Richard Bartle is actually my professor at Essex University. He is essentially the grandfather of MMO's. Seeing the creator of one of my favorite fictional worlds talk about him actually blows my mind. I keep forgetting that he is kinda famous..
I have noticed that when i max out my character's level and abilities ,my interest to continue playing the game greatly drops. Regardless of what other goals are left inside the game world.
I have the same issue. I think the main problem is that the level of challenge decreases to a point where combat becomes boring. This is an inherent problems of games, and it's not easy to solve. One way is to have something like level-scaling, but then the player will always feel like he isn't getting stronger - or worse, he is getting weaker and has to do more work to compensate. Tim mentioned some ideas that can solve it, like introducing more enemy variety (healers, supporters, glass-cannons, tanks), increasing enemy quantity and having them interact. Even then it is important to avoid having the player at some point being flooded by thousands of enemies which he one-shots with AoEs. Having something like steps could be it - meaning there should be a significant gap between the same type of mob with different levels. I think that's a good solution, and it happens to fit my game for example very well.
@@brianviktor8212 Would be interesting to see proportional scaling and/or logarithmic leveling, eg. the enemies scale with your level but you get stronger than those enemies over time. Maybe another way to explain is, having the enemies soft scale with you, and if you have a level cap, maybe the enemies continue to scale at a lower rate depending on your stats if you have a stat system
@@Chris3s Yes, that alleviates the problem of getting large gaps of power to the same enemies as you level up. Meaning when you are level 1, the bandit is 1. When you are 10, the bandit is 7. When you are 20, the bandit is 12. But perceptively you merely notice a slower character power progression. I'm not fundamentally against level scaling, as it increases the range of players who can be at a given zone, or even allow players to go wherever they want to level. I'd consider using the strategy mentioned above - instead of level scaling, you scale quantity and quality of enemies - for example bandits - mages, medics, marauders, archers. You are forced to be more tactical. You have encountered the same types of enemies before, but they were largely alone or 2 at best. As you level up, they may consider you a bigger threat, so they group up more. And when you go very far up the levels, you get higher levels of them (big step up): Bandit lords, arch wizards, sharpshooters, etc. Killing one bandit lord might be as hard as killing ~3 marauders at once. First you encounter the lower level ones alone, then in groups, then the higher level ones alone, then in groups with lower level ones, then groups of higher level ones. This provides a step-wise progression, and the challenge to the player scales with his expected capabilities (level).
Your summary is basically how I feel about every design framework. MDA, Value Chains, Player Archetypes. They're all just different ways of approaching and viewing a problem. They can be helpful in the right situation, and a distraction in the wrong one.
One important thing to remember with any kind of archetypes, is that people will never be 100% percent one or another. So for games for example, when playes choose their main class or path, I think it's important to not lock them out too much of other experiences.
Precisely. I think overlap or even mixing the archetypes is ideal and perhaps could even be encouraged. For me personally, I think I fall roughly within the center of the so-called graph, since I like to do all the things, but that may also be because I'm playing the games I play through a developer lens rather than a regulars player's lens.
Exactly! Jus wrote a comment in which I mention the same based on my own experiences. This taxonomy is useful but not as a blueprint for designing rigid classes instead as a guide to how people should be able to interact with game world and each other
I think thats partly true in a way, but also i feel like looking at it as a percentage might not really be right, or i mean the idea that you have 100% and thats made up of 4 parts, i feel like you can really be 100% multiple archetypes they dont always necessarily conflict or oppose eachother though they may have a different priority or order for different people. Maybe the conflict sometimes, killer and socializer will probably need a little compromise, i mean its hard to socialize with npcs/pcs who are dead, but you could have like a bandit group or be a sort of protector/guard/knight, i dont feel like that leaves it at 50/50 both would probably be higher than 50% in practice.
I'm primarily a social/exploratory type Achieving is very much not me, but I don't mind killing things if it's cathartic enough If it's "you shoot a guy 43 times and you've chipped away 14% of their health bar" then I'm out :P
There's a surprising amount of psychological depth to Bartle's Taxonomy, especially in how different players change alignments in different situations. Normally, I'm an Explorer through and through, but in multiplayer situations I become almost 100% a Socializer and prefer to focus on support and steering the group towards quests. In games like EDF and Helldivers, which thrive on the catharsis of combat, I forego them both and become a Killer. Can't say I ever become an achiever, though. Games that cater to that too heavily give me a headache. But it's fascinating how people react and change what they enjoy depending on what they're doing, and I love thinking about this stuff every time I play a new game.
This makes so much sense! My best childhood friend, with whom I played many games, was a killer explorer whereas I was an achiever socializer. This often lead to interesting disagreements.
I think there’s a missing archetype which we could call Creator. That would be a player that likes to express creativity in the game. Unlike achiever you set your own goals for yourself and unlike explorer it’s not about finding existing content but making your own. These archetypes would be drawn to games with crafting, customization, builds, etc
For me, a player, those archetypes correspond to some of the different ways I've had pleasure from video-games. Not a single one of them describes me, they (almost) describe me only when they all combine together. Therefore I think - they don't work as archetypes for players' description (they don't encapsulate a single video-game player like me), - but they can still work in encapsulating defined ways a single video-game player like me can have fun in video-games. Which makes complete sense since those archetypes are statistical observations and groupings made on players of a single specific game. I mean, if the specific game in question happened to be Tetris, for sure we would be talking about very different archetypes... Speaking about game developers, from an outside point of view like mine, I would think this archetypes approach could be beneficial when the kind of game you're developing is already well defined, when you deduce your archetypes from an analysis of games with similar game-play features, or at least of the same genre. Thanks for your videos!
I would never have called myself a social player, I actively avoid multiplayer games, but based on these descriptions that's the archetype that fits me best.
I am the same way, though I also like exploration. I think this system is on the right track, but it is oversimplified. I like engaging with narratives and interacting with NPCs, but I do not want other people in my games. People can focus on narrative and characters, and they can enjoy interacting with other gamers, but these two characteristics don't necessarily go together. Additionally, I enjoy creative activities, such as building. I've seen other, more complex systems that include this as a category. It doesn't fit neatly into Bartle's classification, but his focus was on MUDs, which likely didn't have this sort of activity back in the day.
Hearing you talk about the Wildstar Paths brought back a huge wave of nostalgia. I've always been what I like to call a "wall climber" (Using available in game methods like terrain to get on top of buildings/etc when my character doesn't yet have access to a form of flight/super jump) so I immediately gravitated to the explorer. I have many fond memories of just chillin on top of mountains (and other places) and bumping into other explorers - there are of course other factors, but remembering the joy of the exploration is something that makes me miss Wildstar all the more. I'll be honest, when you mentioned Wildstar, I went down a Google rabbit hole; Consider me tickled pink that I never realized you had a hand in so many other favourite games of my youth, let alone one of my favourite MMOs! As for the Bartle's Archetypes, if the above commentary didn't imply it enough, I definitely lean heavily into the explorer type and probably close, if not almost equally, into the socializer type with a healthy sprinkle of the achiever to top things off.
Idk why but i can play games like fallout or other RPGs like TES for example, i almost can never play as a bad person But when i played red dead 2 i just went completely psychotic. I feel like I’m more of a explorer, its always fun to see what the developers have built in their game. Especially when its like first hand discovery and not spoiled or from seeing it somewhere else. Skyrim back in my childhood was like genuinely unbeatable for this, i really wish i could get into games as much as i did as a kid for skyrim.
