in the gaps between the primary play styles.

All of the elements that Bateman defined for his four play styles as well as for the Hardcore and Casual modes appear to map not directly onto the Keirsey/Bartle map, but into each of the gaps between the four Keirsey/Bartle styles. The following diagram shows this overlaid relationship:

Unified Model, Keirsey-Bartle Diagram with Bateman DGD1 Model Overlaid

The value of the DGD1 model (beyond the utility it has in and of itself as a model of personality) is that it provides a direct response to one of the most common criticisms of the Bartle Types model, which is that “no one is ever just one ‘type’ of player.” The DGD1 model fills in the gaps between the Bartle Types. A gamer who knows that his preferred style of play is balanced between exploration and achievement, or a combination of Strategic (Rational) and Logistic (Guardian) play, who was told he “didn’t fit” the Bartle model, can now understand himself to be representative of the Conqueror play style as described by the interstitial DGD1 model. Rather than invalidating the Bartle Types, the DGD1 model deepens and refines that model of play styles, leading to the merged Keirsey/Bartle/Bateman model whose structure is shown in the diagram above.

Note: Following the publication of 21st-Century Game Design, a questionnaire for a DGD2 model was developed and added to the iHobo site. Drawing from lessons learned with the Myers-Briggs-based DGG1 model, the DGD2 model was built more explicitly around the four temperaments described by Keirsey. Rather than breaking or changing the play style model developed for DGD1, the application of concepts from Keirsey’s temperament theory appeared to sharpen the DGD-based Conqueror, Manager, Wanderer and Participant styles as complementary to the four Keirsey temperaments (and thus the four Bartle Types as well). (A subsequent model, BrainHex, follows a six-pattern typology.)

The Unified Model

As I explored the literature on player styles and models of gameplay, I was surprised to see how many of these other models proposed three or four categories. Even more remarkably, in many cases the descriptions given by the various authors for each of their categories sounded very much like the descriptions of the core play styles in the Keirsey/Bartle model.

As a result, the second major assertion I’m making in this article is that not only are the four Bartle Types a play-context subset of the four general Keirsey Temperaments, there are numerous other well-known models of play and game design that are also variations on the exact same set of four fundamental personality styles.

It’s important to acknowledge that there are other models of personality and play that do not appear to be variations on the same four essential styles. I understand that; I have no interest in trying to stuff every personality model I see into this one. As an experienced designer of systems, I’m very aware of the danger of seeing every phenomenon as a confirming instance of one’s pet theory. I’ve done my best to avoid that error by identifying as a facet of the Unified Model only those systems for which multiple elements appear to align closely with the other systems in the model.

This chart presents the basic concepts of each play style or personality model using words their creators selected as being generally representative of each worldview.

It’s intended to be an at-a-glance representation of the associations between styles of play and layered models of game design. It also references three general models of personality in functional group situations (usually the office or workplace), as well as three ways in which I’ve tried to boil down the four perspectives to their essential meanings.

Caillois and Lazzaro Meet Keirsey and Bartle

The first portion of the Unified Model chart links Keirsey’s general theory of human temperament to descriptions of the four primary styles of play given by Richard Bartle, Roger Caillois, and Nicole Lazzaro.

Note: Although Roger Caillois indicated that he did not consider the four styles he described to be a complete taxonomy, I respectfully suggest that he was closer to creating a good one than he knew. Along with his concepts of paidia and ludus, these six foci complete the “gaps” between the four core styles observed by others (as noted in the Unified Model). I therefore consider his observed styles to be part of that model, but the reader is welcome to disagree.

Caillois uses the term ilinx to describe the fun of “vertigo,” the adrenaline rush from pushing physical boundaries, which aligns to the sensation-seeking motivation that both Bartle and Keirsey describe for the Killer and Artisan styles, respectively.

Lazzaro’s “serious” or “visceral” fun (one of the four core emotional styles she identifies in her cluster analysis of emotional responses to gameplay situations) is also described as sensation-seeking — in particular, as seeking the feelings of excitement and relaxation that are the gut-level rewards for active play. Again, this aligns very closely with the pleasure the Artisan/Killer feels in the skillful manipulation of tools or people (External Change).

Both the ag?n of Caillois and the “hard fun” of Lazzaro are conceptually very close to the security-seeking motivations of Bartle’s Achiever and Keirsey’s Guardian.

Ag?n and hard fun are both about trying to obtain tangible, extrinsic rewards within the rules of a competitive game. This is the well-documented pattern of the

Achiever/Guardian, who lives life believing that it is necessary and right for the world to be well ordered and that the amount one wins should be directly

proportional to the amount of effort one puts into following the rules.

Caillois explicitly links mimesis to “simulation,” or the active construction of secondary realities. This is the hallmark of the creative Rational/Explorer. To a Rational, the fun of discovering or building new worlds is in mapping their unique characteristics through exploration, thereby enabling the comprehension of the internal structure of that new world. The Rational/Explorer interest in mimesis is thus associated with Lazzaro’s “easy fun,” which describes the distinct gamer preference for immersion in the world of the play experience.

Caillois describes the fourth mode of play, alea, as based on randomness and chance, imposing fairness on every player by making every outcome depend on the roll of a die or the turn of a card. This feels right to the Idealist/Socializer player, for whom the rules of the game may be nearly irrelevant and in which chance is acceptable or even necessary to evenly distribute outcomes. Rules are merely artifacts that enable interaction with other people (human or NPC). This aligns neatly with Lazzaro’s formulation of “people fun,” wherein the game world is treated not as a tool to be used, a challenge to be overcome, or a system to be understood, but as a social setting within which people can enjoy meaningful relationships with each other.

GNS+ and MDA+

In addition to these play style models there are two important models of game design that appear conceptually related to the Keirsey temperaments: the Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist (GNS) model of game design originally conceived (though later deprecated) by Ron Edwards and the Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics (MDA) framework described by Hunicke, LeBlanc and Zubek .

The three-style GNS model aligns closely with three of the Keirsey/Bartle styles. The Gamist design style, which focuses on the mechanics or rules of play of a game, clearly matches the rules-oriented, competitive, hard fun-seeking Guardian/Achiever style. Similarly, Rational/Explorers are most likely to be drawn to the Simulationist design style that delights in the building of and immersion in complex and logically consistent worlds. And the human-centric, “people fun” storytelling impulses of Idealist/Socializers will usually be expressed as a focus on Narrativism as the primary means of making a game fun.

This leaves undescribed the preference for raw sensation. A fourth design style, which I’ve given the ungainly name of Experientialist, would emphasize play features that generate intense experiences — the definition of the sensation-seeking Artisan/Killer. If this Experientialist style is recognized as a valid game design interest along with Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist, then we have what might be called a GNS+ model that aligns completely with the Keirsey/Bartle and related models of play.

Adding this style to the GNS model is not an unsupported stretch on my part just to force GNS into the Keirsey/Bartle model. The Experientialist preference closely resembles the “Butt-Kicker” player type in the play style model suggested by Robin Laws. Enjoying play for its intense experiences is also directly analogous to the enjoyment of “vertigo” described by Caillois as a function of the desire for ilinx.

Something like this also applies to the MDA game design model. As with the GNS+ model described above, the MDA model seems to lack only a bottom-level design focus on the direct appreciation of action, which considers the gut-level sensations a game designer wants to elicit from players. I’ve suggested “Kinetics” as a name for this fourth style in what could be called the MDA+ model, where Kinetics once again aligns with Caillois’s ilinx preference for finding pleasure in action-oriented play.

(It’s interesting that the original GNS and MDA models both lack concepts describing play as a means of generating intense sensations.)