I feel like this also helps players figure out what they like as well, which might result in better feedback from said players. So instead of saying "this game is bad", they might say "I don't feel like this game is rewarding me enough for exploring it" or something to that effect. I love the theory/psychology content, keep up the good work Tim!
Tim I just want to say thanks for what you've done. I played Fallout back when it came out, and have enjoyed the series since. I hope you enjoy seeing what you created flourish. I really like your videos, and getting glimpses into the dev side of how things work. Thanks!
I felt exactly the same way about everquest when it came out, I described it as a MUD with graphics. I was a hardcore LP mud player in the 90s, it is actually why I got recessed from the university my freshman year because I stayed up all night in the engineering building MUDing instead of going to class and studying...My favorite MUDs in those days were StickMUD and TimeWarp.
This is so helpful, thank you, Tim! I feel like my first game catered very well to Achievers and Killers, and to a lesser extend, Explorers, but not Socializers (in the sense of talking to NPCs, having a detailed story. Since the game is SP). I hope to incorporate Explorers and Socializers better in my next game.
summer of '03, I played so much that my dreams were in SimpleMU. MMOs never came close to the level of freedom we had. I remember my mom finally asked me- "what is that game about? Don't you get bored of crawling through a dark cave?" In hindsight I realize she was thrown off by the "dungeon" part, but at the time I was like, "what the heck mom... no it's a whole world with forests and cities"
Wintermute?? Was that from William Gibson's Neuromancer? OMG I'd love to hear more about that . Also, re: this topic, I've always been ambivalent about min-maxing characters. How to do it is good info, but that's not why I like playing. Interesting... I'm more of an explorer, apparently.
That was fascinating. I never wondered in categorizing players, but I know some who play many games by spreadsheets. Latest example I know is Armored Core 6. There are youtube videos where you can find the optimal build for every enemy/level by calculating everything through spreadsheets. Then there are people who just tinker with builds and rely on being good. I know it's not a good example, but lately I don't play many games anymore. edit: And I listen to Tim, because Fallout 1 was such a good game at that time, and I'm really thinking about buying Steamdeck (or some other handheld) for our vacations, and replay my growing up games.
The MMORPG I was hooked on early on was Anarchy Online. It was set in a far flung future with nanotechnology that served as the game’s magic system. I was only in middle school and couldn’t grasp all the gameplay mechanics and never leveled to the maximum but I sure liked exploring and reading the item descriptions.
Very informative vid! I feel like I'm an "archetype drifter": my preferred games are the ones that allow me to drift between "archetype content" when I feel like it. This is something Bethesda's Todd said they try to do in their games (in a recent "Kinda Funny Games" interview). Must be why I love their games: they are not the best in every archetype, but they are good enought in all and allow one to drift as they please.
The one I care about the least is the "social" one. However, when the game has too little of it, I also dislike it since I still like to have some of it once in a while.
Known about this since I studied games at University, but Unique content dependent on class (such as boss fights for soldiers) is actually an amazing idea that never occurred to me before. With enough forethought around hybrid classes and load-outs, you can really encourage replayability and player engagement this way. I love it.
A good enough story, with believable characters, places and or backstory will keep me coming back despite issues with all other aspects of it. Tyranny was great in that regard, because of the novelty of being part of the evil overlord's army when they have achieved a major victory and are about to conquer the last bastion of resistance. Putting you in a position to be despised from the beggining of the game has been a memorable experience for someone that usually goes the "good natured" route in all games. I wouldn't know if the combat was that great, or the locations had nice things to explore. I just remember standing over the big map in the four-year prologue and reading an edict that caused a permanent, impenetrable storm.
Interestingly I'm a socializer in multiplayer games in regard to my play style wanting to be a healer/buffer, but not with wanting to chat with other players. I want to assist and help, but silently, haha
I'm the same, which is why I'm not sure the taxonomy is perfect. There's an introvert/extrovert aspect not accounted for. I'd say thare are : Extrovert Killers, who like getting stronger to beat other players in pvp Introvert Killers, who like getting stronger to 'master' the game Extrovert Socializers, who like talking in chat and making friends, with gameplay being unimportant Introvert "Socializers", who like helping others by healing/buffing, with social stuff being unimportant Extrovert Explorers, who like going on adventures with friends Introvert Explorers, who like to see new things while being immersed in the game world Extrovert Achievers, who like to get rare and difficult achievements for clout Introvert Achievers, who like doing everything 100% for its own sake
Awesome advice fr sooooo much more goes into game dev then any other project or show so I really do appreciate this insight man, I never thought of making players into archetypes I am making 12 classes based on the 12 archetypes for my game such a great system to base classes on! Although seeing players as different archetypes and appealing to all they’re senses through gameplay is just a invaluable over site that could essentially be taught n probably is in game dev school
Yahhh this sounds exactly like my game! Explorer is literally one of the classes cuz where basing em on archetypes that is exactly how I am making this game where u can pick 3 classes but after 5 levels ur stuck as it n then u add 3 more players throughout the story that get to choose from 3 classes too. Where each class will have different synergies in combat, karma paths, different dialogue n ways of solving quests, platforming abilities, party leader tactics, idle animations & endings just exactly like that if I pick explorer I could climb up vines and use a machete etc imma find a lot more chests n treasure that way!
I like to give this another dimension, which augments the existing four in Bartle's Archetypes: - Novelty Seekers - Loopers - Thrill Seekers - Determinists Novelty Neekers are always looking for new content. Be it a new quest or new environment. They may be achievers who are still in it for unique achievements unlike the rest or explorers who want new locations to see. The minute something becomes repetitious, this player burns out and loses interest. Loopers are the opposite of novelty motivated. They like to replay the game just to experience it again, often the same way. They like those story beats and moments, and those mechanics, which they will play over and over again. They like novelty but it doesn't motivate them as much as replay and grind (yes, grind is for these players, so are mobile game loops and idle battlers.) If something isn't their familiar loop, that thing they love, especially specific games (they may play the same game for 1000+ hours) they're not interested. Thrill seekers enjoy the difficulty and randomization of rougelikes and shooters. They want complexity, and to be unsure how this will end. Often Killers, but also often Explorers. They don't want to know how a scenario may turn out, and they lose interest if complexity and ends are obvious. Determinists like certain outcomes. If I do this, then this happens. They dislike the unexpected, and are risk averse. They also like lower difficulty and may just be there for the story, or to build, or to hoard items, and get the good ending for all the companions. Often Achievers. If they are overwhelmed and confused, they quit and will probably save scum trying to get the best outcome, or lose interest if they can't. Might be likely to be stealth archers and turtles. With this extra axis, you can type games as much as players as well. And if you game appeals to a subset of an archetype or all of them, with the extra axis for what motivates or loses them.
Hi Tim, not sure if you've thought on it some more but I'd like to hear your opinions or ideas on how you'd tackle World States in games such as Kenshi where if you kill everyone in a city, leave and come back it'll be in ruins, taken over by wild animals or be occupied by an existing faction.
Good subject, it is a great system that I hope will be featured in more games in the future. To expand the question further, I'd love to hear Tim's take on sandbox RPG (Kenshi, Mount & Blade, etc.) so I would ask : Both single player and multiplayer RPG used to be more reliant on their setting and systems, prioritising the simulation of a coherent, dynamic world to explore over following a "main" quest - if there was any. As tech improved, however, the standard RPG experience became more reliant on strong linear narratives and the simulation aspect became niche (compare, say, WoW with EVE or even old Bethesda with current Bethesda). How would you approach designing a game in which a nobody can make visible changes to the world instead of a game in which the legendary hero does legendary stuff in a very static world that doesn't acknowledge any of it? :p
As always very interesting, sir. In my experience, on big production, Bartle's is also used to help identify the Game pillars to the production, helping to weight production decision based on our persona for the project. For example, if there is a budget issue, maybe Pillars X, associated with the Social profile should be scaled down, since our biggest persona is [''James, an avid Skyrim and The Witcher 3 Player using the PC platform''] and so our player base is most likely not the prime users of the Social pillar's features. It is completely arbitrary and based, as you mentioned, on a model among many others. But it is a structure that helps with the communication of the vision and its realisation.
Interesting. I feel I may be a mixture of killer and socializer. I like pushing a game to its limits when it comes to how much I can do and get away with. But I also enjoy a profound story, the right context and purpose really drives me to stay and explore the world.
I've been debating creating a questing skill system where the more you level it the more it unlocks better features. Instead of getting a gist of what area a quest is in it gives you a smaller radius to check or if you're really good it gives you a directional compass. So people who WANT to find things quickly they can just get to it, but they have to invest into that perk to get it. So its kind of a passive way to say "I want an easier time but I'll sacrifice other skills instead." Not sure how people would take to it, but I think its a happy compromise.
I still play Everquest from time-to-time, but these days it's more like a single player game. 🙁 I've played games for a long time, and have noticed there are different types of players, but never tried to officially name them. The path idea is very interesting. Thanks for sharing Tim!
I do all of these things. Honestly, a game almost needs ALL of these to be going on at once for me to be interested in it. If I had to do it in order of importance it would go Explorer > Killer > Socialize >Achieve.
im a completionist in most games. i feel like i want to be explorer but my brain won't let me enjoy organic exploration, i need to comb through every inch of a place especially if i think ill miss out on loot. this is why i appreciate games that have minimal amounts of loot it helps me appreciate the environment
I like to minmax so I can more efficiently achieve, explore, and solve problems for NPCs. I honestly am not sure which of these archetypes I fit into the most.
One thing to be careful of is that most people don't fall into just one category. Just listening to the descriptions, I was nodding along and saying, "Yes, I like that one," and "I like that one too." I think it's the case that most people enjoy multiple aspects of the game, so it's good to appeal to all of them, though not necessarily to force people to give up one to get another. I think it works better in an MMO like Wildstar, since you could play with people with different paths and get many of the benefits of paths other than your own.
Hey Tim are there any plans to do a video on the development of Vampire the masquerade bloodlines? I played it for the first time last year and loved it and plan to play Arcanum when i get some time off.
I was only on the game for the last half of its development, and then only part time (I was also head of Troika HR too). The closest you can get is my chats with Leonard Boyarsky.
Lately my friends have been partying up and going through Red Dead 2 single player just chatting I think it's a really good intersection between pretty much all of these (maybe not "Killer")
I be very interested to hear you talk about where you feel the taxonomy has shortcomings in your experience, are two or three types more blended, are there other distinct patterns of behavior that you've observed?
I thought I was an Achiever x Explorer, but after listening this I realized that I'm a Socializer. I love to play as a Healer/Cleric and love to help all the NPCs in the games. I though socializer would mean socializing with other players only so I never though that I would be one, as I play solo most of the times.
I must be an enigma. Because I fit all 4 archetypes at the same time. Exploration of the world while killing enemies and gathering materials to craft items that i use and sell to other players while also completing quests
I find myself falling into different playstyle archetypes depending on the game. If I'm playing an RPG alone, I want to discover and explore quest paths, and stats are only relevant in that they allow me to do so. If I'm playing an mmo, I want to minmax and enjoy combat, because having so much text and other humans around would pull me out of the immersion anyway. In a game such as rimworld, I just want to see my sandcastle grow. If I'm playing a racing game, I want to see the performance numbers go up.
These are more like needs in Sims. Plays have different bars that they can fill to feel happy. A lot of players explore and loot, then do all the quests and in the end of a session, after a quicksave, they kill the entire village in combat. If a game wants to stay competitive, it must satisfy as many gamer needs as possible
Gen x mudder in the house. Three parts killer one part social.. Not on the NPC side or west side for the social but if it is for making connections and friends. I played a lot of muds but my favorite was mume which I also gm'd for inmate zones for.
I'm kind of split on what I would fall in most. I like to level up and gain new skills I can use ((Achiever?)), but part of my love for that is absolutely devastating bosses easily *Because* I put in the time ((Killer?)). Outside of Combat I do tend to talk to all the npc's, and I care a lot about story. I often won't replay a game I've seen the end of because I know the story ((Socializer?)) I'm not sure! I'm sure I lean harder into one over another, but I can't tell.
Tim I'm making my first 3d asset for my first game I hope to make, it's a complex revolver and I'm learning a lot on how blender works because of it and hopefully after I make a couple things I'll start experimenting in engine
I really like how some of the soldier class mechanics could be seen as a critique of militaries attracting conflict. Do you know of methods or publishers that utilize these archetypes for NPC character development? If players can gain a similar level of personal growth from learning which style, and by proxy what kind of games, they like to play, could exposing characters to in-context interference with other NPCs, with contrasting archetypes, result in compelling narratives or gameplay?
I’ve always wondered why a character creator didn’t just go all in with a real personality type model. myers briggs or enneagram come to mind and interesting choices.
I still fart around on some MUDs. They were a part of my childhood and it's so weird to hear other people talk about in the real world. Always feels like most people have no idea what they are.
I definitely go for speech options first, and usually go high INT to max characters completely, and I'm a completionist and will go online to research obscurity to locate and get every possible item/location. So I guess I'm an acheiver/explorer??
Hi Tim, thank you for the informative video! Aside from eating chocolate, what other hobbies are you most interested in? How do you feel about (potentially) not having had enough time for them (for example, the lost decade you talked about or any other situations) - now that you're older, do you feel like you missed out on some things or wanted to dedicate yourself more to them?
There is a great breakdown of these player archetypes by Pixel a day that goes to great lengths into the studies around them, why those were problematic and very much non representative of a large group of people, but instead perpuates telling the same stories and experiences. I understand that Tim mostly focusses on a certain type of experiences in Games that very much fits neatly into the categories proposed by Bartle. The video is long, but it did change my outlook ua-cam.com/video/9JbfFYUVR-U/v-deo.html TLDW: Study done on a very small, limited sample of male MMO players, doesn't account for a giant range of people that for instance play narrative games and other less traditional "gamer" games. These people are made invisible an unaccounted for when viewing players through these over simplistic lenses
They don't necessarily. According to Bartle, they "play the game for the social aspect and not the game itself". In my opinion, that is already somewhat of a weird gatekeeping. There are also multiple story games, that are really not about bonding with the characters of the gamer. it just doesn't fit. And there is so much more. What about a person that plays singing or rhythm games without trying to min max their score? There are some many of these types of gamers, that are not even a possibilty in the questionairs. Rhythm games, point and click adventure games, Puzzle games - sure you can fit them in somehow, but the tests and framework don't even ask if you play those types of games, they just aren't accounted for in the studies
Hear me out. Are builders a player type? Like life sim players are finding more of their systems in other games like Valhiem eating and crafting your home is a big part of gameplay. Idk just finding these town building and survival life system in EVERY game make me wonder if we have new player types now
I totally can see that, it's a bit like an achiever perhaps (settlement size as the progress measure), but it goes a little further when you're playing a game as an art project almost... I know I have sat for hours building pretty rollercoasters or keeping an enemy unit alive just to build a base in an RTS without the combat, or even playing minecraft's creative mode. Can't say why except it made me happy :)
Hey Tim, great video like all the ones you make. I wanted to tell you, knowing that you're working with Obsidian on Outer Worlds 2 (which I'm sure will be a great game), I don't know what concerns you have now with Xbox's recent movements. Whether you have concerns or not, I truly hope everything goes well for you and everything you can create with your wonderful mind, as well as the whole team around you. I hope things go well for all of you.