As with the original GNS model, the three layers of the MDA model align with play styles and personality types as described in the Unified Model chart. Mechanics, as the rules governing player actions, are the topic of choice for Guardian/Achievers who naturally take a Gamist approach to design. That’s where you find the answers for the ever-practical, “Yeah, but what do you actually do in the game?” question. Dynamics are of most interest to the Simulationist Rational/Explorer, who can’t help but focus on the functional behaviors of the game world that give it a unique life as a secondary reality. And the Idealist/Socializer, always operating according to an ideal vision for people, is most able to quickly grasp whether a particular game satisfies the Aesthetic requirements — does the game feel right?

With the theory explained, we’re now ready to look at practical uses for the Unified Model.

The Unified Model Explains Existing Games

An effective model should be able to explain how particular games satisfy particular play style interests. A good place to start is with popular first person shooter (FPS) games such as the Call of Duty or Battlefield franchises. These games feature high levels of graphical realism, a need for fast-paced tactical action in high-stress scenarios, real-world manual dexterity requirements, “whoa!” moments, clearly marked linear paths, vertigo-inducing set pieces, collectible achievements/trophies, and (in multiplayer mode) intense competition, role-based cooperation, and status markers on public leaderboards. All of these features are associated with externalities, and most are about directly physical experiences as opposed to abstract internal qualities such as thinking or feeling.

In a first person shooter, the high-speed, adrenaline-pumping tactical action for its own sake is aimed squarely at the externals-oriented Artisan/Killer play style preference. The externals-oriented Guardian/Achiever preference is addressed with clearly spelled-out operational rules, and with in-game intel items and achievements to collect as gameplay that gives purpose to the action. To the extent that a game emphasizes both of these elements to a high level of quality, that game will be embraced by Artisan/Killers and Guardian/Achievers. This combination lines up with the Casual mode of play in Chris Bateman’s DGD1 model. This might sound odd — the gameplay in pure FPS games is usually very intense — but it fits the concept of “casual” play as Bateman describes it, where there’s little emotional investment in the game world, players can drop-in/drop-out easily, the subject matter is concrete and easily relatable to well-understood phenomena, and the appeal is to a mass market.

Occupying the exact opposite position on the chart of play styles from real-time action/competition games would be adventure games such as Myst and The Longest Journey and creative games such as Minecraft or turn-based strategy games such as Civilization. These games, whose internal-oriented features emphasize both the story and puzzle play style preferences associated with feeling and thinking, are mirror images of external-oriented first-person shooter games that emphasize action and competitive accumulation. It’s reasonable to expect that most gamers who strongly prefer FPS games would be bored by adventure games, while most self-described adventure gamers find the typical FPS unsatisfying. This is precisely what the Unified Model would predict based on play style analysis, with Hardcore (story/puzzle) and Casual (action/loot) preferences on opposite sides of the Keirsey/Bartle/Bateman diagram.

If the Unified Model has validity, then it should also be able to explain the appeal of a “surprise” hit game like Minecraft. Still in beta at this writing, Minecraft has already earned the equivalent of tens of millions of dollars for its developer by emphasizing two play styles: creative exploration and exciting survival. While mapping cave systems or building structures (both highly discovery-focused activities), the player’s character may suddenly be attacked by hostile creatures. This generates the intense fight-or-flight reaction prized by Killers, who also enjoy the tangible (if virtual) sensations of destroying blocks, jumping from heights, and possibly falling (or being pushed!) into deadly lava.

The conjunction of the Rational/Explorer and Artisan/Killer play preferences corresponds to the Strategic/Tactical “Manager” play style of Chris Bateman’s DGD1 model.

Bateman describes the Manager style as being preferred by “a complexity-seeking player” who “can rack up serious hours on the games they really love,” and whose style is “associated with mastery and systems.” That neatly sums up Minecraft’s intense appeal to a specific subset of gamers who viscerally love opportunities to remake the game world to their own designs.

(It’s interesting to note that Minecraft’s primary designer has added achievements to the game, with an “adventure update” soon to be released. These new features should make Minecraft more appealing to Guardian/Achievers, who currently complain that Minecraft’s highly non-directed gameplay is — from their perspective — boring and hard to get into. Whether Minecraft can retain its Explorer-Killer focus after adding features that attract a host of highly vocal Achievers is a question worth exploring.)

Here’s a quick listing of where various game genres fit into the Unified Model:

One other possibility afforded by the Unified Model is to identify an individual’s natural play style through the games they report playing. This can work to the degree that individuals are invested in the “gamer” culture. The more they actively make playing new games a part of their lifestyle, the more accurately the play-focused Unified Model will predict their general personality style.

On the other hand, predictive accuracy can be extremely poor when trying to assess the personality style of someone who plays only a few light and generally popular games such as Solitaire. In this case, no model will be of much help since there’s just not enough information to work from. The emphasis of the Bartle Types on social players of multi-user games can also make those styles difficult to apply to someone who prefers single-player games.

Another possibility is that the individual’s choice of games to play may not fit neatly into one of the four major groupings. In this case, consider that they may play as one of the four types described by Christopher Bateman’s DGD1 model, where each type is a combination of two of the primary styles from the basic Keirsey/Bartle model.

In all these cases, the more games someone plays — they more they are immersed in the gamer culture — the more accurate the Unified Model can be in identifying their preferred personality style from the games they play. And the opposite is true as well: the fewer games someone plays, the less effective the Unified Model can be in identifying their natural personality style. This is not a deficiency in the Unified Model; it’s simply a lack of categorical information for the model to work with.

The Unified Model Helps Design New Games

The Unified Model by itself doesn’t talk about particular gameplay features. But it is possible to link gameplay features to specific play style preferences — different activities distinctively satisfy different needs. This allows designers to judge the fitness of various feature possibilities for a particular design goal.

Here’s a short list of representative gameplay features organized by play style:

UNIFIED Play Style ASSOCIATED GAMEPLAY FEATURES

Artisan/Killer/Experientialist action, vertigo, tool-use, vehicle use, horror, gambling, speedruns, exploits

Guardian/Achiever/Gamist

competition, collections, manufacturing, high scores, levels, clear objectives, guild membership, min-maxing

Rational/Explorer/Simulationist puzzles, creative building, world-lore, systems analysis, theorizing, surprise

Idealist/Socializer/Narrativist chatting, roleplaying, storytelling, cooperation, decorating, pets, social events

Let’s say you’ve been tasked with designing a game that’s “exciting” and has “lots of rewards.” From the chart above, you can see that “exciting” corresponds to the Artisan/Killer style, and “rewards” clearly describes the Guardian/Achiever preference. What you want, then, are gameplay elements that hit on both of those cylinders if possible, but on at least one or the other of them for sure.

So a satisfying concept for this game might be some form of arcade-style racing. This provides a highly physical environment where the player can directly manipulate a vehicle in a few very specific ways (but to a high degree of virtuosity) in order to be rewarded frequently. Making this the game’s core mechanic emphasizes both intense manipulative action and the satisfaction of simple, clear goals with collectible rewards, all of which speak directly to the two play style goals.

Highly physical and object-rich action games that satisfy Artisan/Killer and Guardian/Achiever desires are fairly common, though. So a stronger test of the Unified Model’s constructive power might be to consider combinations of play styles that aren’t often seen.

What about a game world that merges the Internal Change goal of Idealist/Socializers with the External Change desire of Artisan/Killers? (This would correspond to the “Wanderer” play style from Chris Bateman’s DGD1 model.) Such a game, without the Simulationist or Gamist structures preferred by Rational/Explorers and Guardian/Achievers, would likely appear to be a chaotic circus, a highly social environment where crazy things happen without warning. (Actually, this sounds very much like Second Life, doesn’t it? Could something like this work as a single-player game? What about as a Facebook game?)