Hi Tim! I’m curious about your opinion on games that have simulation style mechanics when thats not the point of the game. Cyberpunk is a classic example of this with its combat system that even made you roll for bullet penetration, but with your experience I’m curious as to what you think. Thanks for all the videos!
I think it's missing "creative players", those that try to break the systems of the game or use them for unintended purposes. I think this could potentially fall under other categories, but a lot of creative players tend to just do it for the creative expression itself. Maybe the killer architype would be better described as power chasers? As in wanting power/control within the system.
Mark Rosewater's articles about Spike, Timmy and Johnny in Magic The Gathering was a very interesting look into player psychology for me. Do you know these, Tim? How much do you consider balance in single player?
Off topic but the what was the original concept for the Pip-boy 2000, it was a tablet like device or a kind of smart watch gadget like in the Bethesda games? This allways bothered me but i can ask one of the creators now please can you give an answer?
Interesting video, thank you for the thorough explanations. It does leave me with a thought, though, so what if you are multiple of those types? I'm Achiever, Explorer, and Social (for story/characters specifically). Your example of Wild Star sounds like it would frustrate me since it locks out content I want based on the Path.
I think it’s just making a game that appeals to those senses but letting you go over board in all 4 makes for a game that appeals to all senses, sure some games r gonna be more fun to explore then others or causing carnage in this game feels better then that but if u can find a good blend for all of those in your game your gonna hit a lot of check marks for people it’s just a very great way of kinda taking the 4 main things players try to do in games and giving them complex options in all of them! U could just appeal to one type of person n do it very well being a niche dev or even forcing someone’s hand into one of those archetypes may cause u to loose interest of some players like I could not just do exploring I need some combat in it to not make me bored but that’s up to you. There is a way to please everyone’s senses n have a even bigger audience but just don’t branch yourself too thin then have a buncha under baked concepts in 1 that’ll repel more people if not done right and getting everything with physics n stuff to a T n air tight is almost impossible as a solo dev but still just really good references for tick marks u gotta check if u wanna appeal to as many people as possible!
@@twotamatos To be honest, I'm not entirely sure of your meaning in that giant wall of text there. Is it reiterating Tim's sentiments about the kinds of players and building roles or maybe whole games specifically about them? Either way, my point was that there are people that are multiples of those listed types like myself. Since he didn't talk about that kind of situation, was trying to get his thoughts on it.
@@azreal30 uh lemme reiterate that’s what I’m saying I can’t play a game that only appeals to one of those archetypes I’ll be bored to tears if it’s purely exploration I need a bit of combat to spice things up if u want a game that gets as many people into it try to appeal to all the archetypes just don’t spread yourself too thin by doing so most people don’t just fall into one category or atleast if lots of people play ur game know there is one of every player so try to appeal to all of em but yah like I said don’t spread yourself too thin by doing soo it’s better to have 1 really good archetype u follow Vs 4 sloppily made and implemented systems
@@twotamatos oh, ok lol. Then yes definitely in agreement. I'm honestly never a fan of cramming people into archetypes in general, not just gaming. I feel people break from stereotypes, roles, and tropes more often than they fit into them. I have some ideas for games, but I would be making games I like. People could come along for the ride if they want, or move to other games if they don't. That is my general philosophy.
@@azreal30 I actually am basing a entire class system on archetypes there r 12 different ones n they all fit perfectly for classes if u ask me but that’s where I allow the player many choices throughout the game that’ll reflect on the endings they’re karma really give u freedom even thoe u gotta eventually just take a class n stick with it. I understand not everyone’s cookie cutter and it’s good that u have self love above all having that no matter who shows interest or not ur always making stuff for u that’s a great thing!
Hi Tim! How would you feel about a Fallout 1 remaster in 3D? Would you be willing to work on it if offered? What do you think the biggest hurdles would be?
In the 360 days I thought these new fangled Achievements/Trophies were a bit ridiculous. But these days I rarely opt to buy a PC game outside of Steam simply because then I won't be able to hoard all of my achievements in one place. I'm also not so interested in PVP these days, so I think the archetypes can change over time too.
Tim, is there any way you would consider releasing only the audio from these videos on some podcast site or even spotify? While I much prefer to watch your videos, at work I can only listen and I am running out of good game dev podcasts (so many are complete trash and I'm on the second loop of Designer notes already). I hope you'll consider it! :)
There are various apps that let you listen to the audio only. For instance NewPipe or the firefox browser. For some Podcast recommendations if you would like them: - Eggplant: the secret lives of games - Gamedev Field Guide - Yeah, I make games - Gamedev London Podcast (very much not just for london) - Every game in the city (escape room design) - The dialog box - Designer Notes - The AIAS Game Maker's Toolbox - Nice Games Club - Branching factor - Level Design Lobby
I'd say I'm... socializer 50%, 25% explorer, 20% achiever, and 5% killer. I suppose that makes me a fairly fussy player regarding setting, narrative and gameplay, but I don't care about niche game design details as much (being able to kill characters at any point, or being able to pick up any item, etc.). That said, there's a youtuber whose content I enjoy, and I'd say he's quite heavy on the killer side. What I noticed from his playstyle was that the "killer" side of game design allowed players to enjoy a game that was otherwise annoying them - is a character designed in such a way it accidentally aggravates the player? Bam, they're gone, and the player can enjoy venting. Do they find themselves not being sympathetic towards the story? Cool, they've got a big gun/sword to have fun with instead.
So I'm a soldier-explorer-scientist. Well, I knew that already. I wouldn't want to be locked like Wildstar did in a singleplayer game, but in an mmo where you are encouraged to play with other people, I guess it's okay. After all, usually you are already class-locked in that type of games anyway.
Richard Bartle is actually my professor at Essex University. He is essentially the grandfather of MMO's. Seeing the creator of one of my favorite fictional worlds talk about him actually blows my mind.
I keep forgetting that he is kinda famous..
Im actually studying for his virtual worlds exam on Friday.
@@tomtalkstropes good luck! sounds awesome
Is ol' Mike SaAAAaaAAAAnderson still there?
@@arcan762 ah yes, radagast the brown. He is indeed.
I have noticed that when i max out my character's level and abilities ,my interest to continue playing the game greatly drops.
Regardless of what other goals are left inside the game world.
I'm the exact same way. Cool to see a bit of theory behind it!
I have the same issue. I think the main problem is that the level of challenge decreases to a point where combat becomes boring. This is an inherent problems of games, and it's not easy to solve. One way is to have something like level-scaling, but then the player will always feel like he isn't getting stronger - or worse, he is getting weaker and has to do more work to compensate.