Another unusual kind of game to create would merge the generally opposing preferences of Guardian/Achievers and Idealist/Socializers. (The corresponding merged type would be the “Participant” play style from the DGD1 model.) To build fully on its unique qualities, such a game would need to be designed to emphasize gameplay features focusing on the rule-based generation of social relationships and behaviors. This is gameplay that Achievers could appreciate for the interpersonal stability and “social leveling-up,” and which Socializers might enjoy as a powerful tool for creating stories about people. (Again, though, perhaps such a game already exists — isn’t this is exactly the play style combination provided almost uniquely by The Sims? Is there any way to make a Participant-style game that doesn’t seem to be a clone of The Sims?)

Conclusion

While no model of human behavior can ever be considered perfect, the practical question is only whether a given model provides sufficient explanatory and predictive power to allow game designers to communicate usefully about what gamers want, why they want it, and how to give it to them. By that measure, I believe the Unified Model I’ve suggested, with the DGD1 model of Chris Bateman superimposed, produces an overall theory of gamer preferences that does offer good explanatory and predictive power.

Some will naturally object to this or that aspect of the Unified Model, or to the entire concept of any personality model that “puts people in boxes.” For others, I don’t imagine this model will be considered a surprising revelation. Many of the individual associations have no doubt been observed by others, such as Ethan Kennerly’s exploration of the similarities between the Bartle Types and David Keirsey’s temperaments (brought to my attention by Richard Bartle from a MUD-Dev post by Kennerly in 2005). Christopher Bateman has also made linkages among many of the play style models detailed here in his DGD typology.

What I think the Unified Model uniquely offers is the insight that not just one or two but many of the most well-known theories of play style and game design are closely related to each other and to a general model of personality.

All of the creators of the various theories included in the Unified Model seem to be referencing the same deep human reality: there is remarkable agreement on the basic ways in which people want to express their playfulness as a function of a general personality style. By pointing out the single pattern shared by these models, my hope is to provide a framework for thinking about gamer motivations that will help developers create better games.

Still, if some other model can be shown to have better explanatory and predictive power, then I’ll enthusiastically set this one aside in favor of the new model. What matters is not that I’m personally “right,” but that anyone who is interested in making better games (and making games better) has the most powerful tools for accomplishing that task.

If someone can demonstrate a model for explaining and predicting why we play as we do that is easier to understand or more effective when applied than the model presented here, gamers and developers and publishers will all win.

Until then, I hope someone will find this Unified Model useful in designing and discussing games.

Appendix

The table below compiles information about each of the four styles expressed in multiple ways. Not only does this demonstrate the very close conceptual ties between each of the four styles as seen by the different model creators, it can serve as a guide for designing gameplay elements that satisfy specific play style requirements.

Note: With three exceptions, for the rows “Keirsey” through “Covey” the text in the third column is taken directly from books, articles, presentations or other documents written by the authors of each play style or personality model. The words used in the section on Caillois are taken from the translation of Les Jeux et Les Hommes into English by Meyer Barash. The words used for the GNS+ “Experientialism” and MDA+ “Kinetics” entries are mine, since those entries don’t exist in the three-fold models.

篇目2，Five Ways Games Appeal to Players

Jason Tocci

I once happened upon my brothers attempting to fly an SUV off a cliff. This was years ago, when Grand Theft Auto III was still new, but it was already easy enough to search online for the cheat code to make cars fly. After about an hour of trying to glide across a river and into a football stadium, they finally cleared the edge of the wall, landed the car inside, and broke into proud laughter upon discovering the Easter egg inside: an image of fans spelling out the name of Liberty City’s football team: “COCKS”.

I often think back on this when I read various theories on why we find games “fun.” Some of the most popular theories of engagement come down to offering an optimal level of challenge, establishing a pleasant “flow” state. Surely there was something like that going on here, but there was also so much more, from the thrill of intentionally messing with the laws of physics to the naughty humor in the final payoff.

Theories that account for a range of different types of players, meanwhile, have been useful in considering that games affect us on more levels than simply how challenging they are.

In the process of trying to simplify and codify how people think, however, these theories have trouble accounting for how a game can affect a person in different ways and in different contexts, or how to address appeals of games that don’t fit quite as neatly into a carefully-structured model.

In this article, then, I offer five general categories of appeal (hence, “appeals”) describing a host of different — but not necessarily mutually exclusive — ways that we engage with games.

This framework of appeals has been developed through research conducted between 2008 and 2011, including discourse analysis of online sources (e.g., collecting examples from public forum discussions and blog comments; see “‘You are dead. Continue?’”) and participant-observation ethnographic research (e.g., playing games with people in arcades; see “Arcadian Rhythms”).

The appeals I’ll offer aren’t necessarily all “good” appeals — this framework includes ways that games engage players that some designers have criticized as little more than manipulation — but they may offer some broad ways to describe what makes games tick, and how to blend different kinds of appeals to encourage or even discourage different kinds of engagement.

Types of Players vs. Types of Appeals

I describe this theory quite purposely in terms of the characteristics of games and play instead of the characteristics of players themselves. Models of player personality and demographics are very attractive in their elegant simplicity, whether you’re talking about the common-knowledge distinction between “casual” and “hardcore” or more scientific approaches drawing on social psychology. (See Bart Stewart’s relatively recent Gamasutra feature for one such robust approach.)

Nevertheless, it may be more productive to describe engagement with games according to a variety of approaches to play itself, for at least three major reasons.

First, theories of “player types” often don’t easily match up with empirical and anecdotal evidence of how people actually play games. We can display different “personalities” between different games, or even within a single game that offers a variety of different mechanics.

Take, for instance, the anecdote that began this article, in which my brothers continually flew a car off a cliff. What type of players are my brothers in this example — say, in terms of Bartle’s types?

Are they explorers, fiddling with the game systems and investigating its world? A large part of the reason they were attempting to get into that stadium was indeed that they wanted to know whether the game logic would allow them, and they wanted to discover whatever might be inside.

Are they achievers, looking to beat a rules-based challenge? It was a challenge of their own making, but they still had a distinct end condition, and even a sort of in-game reward in the Easter egg.

Are they socializers, playing side by side, telling a story together through their play? Certainly, playing cooperatively and sharing a laugh had something to do with the appeal.

Are they killers, going out of their way to subvert the rules of the game? They couldn’t have played this way at all if it weren’t for the fact that they entered a cheat code.

Does it change our answer if we find out that they also played the game separately from one another on other occasions, each following the rules and paying attention to the plot? Or does it change our answer if we find out that they approach other games completely differently — say, eschewing any “cheating” or exploration in competitive sports games?

To be fair, Bartle originally suggested this typology not to describe all game players, but to describe MUD players. He even makes the point that three kinds of players aren’t treating the MUD as a “game” at all, but as “pastime,” “sport,” and “entertainment,” and acknowledges that “most players leaned at least a little to all four [types], but tended to have some particular overall preference.”

The fact that game critics and designers have applied this typology more broadly may reflect an admirably progressive willingness to broaden our understanding of what a “game” can be, but it also extends this particular model well beyond the claims of the original 30-person study that brought it about.

My goal with this thought exercise, then, is to illustrate the problem with focusing on a small group of players or a single genre. Players exhibit different preferences and behaviors with different games or in different social contexts, which makes it problematic to claim that anything so fixed as personality or an inherent “type” is at the root of enjoyment. My brothers played the way they did not just because of who they were, but because of the context of the situation: Each was sharing the game with another player he knew very well, and they were playing a game whose design allowed them to play it in multiple ways.

This brings me to the second major issue with describing how we engage with games based on types of players instead of types of behaviors. By suggesting that we design games around categories of players, we run the risk of reifying our own top-down notions of what the player base is like.

This risk could be as innocuous as simply missing out on audiences that we didn’t know existed — a segment of players that requires more nuance to understand than “hardcore” or “casual,” perhaps, or that can’t be defined as any of killers, achievers, explorers, or socializers. More problematic, however, designing games with player typologies in mind opens the doorway to reinforce stereotypes of which games different people “should” be playing, and which play styles are more valid than others.

In his original article, Bartle didn’t have much good to say about the “killers”; they were basically the Slytherin of player types, a category for those who don’t play well with others. Bart Stewart’s Unified Model goes some way toward legitimizing their activities as a valid play style that most games simply aren’t designed to accommodate, but the fact remains that the original typology was constructed in such a way that essentially demonizes a segment of players. In the meantime, releases like Gears of War have demonstrated that there’s a market for games that explicitly encourage “killer” play styles, such as by offering brutal and demoralizing ways to dispatch with opponents.

Even more problematic than missing out on audiences, however, is to unintentionally exclude audiences by assuming that certain games are only for certain “types” of players. This risk is probably less in overt categorizations than in implicit or easily inferred connections, like the common assumption that women are more likely to be “casual” gamers, and less interested in games like fast-paced, first person shooters.

To be fair, some studies have indeed observed different preferences between different demographics, and some have even attempted to explain such differences — say, in terms of innate, cognitive differences between men and women (e.g., see John Sherry’s “Flow and Media Enjoyment” [pdf link]). Again, however, it’s important to consider the huge role that context can play in terms of what people will feel comfortable engaging in — or, to put it another way, what they’ll even bother to try.

Consider a study by Diane Carr, for instance, which found that when girls were given the chance to regularly play whatever games they wanted in a comfortable, non-judgmental atmosphere, expectations from both stereotypes and other empirical evidence practically disappeared. Yes, men might have a slight neuropsychological edge at navigating a 3D maze in a first person shooter, but that’s probably not what’s keeping more women from playing. The fact that a game is popularly considered more “meant for” some audiences than others is worth considering as a factor in who chooses to play, rather than who would be capable of enjoying it.

From the standpoint of simply designing more engaging games, however, the greatest reason I see for thinking in terms of “game appeals” is that it’s a lot easier to contemplate how to blend different appeals than different personalities. Through design, we can make room for a number of different ways to enjoy a game, or we can purposefully pare down the number of appeals a game offers so that they don’t conflict with one another in unintentional ways. Before I offer some more specific examples of how to think about this, however, I’d like to suggest what I see as some useful categories to think about appeals.

Five Categories of Appeals

Researchers, critics, and designers have suggested a lot of ways to analyze the ways that games can engage players. Why throw in one more? Partly, I offer this approach to validate some excellent ideas suggested by others, backed up with additional research. In addition, however, I offer this approach to fill some gaps that may not be discussed on a widespread level yet. And finally, so much of the research and theory on how we engage with games either focuses very specifically on challenge, or defines engagement with games in terms of “fun”.

Given that recent years have seen an explosion in popular games that are not at all challenging, and a quieter expansion in “serious” games that provoke thought more than provide amusement, it seems a good time to draw attention to broader concepts of how we play.

I do, of course, intend to follow the grand academic tradition of borrowing wholeheartedly from my favorite theories. Bart Stewart’s Unified Model is especially useful in recognizing that certain player behaviors represent legitimate styles of play that designs can purposely accommodate; “griefing” isn’t necessarily just for jerks, but something that can be built into a game to appeal to certain needs and interests.

Mitch Krpata’s New Taxonomy of Gamers offers some usefully fine-tuned distinctions between different kinds of challenge, immersion, and recreation. Michael Abbott’s Fun Factor Catalog offers a data-based set of appeals, but without much rigorous, systematic organization to date (as it is still a work in progress).

Hunicke, LeBlanc, and Zubek’s MDA [pdf link] (Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics) approach, meanwhile, offers perhaps the most comprehensive range of ways that players engage with games, but leaves some aspects relatively unexplored. Few theoretical approaches even recognize “submission” as a reason people play games — so what does it look like?

Consider here, then, five categories of game appeals:

Accomplishment: Appeals involving extrinsic and intrinsic rewards.

Imagination: Appeals involving pretending and storytelling.

Socialization: Appeals involving friendly social interaction.

Recreation: Appeals for adjusting physical, mental, or emotional state.

Subversion: Appeals involving breaking social or technical rules.

Though my own research has focused primarily on video games, I’ve noticed that many of these appeals may be equally effectively applied to analysis of how other sorts of games are designed, as well. I’ll suggest a few specific appeals for each category, but there is likely room for more.

Accomplishment

Accomplishment refers to the rewarding feelings that come from “winning” or otherwise succeeding at a game. Related appeals include completion (finishing a game, getting all the trophies/achievements/unlockable content), perfection (improving one’s skills at the game), domination (besting other players), fortune (earning a reward through chance), and construction (using a game to create art or objects).

I take a cue from Mitch Krpata here in making a distinction between completion and perfection. As I found in my own research, completion is what inspires players to earn every Achievement in Halo 3, but perfection is what inspires them to achieve the highest multiplayer ranking possible. Domination is also a factor in the latter, but a player can find satisfaction in defeating other players even if she isn’t necessarily improving her skills (as even expert players sometimes take pleasure in crushing poorly matched opponents).

Note, however, that accomplishment doesn’t necessarily only include mastering a game through one’s own skill, but simply winning at it. Players still find something appealing in lining up three cherries on a casino slot machine, or harvesting all their crops on time in FarmVille, even if there was no actual skill involved in the “win”. This is why I add an additional appeal for fortune, representing a sense of accomplishment through no actual ability, or perhaps even any effort.

After describing all of these appeals, it may seem odd to group construction — an expressive act — alongside more traditional concepts of “winning.” I include this here, however, because acts of creativity in games are similarly goal-oriented, and often accompanied by external indicators of success or failure (such as appreciative comments by forum-goers looking upon your screen shots).

Whether the end result is a mosaic of the Mona Lisa rendered in FarmVille crops, an especially attractive Skyrim character, or an exquisitely-constructed palace in Minecraft, construction offers a sense of user-definable accomplishment all its own; what the game contributes is a platform that makes this possible.

Imagination

Imagination refers to practices of pretend, with particular regard to storytelling and simulation. Related appeals include spectatorship (“watching” stories), directorship (“making” stories), roleplaying (pretending to take on another kind of identity), and exploration (pretending to exist within a pretend landscape).

Different games emphasize different imagination appeals to varying extents. Skyrim, for instance, has a heavy emphasis on directorship and exploration. Go on any Skyrim forum online, and you’ll find plenty of players sharing detailed stories of their adventures and the unexpected things they encountered, each different from the others. There’s room for roleplaying — many players generate quite a bit of back story and additional context for their characters — but the game itself doesn’t really ask players to do this, at least not directly.

In contrast, Mass Effect offers less in the way of exploration, giving players a more linear path to explore, but it more directly guides roleplaying and focuses more on spectatorship, with cinematic cutscenes and clearly defined personality options for the protagonist. Players still have a sense of directorship, discussing on their own forums how they made different choices and told different stories, but the range of narratives is narrower because the game is written to more resemble Hollywood storytelling techniques. Gears of War, meanwhile, offers no opportunity for directorship in its campaign mode, but through dialog, cutscenes, and music, still offers opportunities for spectatorship.