Tim mentioned some ideas that can solve it, like introducing more enemy variety (healers, supporters, glass-cannons, tanks), increasing enemy quantity and having them interact. Even then it is important to avoid having the player at some point being flooded by thousands of enemies which he one-shots with AoEs. Having something like steps could be it - meaning there should be a significant gap between the same type of mob with different levels.
I think that's a good solution, and it happens to fit my game for example very well.
@@brianviktor8212 Would be interesting to see proportional scaling and/or logarithmic leveling, eg. the enemies scale with your level but you get stronger than those enemies over time. Maybe another way to explain is, having the enemies soft scale with you, and if you have a level cap, maybe the enemies continue to scale at a lower rate depending on your stats if you have a stat system
@@Chris3s Yes, that alleviates the problem of getting large gaps of power to the same enemies as you level up. Meaning when you are level 1, the bandit is 1. When you are 10, the bandit is 7. When you are 20, the bandit is 12.
But perceptively you merely notice a slower character power progression.
I'm not fundamentally against level scaling, as it increases the range of players who can be at a given zone, or even allow players to go wherever they want to level.
I'd consider using the strategy mentioned above - instead of level scaling, you scale quantity and quality of enemies - for example bandits - mages, medics, marauders, archers. You are forced to be more tactical. You have encountered the same types of enemies before, but they were largely alone or 2 at best. As you level up, they may consider you a bigger threat, so they group up more.
And when you go very far up the levels, you get higher levels of them (big step up): Bandit lords, arch wizards, sharpshooters, etc. Killing one bandit lord might be as hard as killing ~3 marauders at once.
First you encounter the lower level ones alone, then in groups, then the higher level ones alone, then in groups with lower level ones, then groups of higher level ones. This provides a step-wise progression, and the challenge to the player scales with his expected capabilities (level).
When playing Fallout 3 the first time I reached max level before even attempting the main quest line. I lost all motivation. Had to start over.
Your summary is basically how I feel about every design framework. MDA, Value Chains, Player Archetypes. They're all just different ways of approaching and viewing a problem. They can be helpful in the right situation, and a distraction in the wrong one.
One important thing to remember with any kind of archetypes, is that people will never be 100% percent one or another. So for games for example, when playes choose their main class or path, I think it's important to not lock them out too much of other experiences.
Precisely. I think overlap or even mixing the archetypes is ideal and perhaps could even be encouraged. For me personally, I think I fall roughly within the center of the so-called graph, since I like to do all the things, but that may also be because I'm playing the games I play through a developer lens rather than a regulars player's lens.
Exactly! Jus wrote a comment in which I mention the same based on my own experiences. This taxonomy is useful but not as a blueprint for designing rigid classes instead as a guide to how people should be able to interact with game world and each other
I think thats partly true in a way, but also i feel like looking at it as a percentage might not really be right, or i mean the idea that you have 100% and thats made up of 4 parts, i feel like you can really be 100% multiple archetypes they dont always necessarily conflict or oppose eachother though they may have a different priority or order for different people. Maybe the conflict sometimes, killer and socializer will probably need a little compromise, i mean its hard to socialize with npcs/pcs who are dead, but you could have like a bandit group or be a sort of protector/guard/knight, i dont feel like that leaves it at 50/50 both would probably be higher than 50% in practice.
I'm primarily a social/exploratory type
Achieving is very much not me, but I don't mind killing things if it's cathartic enough
If it's "you shoot a guy 43 times and you've chipped away 14% of their health bar" then I'm out :P
I wonder if that's not an indication that the taxonomy is flawed.
There's a surprising amount of psychological depth to Bartle's Taxonomy, especially in how different players change alignments in different situations.
Normally, I'm an Explorer through and through, but in multiplayer situations I become almost 100% a Socializer and prefer to focus on support and steering the group towards quests. In games like EDF and Helldivers, which thrive on the catharsis of combat, I forego them both and become a Killer.
Can't say I ever become an achiever, though. Games that cater to that too heavily give me a headache.
But it's fascinating how people react and change what they enjoy depending on what they're doing, and I love thinking about this stuff every time I play a new game.
This makes so much sense! My best childhood friend, with whom I played many games, was a killer explorer whereas I was an achiever socializer. This often lead to interesting disagreements.
I think there’s a missing archetype which we could call Creator. That would be a player that likes to express creativity in the game. Unlike achiever you set your own goals for yourself and unlike explorer it’s not about finding existing content but making your own. These archetypes would be drawn to games with crafting, customization, builds, etc
I'd say this would also include modding, or making other unique content for the game.
Minecraft would probably be the poster game for this
For me, a player, those archetypes correspond to some of the different ways I've had pleasure from video-games.
Not a single one of them describes me, they (almost) describe me only when they all combine together.
Therefore I think
- they don't work as archetypes for players' description (they don't encapsulate a single video-game player like me),
- but they can still work in encapsulating defined ways a single video-game player like me can have fun in video-games.
Which makes complete sense since those archetypes are statistical observations and groupings made on players of a single specific game.
I mean, if the specific game in question happened to be Tetris, for sure we would be talking about very different archetypes...
Speaking about game developers, from an outside point of view like mine,
I would think this archetypes approach could be beneficial when the kind of game you're developing is already well defined,
when you deduce your archetypes from an analysis of games with similar game-play features, or at least of the same genre.
Thanks for your videos!
I would never have called myself a social player, I actively avoid multiplayer games, but based on these descriptions that's the archetype that fits me best.
I think social is actually 2 types lumped together; healers/buffers are very different from people who like typing in chat.
I am the same way, though I also like exploration. I think this system is on the right track, but it is oversimplified. I like engaging with narratives and interacting with NPCs, but I do not want other people in my games. People can focus on narrative and characters, and they can enjoy interacting with other gamers, but these two characteristics don't necessarily go together. Additionally, I enjoy creative activities, such as building. I've seen other, more complex systems that include this as a category. It doesn't fit neatly into Bartle's classification, but his focus was on MUDs, which likely didn't have this sort of activity back in the day.
Hearing you talk about the Wildstar Paths brought back a huge wave of nostalgia.
I've always been what I like to call a "wall climber" (Using available in game methods like terrain to get on top of buildings/etc when my character doesn't yet have access to a form of flight/super jump) so I immediately gravitated to the explorer. I have many fond memories of just chillin on top of mountains (and other places) and bumping into other explorers - there are of course other factors, but remembering the joy of the exploration is something that makes me miss Wildstar all the more.
I'll be honest, when you mentioned Wildstar, I went down a Google rabbit hole; Consider me tickled pink that I never realized you had a hand in so many other favourite games of my youth, let alone one of my favourite MMOs!
As for the Bartle's Archetypes, if the above commentary didn't imply it enough, I definitely lean heavily into the explorer type and probably close, if not almost equally, into the socializer type with a healthy sprinkle of the achiever to top things off.
It's been a tough morning. Ty tim
Here's hoping it improves!
@@crimiusXIII it did!
Tim confirmed wizard, you can spot the orb.
Its for pondering
Your videos are a great way to start the day. Thanks for sharing your insights and wisdom.
Idk why but i can play games like fallout or other RPGs like TES for example, i almost can never play as a bad person But when i played red dead 2 i just went completely psychotic.
I feel like I’m more of a explorer, its always fun to see what the developers have built in their game. Especially when its like first hand discovery and not spoiled or from seeing it somewhere else.
Skyrim back in my childhood was like genuinely unbeatable for this, i really wish i could get into games as much as i did as a kid for skyrim.
I'm a combination of Explorer and Socialiser. It's why I'm so addicted to Bethesda-style games.
explorer/killer and bethesda lover here 😄
I feel like this also helps players figure out what they like as well, which might result in better feedback from said players. So instead of saying "this game is bad", they might say "I don't feel like this game is rewarding me enough for exploring it" or something to that effect.
I love the theory/psychology content, keep up the good work Tim!
"Everquest was lpmud with a graphical front end" - this! I played advent/Zork before getting into Everquest and it was a very natural progression.
Tim I just want to say thanks for what you've done. I played Fallout back when it came out, and have enjoyed the series since. I hope you enjoy seeing what you created flourish. I really like your videos, and getting glimpses into the dev side of how things work. Thanks!
I felt exactly the same way about everquest when it came out, I described it as a MUD with graphics. I was a hardcore LP mud player in the 90s, it is actually why I got recessed from the university my freshman year because I stayed up all night in the engineering building MUDing instead of going to class and studying...My favorite MUDs in those days were StickMUD and TimeWarp.
This is so helpful, thank you, Tim!
I feel like my first game catered very well to Achievers and Killers, and to a lesser extend, Explorers, but not Socializers (in the sense of talking to NPCs, having a detailed story. Since the game is SP). I hope to incorporate Explorers and Socializers better in my next game.
To be honest, I feel all four archetypes correspond to me.
It’s the Avatar!
@@simeon9506 lol
Got my RP obsession with Muds, they taught me how to retain what I read, and just over all I have fond memories of them.
Great video !
summer of '03, I played so much that my dreams were in SimpleMU. MMOs never came close to the level of freedom we had. I remember my mom finally asked me- "what is that game about? Don't you get bored of crawling through a dark cave?" In hindsight I realize she was thrown off by the "dungeon" part, but at the time I was like, "what the heck mom... no it's a whole world with forests and cities"
Wintermute?? Was that from William Gibson's Neuromancer? OMG I'd love to hear more about that .
Also, re: this topic, I've always been ambivalent about min-maxing characters. How to do it is good info, but that's not why I like playing. Interesting... I'm more of an explorer, apparently.
That was fascinating. I never wondered in categorizing players, but I know some who play many games by spreadsheets. Latest example I know is Armored Core 6. There are youtube videos where you can find the optimal build for every enemy/level by calculating everything through spreadsheets. Then there are people who just tinker with builds and rely on being good. I know it's not a good example, but lately I don't play many games anymore. edit: And I listen to Tim, because Fallout 1 was such a good game at that time, and I'm really thinking about buying Steamdeck (or some other handheld) for our vacations, and replay my growing up games.
The MMORPG I was hooked on early on was Anarchy Online. It was set in a far flung future with nanotechnology that served as the game’s magic system. I was only in middle school and couldn’t grasp all the gameplay mechanics and never leveled to the maximum but I sure liked exploring and reading the item descriptions.
Very informative vid! I feel like I'm an "archetype drifter": my preferred games are the ones that allow me to drift between "archetype content" when I feel like it. This is something Bethesda's Todd said they try to do in their games (in a recent "Kinda Funny Games" interview). Must be why I love their games: they are not the best in every archetype, but they are good enought in all and allow one to drift as they please.
The one I care about the least is the "social" one. However, when the game has too little of it, I also dislike it since I still like to have some of it once in a while.
Known about this since I studied games at University, but Unique content dependent on class (such as boss fights for soldiers) is actually an amazing idea that never occurred to me before. With enough forethought around hybrid classes and load-outs, you can really encourage replayability and player engagement this way. I love it.
Great video - lots of practical insights here! Thank you Tim, your contributions are invaluable.
Thanks for another great video, Tim! Good morning!
A good enough story, with believable characters, places and or backstory will keep me coming back despite issues with all other aspects of it. Tyranny was great in that regard, because of the novelty of being part of the evil overlord's army when they have achieved a major victory and are about to conquer the last bastion of resistance. Putting you in a position to be despised from the beggining of the game has been a memorable experience for someone that usually goes the "good natured" route in all games.
I wouldn't know if the combat was that great, or the locations had nice things to explore. I just remember standing over the big map in the four-year prologue and reading an edict that caused a permanent, impenetrable storm.
I never knew that was a thing, despite playing MUDs and text-based strategy games back in the day. Nice to discover something nice!
Could you make a community poll so we can see who's what architype? Would be a fun experiment!
Interestingly I'm a socializer in multiplayer games in regard to my play style wanting to be a healer/buffer, but not with wanting to chat with other players. I want to assist and help, but silently, haha
I'm the same, which is why I'm not sure the taxonomy is perfect. There's an introvert/extrovert aspect not accounted for.
I'd say thare are :
Extrovert Killers, who like getting stronger to beat other players in pvp
Introvert Killers, who like getting stronger to 'master' the game
Extrovert Socializers, who like talking in chat and making friends, with gameplay being unimportant
Introvert "Socializers", who like helping others by healing/buffing, with social stuff being unimportant
Extrovert Explorers, who like going on adventures with friends
Introvert Explorers, who like to see new things while being immersed in the game world
Extrovert Achievers, who like to get rare and difficult achievements for clout
Introvert Achievers, who like doing everything 100% for its own sake
I feel like I'm a player that falls into every category depending on the game. But perhaps I'm mostly an achiever. This was a fascinating video tim!
Awesome advice fr sooooo much more goes into game dev then any other project or show so I really do appreciate this insight man, I never thought of making players into archetypes I am making 12 classes based on the 12 archetypes for my game such a great system to base classes on! Although seeing players as different archetypes and appealing to all they’re senses through gameplay is just a invaluable over site that could essentially be taught n probably is in game dev school
Yahhh this sounds exactly like my game! Explorer is literally one of the classes cuz where basing em on archetypes that is exactly how I am making this game where u can pick 3 classes but after 5 levels ur stuck as it n then u add 3 more players throughout the story that get to choose from 3 classes too. Where each class will have different synergies in combat, karma paths, different dialogue n ways of solving quests, platforming abilities, party leader tactics, idle animations & endings just exactly like that if I pick explorer I could climb up vines and use a machete etc imma find a lot more chests n treasure that way!
I like to give this another dimension, which augments the existing four in Bartle's Archetypes:
- Novelty Seekers
- Loopers
- Thrill Seekers
- Determinists
Novelty Neekers are always looking for new content. Be it a new quest or new environment. They may be achievers who are still in it for unique achievements unlike the rest or explorers who want new locations to see. The minute something becomes repetitious, this player burns out and loses interest.
Loopers are the opposite of novelty motivated. They like to replay the game just to experience it again, often the same way. They like those story beats and moments, and those mechanics, which they will play over and over again. They like novelty but it doesn't motivate them as much as replay and grind (yes, grind is for these players, so are mobile game loops and idle battlers.) If something isn't their familiar loop, that thing they love, especially specific games (they may play the same game for 1000+ hours) they're not interested.
Thrill seekers enjoy the difficulty and randomization of rougelikes and shooters. They want complexity, and to be unsure how this will end. Often Killers, but also often Explorers. They don't want to know how a scenario may turn out, and they lose interest if complexity and ends are obvious.