I also humbly posit that spectatorship should include not just engaging with the story of a game you’re playing, but engaging with the story of a game you’re watching someone else play. This refers not only to players I’ve spoken with in the course of my research who make their spouses buy certain games so they can watch somebody else play through for the story, but also to the many thousands of spectators of professional sports at stadiums and in front of televisions. Though “winning” plays a part in people’s enjoyment of such games, the unfolding drama of a game in progress, with an uncertain end, can appeal to both players and spectators alike.

Socialization

Socialization refers to the various ways that players use games to connect with one another on an interpersonal level. Related appeals include conversation (through game chat during play, or made possible through in-game messaging), cooperation (supporting and helping one another during play), and generosity (helpful behavior in a more one-way direction, like giving gifts or helping a low-level player advance more quickly).

You could, of course, argue that socialization is an appeal of any entertainment medium, from discussing favorite books with a friend to attending a movie in a crowd. Games, however, can be (and often are) specifically designed to encourage particular kinds of socialization over others.

Rock Band, for instance, is fun in groups not just because multiple people can play at the same time, but because it actively fosters a sense of cooperation: Players rely on one another and can help each other. If one player does poorly, the song could end for everyone, so other players must be mindful about when to save floundering teammates by triggering “Overdrive” mode.

Many team-based action games also rely on conversation between teammates not just to chat about how your day went (though players use games as a social gathering for just that purpose), but also to share tactical information and plan group actions against opponents.

Less formally explored, however, are more one-way generosity mechanics — helping out players without necessarily receiving a reward for oneself. That may sound like it would be a contradiction in terms: Once you design a system that recognizes one player helping another, doesn’t that necessarily imply a reward for the charitable player, making this more appropriately described as cooperation? I’d argue that this isn’t always the case, but such a system may have yet to be designed in a truly satisfying way.

FarmVille, for instance, does allow for cooperation-free generosity by giving players the option to send one another gifts at no cost. One could ask for reciprocity (and players often do), but some players happily use this feature simply because they enjoy giving gifts to others.

Unfortunately, the system is designed better as a marketing tool than as an appeal because the result is often unwanted Facebook messages notifying players’ friends that they have a “gift” waiting in a game they don’t play. Some MMORPGs also offer formalized “mentor systems” (see Shadow Cities or Final Fantasy XI), suggesting that there is room to actually design for such appeals, though this is more typically arranged by players through less formalized means.

Recreation

Recreation refers to processes of renewal and pastime, which typically means using a game to adjust one’s psychological or psychological state. Related appeals include mood-management (toward relaxation, elation, amusement, or other emotions), distraction (actively avoiding thinking of painful or difficult stimuli), contemplation (pondering thought-provoking issues), and exertion (getting physically energized through play).

The broadest of these appeals is mood-management. I offer this as a single appeal, rather than offering each type of mood-management as its own appeal (relaxation, amusement, excitement, etc.), not only because that list would quickly get unreasonably long, but to make a distinction between appeals as play-behaviors and emotional states as their end result.

That said, it’s worth making note that mood-management encompasses a great many more states than “having fun.” flOw, a slow-moving, soothing game, was specifically designed to show how games might encourage relaxation rather than elation. Shadow of the Colossus and Final Fantasy VII have received praise for sometimes effectively encouraging sadness over happiness. Players choose different games based on context, depending on their company and their preferred mood.

Contemplation is a related appeal, perhaps even part of mood management. Passage, for instance, is a short game with subtle implications rather than an obvious goal for “fun.” It’s a game that is calculated to make you think, rather than to make you enjoy yourself. Distraction is another related appeal, and one that may not sound very worthwhile, given that it can be taken to refer to shutting out other responsibilities that need to be dealt with (as with compulsive gambling, for instance). Even so, distraction is at the heart of why games make such excellent therapeutic tools in hospitals, effectively acting as non-medicating pain-reducers.

One of the main reasons I think it’s important to give recreation its own category is that it includes the main appeals that have skyrocketed many so-called “casual” games to success, from Facebook and mobile “social games” to motion-control games on the Wii and other systems. Regardless of whether critics or designers find their tactics to be nothing more than extortion, the success of skill-free games like FarmVille and Tiny Tower should suggest that these games are giving players something that they want.

Rather than lamenting that players are unfortunate dupes, it’s worth considering that maybe players are getting precisely what they want from these games, at a price players are willing to pay. And while many traditional gamers lament that Wii “shovelware” games do little to scratch the surface of what motion control technologies could do, it has done little to slow sales of the system. Even the least thoughtfully-designed Wii game might offer some opportunity for pleasant physical exertion in the hands of someone eager to cut loose in the living room.

Subversion

Subversion refers to behaviors that run counter to norms and expectations, as defined by society and game logic alike. Related appeals include provocation (actively antagonizing other players through “inappropriate” behavior), disruption (breaking game logic and exploiting glitches), and transgression (“playing evil”, such as killing friendly NPCs).

I group these appeals because each involves breaking some kind of rule. Provocation involves breaking implicitly agreed-upon social norms about how people are expected to act in games and in polite interaction. Disruption involves breaking rules hard-coded into the game — and, if you use those rules to your advantage in a multiplayer game, breaking the aforementioned social contract of “fair” play.

Transgression is generally considered the least offensive of these, as the rules broken are broader cultural norms, and generally permitted by fellow players and game rules. Nevertheless, I group this sort of transgression along with the other subversion appeals because the root of enjoyment behind this activity is, as more than one person said in the course of my research, “being a dick”. The basic appeal of each of these activities revolves around doing something you know you’re not supposed to be doing.

I give these attention as valid appeals, rather than dismissing them as griefing, glitching, and cheating, simply because so many players enjoy doing this sort of thing that it may be helpful to avoid thinking of it as a deviant behavior. (For a comprehensive account, see Mia Consalvo’s book, Cheating.) How can designers account for this appeal?

The most obvious answer, of course, is that actually accounting for subversion neuters it entirely. How can you encourage rule-breaking and also leave the thrill of breaking the rules? That doesn’t necessarily tell the whole story, however. Designing a path for “evil” play is one way to offer a transgression appeal: In Fallout 3, for instance, the player breaks no game-logic rules by sharing a friendly meal with cannibalistic murderers or by selling a small child into slavery, but still gets to enjoy bucking traditional narrative expectations and social norms.

Designers can even formalize provocation in a game where copping an attitude might be an expectation of the community: The aforementioned player-on-player brutality of Gears of War (with the option to punch an opponent’s face for several seconds even after you’ve beaten them) might arguably be called a formalized approach to griefing. These offer ways to break the rules of normal social conduct without breaking the rules of the game.

Admittedly, it’s trickier to suggest ways to encourage players to actually break the game rules without running the risk of actually destroying the game (or at least crashing multiplayer servers). Cheat codes and Easter eggs offer a sort of sanctioned subversion — breaking game rules on a controllable scale.

Could we imagine a game that even more purposely encourages this sort of appeal — say, a Matrix-style science-fiction game where glitching actually makes sense in the context of the game world, and interesting glitches get formalized as part of the game rules? I certainly wouldn’t want to be the one in charge of making sure the game doesn’t fall apart as players scramble to find ways to do just that, but it would be interesting to see some developer try something like it. For now, subversion may represent the most unexplored category of appeals to date.

Complements and Conflicts Between Appeals

Reading over these appeals, you may notice that they aren’t at all mutually exclusive — and, in fact, that’s entirely the point. This allows us to discuss the many ways in which they intersect for good and ill, and how to design games to capitalize on these intersections.

Finding and exploiting a game’s glitches, for instance, offers subversion-related appeals in breaking the rules, but it may also offer accomplishment-related appeals in giving oneself an edge against opponents, or even just in uncovering the secrets of the game system. Playing Dance Dance Revolution offers accomplishment-related appeals in achieving a high score on difficult songs, socialization appeals in dancing alongside other players, and recreation appeals through physical exertion.

Different game appeals sometimes map to different game mechanics, but they don’t have to. A game can offer imagination appeals entirely separately from accomplishment appeals by having narrative cutscenes that feel completely irrelevant to player input, but it could also blend imagination and accomplishment by making dialog interactive, even challenging.

Dialog scenes in Mass Effect 2, for instance, offer an appeal of directorship by allowing the player to choose how to respond, but there’s not much room for a the appeal of perfecting one’s skills; some responses yield objectively better results than others, but the best responses are clearly color-coded, and generally achievable so long as you choose consistently “good-guy” or consistently “bad-guy” responses.

In contrast, dialog scenes in games like L.A. Noire and Deus Ex: Human Revolution add an additional layer of challenge by requiring the player to gauge characters’ facial expressions and body language in choosing the most effective responses.

No less important than blending appeals, of course, is anticipating how different appeals might conflict with one another. This offers designers an opportunity to prioritize features, or offer additional context for features, based on the appeals they most want to encourage. As I described in an article in Eludamos, for instance, “dying” in a game is usually hugely disruptive to storytelling, but it’s typically considered an appropriate way to make players feel they have something at stake in failure.

In other words, it’s a traditionally-accepted concession to accomplishment appeals at the cost of imagination appeals. Some games do, however, anticipate this conflict and attempt to compensate for it, such as by explaining away death through narrative means — reviving as a clone in BioShock, or finding out that the death was a mistake by an unreliable narrator in Prince of Persia: Sands of Time.

A more dramatic approach is to completely exclude certain features to ensure that the appeals you most want to encourage are most salient. Consider, for example, how game designers might deal with the potential conflict between imagination appeals and socialization appeals. A cooperative, multiplayer campaign like in Borderlands or Gears of War offers opportunities for socialization with friends, and may even help make challenges more manageable — but these appeals may come at the cost of imagination if your friends have a tendency to chat over cutscenes.

Demon’s Souls also features cooperative and competitive multiplayer mechanics, but it prioritizes imagination appeals (like being drawn into a tense atmosphere) over socialization appeals (like chatting with friends). You can’t communicate directly with other players through voice chat, but only interact with them as ephemeral ghosts or indirectly, by leaving brief messages written on the ground. By forcibly isolating players in their own dangerous worlds, the result is arguably much more thematically and stylistically consistent than it could have been with a voice chat function.

While it won’t always be obvious which appeals are likely to conflict and why, describing game features according to this approach does at least offer a means to critique what has worked and what hasn’t worked in existing games. And by considering all of these appeals on even standing, it’s my hope that we might see more games that experiment with prioritizing some of the least widely utilized appeals, for the sake of innovation, exploration, and — if I may be permitted to say so — fun.

Conclusion

This theory of game appeals represents an attempt to cover a lot of ground. That said, I see this not as an all-encompassing, universal taxonomy, but as a starting point for a way of thinking about games that sees potential value in a broader range of design approaches.

Moreover, I also see plenty of room for additional appeals, or for taxonomical reshuffling as further research recommends. Do skill-free “social games” have more complex workings than I give them credit for by only describing their appeals in terms of recreation and chance accomplishment? Do motion-controlled games like those on the Wii and the Kinect — or athletic sports, for that matter — deserve an entire category separate from recreation, breaking kinesthetic activity into more varied and nuanced appeals? I would have loved to have investigated such questions myself more fully, but I’m hoping others will suggest how to fill in the gaps.

Beyond being a mere theoretical exercise, however, I also hope that these discussions can lead us to designing an even broader variety of thoughtful and innovative games. When designers and developers define games as obstacle courses whose primary purpose is to elicit “fun,” we miss out on other kinds of engagement and experience. And when we describe players as if they could be so easily fit into a small handful of categories themselves, not only do we forget that we can intrigue and delight one player on multiple levels, but we run the risk of never reaching the players — or creating the genres — that we have yet to discover.

篇目3，Gamer Personalities: What Type of Gamer Are You?

15 January 2012 Steve Burke

Sometimes, despite the stigma associated with them, it’s fun to figure out which stereotype is linked to our gaming play styles. Besides being sort of fun and self-indulgent, it’s also a fantastic way of figuring out which games you might like and which you’re likely to get bored of rapidly.

Completionists

You’re focused on achievement and progression; your primary objective is to complete the game’s primary objectives, then its secondary objectives, then all the other content in the game. If it’s a multiplayer game, Completionists often look to show off status and accumulated wealth. If it can be beaten, you beat it; if it can be collected, you collect it. You’re the type of person that will reply an open-ended game multiple times, likely opting to beat it both as “good” and “evil,” or whatever other options are present.

WHY DO I KEEP ACCEPTING THESE?

If it means a better score or exposure to a new adventure path, it is not below you to load and re-load in an effort to locate the best option. You are concerned with seeing all there is to offer and enjoy getting your money’s worth, at times finding yourself obsessive about progression. You’d be the type to play Skyrim in “hardcore mode,” just to see what it’s like. It doesn’t matter whether it’s linear or open-ended, as long as it has a goal.

You most likely would enjoy: RPGs, MMOs, games of challenges.

Games to look into: Morrowind & Skyrim, SWTOR, the Baldur’s Gate series, Neverwinter Nights, Cave Story.

Destroyers

No game is too difficult for you; you research the best strategies, the overpowered approaches, map layout, assault directions, or — if these things bore you — maybe you’re just damn good at killing things, whether or not you analyze your approach. If it can be killed, you kill it, maim it, destroy it, and leave nothing behind. Destroyers enjoy figuring out new and inventive ways to take people out, especially in multiplayer games where skill is shown to all in the server.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a stealth game, an open assault game, or just a multiplayer mash-up like Unreal Tournament and Quake; as long as you can obliterate the competition, you’re happy (and damn good at it). You are most concerned with points and kill-death ratios, if it’s a singleplayer game, you try to get as creative as possible when it comes to vanquishing your foes. You are very competitive, whether or not it’s intentional.

You most likely would enjoy: FPS’s, RTS’s, games of skill.

Games to look into: Counter-Strike: Source, Day of Defeat, Red Orchestra, Company of Heroes, StarCraft 2, Planetside 2, Age of Chivalry, Battlefield 3.

Creators

Originality, creativity, and expandability are your most important factors when playing a game. You like to build, innovate, or heavily mod your games. Collecting resources, building cities, and creating content are extremely enjoyable to Creators and supersede killing and objectives; you’d rather spend hours installing mods or building cities than completing objectives. You often show your creations off to all of your friends, whether or not they care. You’re original and take pride in using limited resources in clever ways.

Tolkien would be proud… or horrified.

You do have a weakness, though: you’re concerned with becoming bored and burning out; many times in the past, you’ve found that you just simply stop playing a game or question what the point of the game is.

You most likely would enjoy: Open RPGs, Mod-heavy games, Builders (i.e., Minecraft or city simulators).

Games to look into: MineCraft, the Tycoon series, Terraria, X3: Albion Prelude, Dwarf Fortress, Spore, Hinterland.