Determinists like certain outcomes. If I do this, then this happens. They dislike the unexpected, and are risk averse. They also like lower difficulty and may just be there for the story, or to build, or to hoard items, and get the good ending for all the companions. Often Achievers. If they are overwhelmed and confused, they quit and will probably save scum trying to get the best outcome, or lose interest if they can't. Might be likely to be stealth archers and turtles.
With this extra axis, you can type games as much as players as well. And if you game appeals to a subset of an archetype or all of them, with the extra axis for what motivates or loses them.
Hi Tim, not sure if you've thought on it some more but I'd like to hear your opinions or ideas on how you'd tackle World States in games such as Kenshi where if you kill everyone in a city, leave and come back it'll be in ruins, taken over by wild animals or be occupied by an existing faction.
Good subject, it is a great system that I hope will be featured in more games in the future.
To expand the question further, I'd love to hear Tim's take on sandbox RPG (Kenshi, Mount & Blade, etc.) so I would ask : Both single player and multiplayer RPG used to be more reliant on their setting and systems, prioritising the simulation of a coherent, dynamic world to explore over following a "main" quest - if there was any. As tech improved, however, the standard RPG experience became more reliant on strong linear narratives and the simulation aspect became niche (compare, say, WoW with EVE or even old Bethesda with current Bethesda). How would you approach designing a game in which a nobody can make visible changes to the world instead of a game in which the legendary hero does legendary stuff in a very static world that doesn't acknowledge any of it? :p
Side note: at one point or another, every player is every archetype at some point during gameplay.
As always very interesting, sir. In my experience, on big production, Bartle's is also used to help identify the Game pillars to the production, helping to weight production decision based on our persona for the project.
For example, if there is a budget issue, maybe Pillars X, associated with the Social profile should be scaled down, since our biggest persona is [''James, an avid Skyrim and The Witcher 3 Player using the PC platform''] and so our player base is most likely not the prime users of the Social pillar's features.
It is completely arbitrary and based, as you mentioned, on a model among many others. But it is a structure that helps with the communication of the vision and its realisation.
Interesting. I feel I may be a mixture of killer and socializer. I like pushing a game to its limits when it comes to how much I can do and get away with. But I also enjoy a profound story, the right context and purpose really drives me to stay and explore the world.
I love MUDs! Worked on CircleMUD and a ltitle DikuMUD. I remember Wintermute, it was fun. Good times.
Settler sounded appealing to me even before Tim pointed out that is the "social" one and I am definitely social-leaning in the archetypes.
I've been debating creating a questing skill system where the more you level it the more it unlocks better features. Instead of getting a gist of what area a quest is in it gives you a smaller radius to check or if you're really good it gives you a directional compass. So people who WANT to find things quickly they can just get to it, but they have to invest into that perk to get it. So its kind of a passive way to say "I want an easier time but I'll sacrifice other skills instead." Not sure how people would take to it, but I think its a happy compromise.
I still play Everquest from time-to-time, but these days it's more like a single player game. 🙁 I've played games for a long time, and have noticed there are different types of players, but never tried to officially name them.
The path idea is very interesting. Thanks for sharing Tim!
My favorite MUDs were Gemstone & Unwritten Legends. Man, those were some memories.
I do all of these things. Honestly, a game almost needs ALL of these to be going on at once for me to be interested in it. If I had to do it in order of importance it would go Explorer > Killer > Socialize >Achieve.
im a completionist in most games. i feel like i want to be explorer but my brain won't let me enjoy organic exploration, i need to comb through every inch of a place especially if i think ill miss out on loot. this is why i appreciate games that have minimal amounts of loot it helps me appreciate the environment
I like to minmax so I can more efficiently achieve, explore, and solve problems for NPCs. I honestly am not sure which of these archetypes I fit into the most.
I'm a mix of all four types. But mostly I'm an explorer.
lol everybody is, the question is the proportions really
One thing to be careful of is that most people don't fall into just one category. Just listening to the descriptions, I was nodding along and saying, "Yes, I like that one," and "I like that one too." I think it's the case that most people enjoy multiple aspects of the game, so it's good to appeal to all of them, though not necessarily to force people to give up one to get another. I think it works better in an MMO like Wildstar, since you could play with people with different paths and get many of the benefits of paths other than your own.
Hey Tim are there any plans to do a video on the development of Vampire the masquerade bloodlines? I played it for the first time last year and loved it and plan to play Arcanum when i get some time off.
I was only on the game for the last half of its development, and then only part time (I was also head of Troika HR too). The closest you can get is my chats with Leonard Boyarsky.
@@CainOnGames Thanks! I'll go check that out for sure. I love the stories and insight you provide!
Raistlin. That takes me back to the Vallenwoods.
Lately my friends have been partying up and going through Red Dead 2 single player just chatting
I think it's a really good intersection between pretty much all of these (maybe not "Killer")
When you described the types of gamers, i realized i try to do All of them(except acheivments)
I be very interested to hear you talk about where you feel the taxonomy has shortcomings in your experience, are two or three types more blended, are there other distinct patterns of behavior that you've observed?
I thought I was an Achiever x Explorer, but after listening this I realized that I'm a Socializer. I love to play as a Healer/Cleric and love to help all the NPCs in the games. I though socializer would mean socializing with other players only so I never though that I would be one, as I play solo most of the times.
I must be an enigma. Because I fit all 4 archetypes at the same time.
Exploration of the world while killing enemies and gathering materials to craft items that i use and sell to other players while also completing quests
I find myself falling into different playstyle archetypes depending on the game. If I'm playing an RPG alone, I want to discover and explore quest paths, and stats are only relevant in that they allow me to do so. If I'm playing an mmo, I want to minmax and enjoy combat, because having so much text and other humans around would pull me out of the immersion anyway. In a game such as rimworld, I just want to see my sandcastle grow. If I'm playing a racing game, I want to see the performance numbers go up.
These are more like needs in Sims.
Plays have different bars that they can fill to feel happy.
A lot of players explore and loot, then do all the quests and in the end of a session,
after a quicksave, they kill the entire village in combat.
If a game wants to stay competitive, it must satisfy as many gamer needs as possible
Gen x mudder in the house. Three parts killer one part social.. Not on the NPC side or west side for the social but if it is for making connections and friends. I played a lot of muds but my favorite was mume which I also gm'd for inmate zones for.
I read in a textbook that ~= 80% of MMO players lean heavily toward socializer, ~10% for both achiever and explorer each, and ~
I'm kind of split on what I would fall in most. I like to level up and gain new skills I can use ((Achiever?)), but part of my love for that is absolutely devastating bosses easily *Because* I put in the time ((Killer?)). Outside of Combat I do tend to talk to all the npc's, and I care a lot about story. I often won't replay a game I've seen the end of because I know the story ((Socializer?)) I'm not sure! I'm sure I lean harder into one over another, but I can't tell.
Tim I'm making my first 3d asset for my first game I hope to make, it's a complex revolver and I'm learning a lot on how blender works because of it and hopefully after I make a couple things I'll start experimenting in engine
I really like how some of the soldier class mechanics could be seen as a critique of militaries attracting conflict. Do you know of methods or publishers that utilize these archetypes for NPC character development? If players can gain a similar level of personal growth from learning which style, and by proxy what kind of games, they like to play, could exposing characters to in-context interference with other NPCs, with contrasting archetypes, result in compelling narratives or gameplay?