Thinkers

You’re of a dying breed in gaming, but you find yourself to be the most strategic and advanced of all the gaming stereotypes. Settling in for the long-haul and strategically expanding your empire is of great importance — Thinkers are focused on making beneficial compromises in effort to maximize your gain and minimize the potential for a future set-back. Solving complex problems, whether puzzles, profitability of a trade route, or paths of assault, is your favorite aspect of gaming. You hate it when games hold your hand and prefer to do it on your own.

You likely enjoy (or would enjoy) tabletop wargames or puzzles in addition to your gaming habits. You’re most concerned with different types of empire building or puzzle solving and will often complete a game multiple times, if only to see the different ways to solve a problem. If you have to, you’ll self-impose problems to make an otherwise thoughtless game interesting.

You most likely would enjoy: Turn-based strategy, some RTS, puzzle games.

Games to look into: The Total War series, Hearts of Iron, Aperatus (mobile devices), Frozen Synapse, SpaceChem, Portal 2.

Explorers

Unveiling the most expansive, breathtaking environments that the developers had to offer is incredibly important to you; exploring and adventuring are of paramount importance to you. Explorers embark on objective-less journeys to see the most impressive regions of a game. You love the visuals or inhabitant variations and believability of a game world and will even ignore main quests for days-on-end if it means seeing more of the land.

One of many star systems in X3: Albion Prelude.

Explorers are prone to collecting pointless items in games — books, weapons, gadgets — and putting them on display for all to see (even if it’s a singleplayer game). You take pride in the fact that your map, unlike many of your friends, has almost every icon fast-travelable on it; you’ve seen all there is to see. Explorers are proficient at ‘making their own fun’ in a game and are often similar to Creators.

You would most likely enjoy: MMOs, Open RPGs, expansive games.

Games to look into: Morrowind & Skyrim, the X3 series, MineCraft, Trine 2 (incredible visuals), Divinity II, SWTOR, Dwarf Fortress.

Casual Gamers

“What’s with all this stereotype crap? I just sit down and play whenever I can.” You really don’t think that hard about your games — you play when you can and tend to enjoy non-competitive, low-stress gaming. Casual gamers find themselves playing whatever’s easily available – phone games, social network games, indie games, puzzle games, and often find themselves relatable with Thinkers. You might also find Triple-A games to be problematic, as pointed out here.

It’s not of your concern to kill lots of people, which you find repetitive and frustrating anyway, or complete infinite objectives, or spend days building a castle; you just want something easy that doesn’t take a lot of effort, although you do sometimes find thinking games fun, as long as they’re not brutal.

You would most likely enjoy: Casual games (derp), Puzzle games, platformers, arcade-style.

Games to look into: Audiosurf, Beat Hazard, Droplitz, Scribblenauts, Spectraball, Zombie Driver, Orcs Must Die!.

Challengers

Games of pure skill, refinement, and speed are the most respectable in your eyes; you love mastering a game and being the best in the high scores tables. If people have complained about how difficult a game is, you’re the one that exclaims: “CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!” You take it upon yourself to painstakingly figure out the fastest routes, preserve lives, and accumulate points.

There is no platformer too grueling for you, no arcade game worthy of your dedication, and no gamer that comes close to your attention to timing and sequencing. You’re the very same type of person that plays games like StarCraft only for the modded challenges. Challengers will often spend hours on a single level, trying to perfect timings and complete goals with utmost precision. No goal is too hard for you.

You would most likely enjoy: Platformers, arcade-style games.

Games to look into: I Wanna Be The Guy, Silver Surfer (NES), Super Meat Boy, VVVVVV, Bit.Trip Runner, Jamestown, AaAaAA!!! – A Reckless Disregard for Gravity, N+.

Adventurers
A unique mix of explorer and destroyer, adventurers love to play for the story and the thrill of the game. They’re the most likely to get immersed for hours at a time, and are captured by compelling stories and fantastical landscapes. Adventurers like to destroy, but only when it’s relevant to the story (or they get bored, but they don’t save if they kill things for no reason). You try to see as much as there is to see, complete the story, and still have fun at the same time. You’re not interested in finishing everything in the game like the Completionists are – but you are captivated by many of the elements that Explorers find attractive.

Your weakness is also what makes you an Adventurer: You can easily locate flaws in the game, notice glitches frequently, and find gaping holes in the story. You’re skilled at locating inconsistencies and, while it drives you crazy, you try to get over it if the story is good enough. Linear games don’t bother you as much as they would explorers, but you still prefer openness.

You would most likely enjoy: RPGs, Story-based MMOs.

Games to look into: Fallout, Skyrim, Baldur’s Gate II, Dragon Age: Origins, Neverwinter Nights, Icewind Dale, Bioshock, Assassin’s Creed.

篇目4，Playing to Win? Measuring Social Interaction in Games

by Steve Bromley, Graham McAllister, Pejman Mirza-Babaei, Jonathan Napier

Why is Social Interaction Important?

Social interaction is becoming an increasingly important theme in multiplayer gaming. The success of the Wii, and its focus on casual multiplayer games such as Wii Sports or Just Dance, has highlighted how important playing with friends is to reaching wider audiences and creating successful game experiences.

For developers, it’s therefore important to be able to understand the types of social interaction that exist, and measure them during the development of games. In a collaboration between Relentless Software and Vertical Slice, we have been developing a methodology to allow developers to evaluate interaction from the very earliest prototypes.

This not only allows developers to measure the forms of interaction evident in their game but also, through increasing our ability to profile players, allows developers to target games towards specific gamer types.

Understanding Social Interaction

In order to measure social interaction, it is first important to define the types of interaction that occur during multiplayer collocated (i.e. sat in the same room) gaming.

Voida, Carpendale, and Greenberg, in their paper The Individual and the Group in Console Gaming, observed people playing multiplayer social games such as Guitar Hero, Mario Party and Mario Kart. By noting and defining the forms of behavior evident in these sessions, they categorized interaction into six groups, presented below. Ackermann also conducted a study, coding and analyzing the forms of interaction noted by players at LAN parties, and noted similar interaction categories.

By combining their research with data from previous Relentless Software usability tests, the following categories of interaction were defined:

Voida et al.’s Original Category

Revised Social Interaction Category

Description

Constructing Shared Awareness

Shared Awareness

Shared Awareness includes building a shared awareness of the game state, and can include collaborative working out, giving hints, or making another player aware of something within the game, such as game mechanics or “what to do”. It can also include reporting to other players what activities you are performing within the game.

“Let me have the health pack, I’m low on health”

Requesting Information

Requesting Information typically includes asking about what is happening in game, how the game works, or how to achieve their goal. It can also include asking other players to report their status. It is often combined with a period of shared awareness.

“How do I solve this puzzle?”

Reinforcing Shared History

Shared History

Shared History includes discussing what happened earlier in the game, or in a prior play session. May include links to other games, or with players not present.

“Remember when we beat that boss?”

Sharing in Success and Failure

Shared Success

Shared Success includes celebrating a group success, or congratulating another player on their success. It can include a group celebration despite being in a competitive situation.

“Well done, that was really hard!”

Shared Failure

Shared Failure includes taking group responsibility for failing a task, offering reassurance, or commiserating with a player who has failed a task. It does not include blame (which may be more appropriate under Trash Talk).

“It’s not your fault, it was a difficult question!”

Engaging in Interdependence and Self-Sacrifice

Team Optimization

Team Optimization includes discussing the group dynamics, or negotiating an individual’s contribution to the group. It can include assessing the ability of others, and discussions over who is leading or in control. Can also include denying players the chance to join in.

“Let me do this bit, I’m better at math!”

Talking Trash

Trash Talk

Trash Talk includes celebrating your own success over the other players, or laughing at their failure. This can be in competitive or collaborative game types, and often involves put downs or insults.

“You suck!”

Falling Prey to the computer’s holding power

Self Indulgence

Self Indulgence includes not playing the game at the expense of other players’ enjoyment, making up one’s own meta-game, or not participating fully, leading to a disruption of the flow of the game. It can include repeatedly performing the same action (i.e. viewing a hidden in-game feature or Easter egg).

“My character’s going to have a nap now.”

N/A

Off Topic

Off Topic includes discussing non-game based interaction or discussion

“Nice weather we’re having!”

Bart Stewart recently discussed the use of models for player types, and noted that the most popular model from Bartle divides players into four types, as follows. We have also used the same idea of player types as a way to distinguish between each player’s individual motivations.

Player Type

Description

Killers (Clubs)

Killers are interested in combat/competition with other human players, and prefer this over interaction with non-player characters.

Achiever (Diamonds)

Achievers are most interested in gaining points or alternative in-game measurements of success. These players will often go out of their way to gain items that have no in-game benefit besides prestige, such as Achievements’ or Trophies.

Explorer (Spades)

These players are interested in discovering the breadth of a game, and will explore new areas or take non-optimal routes to explore. They do not like time limits, since this limits the potential to explore options.

Socializers (Hearts)

These players are interested in the social aspect of game play, rather than the game itself. They enjoy interacting with other players, and use the game primarily as a means of communication.

In Bartle’s theory, each individual player’s motivation stretches across each group, with a player being scored in each category, i.e. 80 percent killer, 10 percent socializer, 10 percent achiever.

For this study, the online Bartle Test was utilized, which asks the user 30 questions, before giving them a Bartle player type. For analysis of the results, we divided players by their type.

Measuring Social Interaction

To understand how social interaction differs across player types, and to show the application of the methodology for measuring social interaction, we ran eight lab sessions, each with two collocated players, 30 minutes of playtime, and triangulated social interaction, biometric, and player interview data to gain a better understanding of the forms, and effects, of social interaction during gameplay.

The players were picked from pre-existing social groups to encourage interaction. Pairs of players were asked to play a game of Buzz! Quiz World, the social quiz game created by Relentless Software.

During these sessions, a custom tool, created in Processing, was used to record the forms of social interaction noted, and automatically timestamp the data for further analysis.

Throughout the session GSR (galvanic skin response) data was taken, measuring how their body reacted to the in-game events and the forms of social interaction noted.

GSR has a linear correlation with arousal (such as excitement or frustration) and reflects non-specific emotional response. The GSR data was presented on a timeline, and was later correlated with the social interaction data.

After the session, players were asked to record their experience on blank graph paper, and annotate this. This was done unprompted, before interviewing the players, to ensure that a fair representation of their memories of the session, and the events/interaction that occurred during it, could be evaluated.

The custom social interaction recording tool

The players were then interviewed while watching a video of their play session in order to gain an understanding of what they were thinking throughout the session. When prompted by peaks in the GSR signal or a-typical social interaction behavior, the players were asked to describe what they were thinking or doing at that moment. This gave increased insight into why players were acting as they were, not just how they acted.

A player’s self-assessed “experience” graph

What Did We Find?

As mentioned, we broke the results down by the four player types, to gain greater insight into the motivations behind each form of interaction noted.

Killers

Killers, who as we noted are most interested in defeating other players, showed the highest degree of the “trash talk” behavior, insulting and goading their opponent.

It was also interesting to note that Killers’ levels of arousal, as identified by GSR, and social interaction, dropped significantly when it was obvious they were going to win — they are only interested in “worthy” opponents, as was confirmed later by the interviews.

A Killer’s self assessed “experience” graph

Recommendations:

Their desire for defeating other players could be realized and emphasized in game through the introduction of taunt mechanics in games, as are found in many fighters.

Game mechanics can be introduced to ensure continued engagement by ensuring that all players always have the opportunity to win. This has previously been seen through the rubber banding in games such as Mario Kart, or the final round of Buzz! Quiz World, which converts the score players have earned throughout the game into a head start in the last round.

Achievers

Achievers, who are defined by their interest in visibly demonstrating their success at a game, showed the highest level of interaction and arousal when the game displayed a visible indication of their progress.

In Buzz! Quiz World, this was noted particularly for the Pie Fight round, where the players received a pie in the face for an incorrect answer, and in the Over the Edge round, which raised players who were doing badly towards a sludge tank.

In their interactions, it was also noted that achievers were prepared to give up their advantage to verbally demonstrate that they knew the answer.

In trivia games like Buzz! there is an advantage if your opponent doesn’t know the right answer; however, achievers were noted to say their answers out loud while answering, demonstrating their superior knowledge, at the cost of in-game success. Evidently prestige is more important than the game’s defined objectives.

Recommendations:

Achievers described how they’d like further rewards in game, as demonstrated by comments that they’d like the audience to chant their name in-game.

As such, a game can be tailored towards encouraging interaction from achievers by offering the opportunity to visibly display success in each round against their opponent, not just through badges and trophies, but through in-game mechanics, such as stats and support!

A player falling towards the sludge in Over The Edge, with a visible peak in the Achiever’s GSR signal (green)

Socializers

Among socializers, it was noted that their interaction was primarily collaborative. Socializers would work together with their opponent, and discuss the choice of rounds to ensure that they both shared enjoyment in the game session, whereas other player types often chose categories their opponent would perform poorly in.

Socializers demonstrated the high degree of “shared awareness” verbal interactions, and discussed the answers. Unlike achievers, this interaction was collaborative and involved two players working out the correct answer to the questions together. It was also noted that socializers were uninterested in the progress of the game, and showed a low level of GSR arousal to in-game events, compared to other player types.

Recommendations:

Due to the high level of arousal noted when socializers talked to one another, the recommendation can be made to emphasize communication between the players, even in typically competitive gameplay, to ensure that they remain engaged in the game. This can be achieved through development of plot or the use of humor.

Explorers

Explorers, who are defined by their interest in exploring and understanding the breadth and depth of the game and its mechanics, also demonstrated a high level of cooperative interaction — and, like socializers, worked together with other players while describing what was happening in the game.

They showed the highest level of interaction when engaged by new challenges, such as selecting the topic for a new round, discovering the mechanics of the round, or being asked new questions. Explorers also demonstrated a high level of interest in the visual aspects of the game, such as describing what their in-game avatars were doing at the time. Like socializers, they were not engaged by Buzz!’s overt success goals, and a explorer even said “I’m not interested if I win or lose.”

Recommendations:

When targeting games towards explorers, it is important to display a wide variety in content, both in the game mechanics and graphically. Minigame collections, such as WarioWare and Mario Party are good examples of games that encourage social interaction from explorers.

An Important Note

It is important to recognize in the recommendations for all player types that optimizing a game towards one player type may create a detrimental experience for other types, and hence it will be important for the design team to evaluate the results of this method against their development goals.

Where Next?

Developed in partnership with Relentless Software, the methodology for live-coding the forms of social interaction that occur during gameplay allows great insight into precisely what elements of a game cause reactions with players. The application of this methodology during development can allow designers to tailor a game towards emphasizing specific forms of interaction, or targeting specific player types.

This study has shown how the forms of social interaction differ for each player type in the social trivia game Buzz! Quiz World, from the taunting of highly competitive killers, the boasting of achievers, or the collaborative discussion of socializers. The application of this to different game types, from FPSs to RPGs, would reveal interesting distinct traits in the interactions found among each player type in response to more directly competitive play. There is also potential to explore how social interaction changes among larger groups of players.