I’ve always wondered why a character creator didn’t just go all in with a real personality type model. myers briggs or enneagram come to mind and interesting choices.
I still fart around on some MUDs. They were a part of my childhood and it's so weird to hear other people talk about in the real world. Always feels like most people have no idea what they are.
Curious -- has anyone here ever seen the more five-factor-based model "The Five Domains of Play" come up during in-person dev conversations?
I like finding creative ways to teamkill especially if friendly fire is turned off...
You're a bad man mr krabs
I definitely go for speech options first, and usually go high INT to max characters completely, and I'm a completionist and will go online to research obscurity to locate and get every possible item/location. So I guess I'm an acheiver/explorer??
I wonder if there's also story followers and especially crafters (especially these days)
Hi Tim, thank you for the informative video!
Aside from eating chocolate, what other hobbies are you most interested in? How do you feel about (potentially) not having had enough time for them (for example, the lost decade you talked about or any other situations) - now that you're older, do you feel like you missed out on some things or wanted to dedicate yourself more to them?
I was interested to see how you thought Bartle's Player Types related to single player games. I feel Fallout supports all four quite a bit
I can't imagine anything more simultaneously infuriating and exciting than a complete stranger across the world beating you to your thesis idea o_o
There is a great breakdown of these player archetypes by Pixel a day that goes to great lengths into the studies around them, why those were problematic and very much non representative of a large group of people, but instead perpuates telling the same stories and experiences.
I understand that Tim mostly focusses on a certain type of experiences in Games that very much fits neatly into the categories proposed by Bartle. The video is long, but it did change my outlook ua-cam.com/video/9JbfFYUVR-U/v-deo.html
TLDW: Study done on a very small, limited sample of male MMO players, doesn't account for a giant range of people that for instance play narrative games and other less traditional "gamer" games. These people are made invisible an unaccounted for when viewing players through these over simplistic lenses
Narrative games also fall under the archetype, they're just heavy on the socializer side (e.g. telltale's series).
They don't necessarily. According to Bartle, they "play the game for the social aspect and not the game itself". In my opinion, that is already somewhat of a weird gatekeeping. There are also multiple story games, that are really not about bonding with the characters of the gamer. it just doesn't fit. And there is so much more. What about a person that plays singing or rhythm games without trying to min max their score? There are some many of these types of gamers, that are not even a possibilty in the questionairs. Rhythm games, point and click adventure games, Puzzle games - sure you can fit them in somehow, but the tests and framework don't even ask if you play those types of games, they just aren't accounted for in the studies
Hear me out. Are builders a player type? Like life sim players are finding more of their systems in other games like Valhiem eating and crafting your home is a big part of gameplay. Idk just finding these town building and survival life system in EVERY game make me wonder if we have new player types now
I totally can see that, it's a bit like an achiever perhaps (settlement size as the progress measure), but it goes a little further when you're playing a game as an art project almost...
I know I have sat for hours building pretty rollercoasters or keeping an enemy unit alive just to build a base in an RTS without the combat, or even playing minecraft's creative mode. Can't say why except it made me happy :)
So, if I put Bartle's Player Archetypes into a spider chart (radar diagram) for my design approach... D:
Hey Tim, great video like all the ones you make. I wanted to tell you, knowing that you're working with Obsidian on Outer Worlds 2 (which I'm sure will be a great game), I don't know what concerns you have now with Xbox's recent movements. Whether you have concerns or not, I truly hope everything goes well for you and everything you can create with your wonderful mind, as well as the whole team around you. I hope things go well for all of you.
Hi Tim! I’m curious about your opinion on games that have simulation style mechanics when thats not the point of the game. Cyberpunk is a classic example of this with its combat system that even made you roll for bullet penetration, but with your experience I’m curious as to what you think. Thanks for all the videos!
This video made me realize despite being from a console/arcade background I’m somehow a socializer type
4:57 Neuromancer reference? Nice!
I think it's missing "creative players", those that try to break the systems of the game or use them for unintended purposes. I think this could potentially fall under other categories, but a lot of creative players tend to just do it for the creative expression itself.
Maybe the killer architype would be better described as power chasers? As in wanting power/control within the system.
Mark Rosewater's articles about Spike, Timmy and Johnny in Magic The Gathering was a very interesting look into player psychology for me. Do you know these, Tim? How much do you consider balance in single player?
Pretty sure he has mentioned those briefly before, can't remember which video.
Bro, the thumbnail is funny asf
Off topic but the what was the original concept for the Pip-boy 2000, it was a tablet like device or a kind of smart watch gadget like in the Bethesda games? This allways bothered me but i can ask one of the creators now please can you give an answer?
It was wrist mounted. You can check the Fallout manual.
@@CainOnGames Thanks! I played with the original games a lot but never checked the manual.
Ah, Wintermute, nice Neuromancer reference. An excellent book!
Was the game in the cyberpunk genre?
The inputs and outputs for Everquest emotes was directly ripped off from the LP MUD source code.
Interesting video, thank you for the thorough explanations. It does leave me with a thought, though, so what if you are multiple of those types? I'm Achiever, Explorer, and Social (for story/characters specifically). Your example of Wild Star sounds like it would frustrate me since it locks out content I want based on the Path.
I think it’s just making a game that appeals to those senses but letting you go over board in all 4 makes for a game that appeals to all senses, sure some games r gonna be more fun to explore then others or causing carnage in this game feels better then that but if u can find a good blend for all of those in your game your gonna hit a lot of check marks for people it’s just a very great way of kinda taking the 4 main things players try to do in games and giving them complex options in all of them! U could just appeal to one type of person n do it very well being a niche dev or even forcing someone’s hand into one of those archetypes may cause u to loose interest of some players like I could not just do exploring I need some combat in it to not make me bored but that’s up to you. There is a way to please everyone’s senses n have a even bigger audience but just don’t branch yourself too thin then have a buncha under baked concepts in 1 that’ll repel more people if not done right and getting everything with physics n stuff to a T n air tight is almost impossible as a solo dev but still just really good references for tick marks u gotta check if u wanna appeal to as many people as possible!
@@twotamatos To be honest, I'm not entirely sure of your meaning in that giant wall of text there. Is it reiterating Tim's sentiments about the kinds of players and building roles or maybe whole games specifically about them? Either way, my point was that there are people that are multiples of those listed types like myself. Since he didn't talk about that kind of situation, was trying to get his thoughts on it.
@@azreal30 uh lemme reiterate that’s what I’m saying I can’t play a game that only appeals to one of those archetypes I’ll be bored to tears if it’s purely exploration I need a bit of combat to spice things up if u want a game that gets as many people into it try to appeal to all the archetypes just don’t spread yourself too thin by doing so most people don’t just fall into one category or atleast if lots of people play ur game know there is one of every player so try to appeal to all of em but yah like I said don’t spread yourself too thin by doing soo it’s better to have 1 really good archetype u follow Vs 4 sloppily made and implemented systems
@@twotamatos oh, ok lol. Then yes definitely in agreement. I'm honestly never a fan of cramming people into archetypes in general, not just gaming. I feel people break from stereotypes, roles, and tropes more often than they fit into them. I have some ideas for games, but I would be making games I like. People could come along for the ride if they want, or move to other games if they don't. That is my general philosophy.
@@azreal30 I actually am basing a entire class system on archetypes there r 12 different ones n they all fit perfectly for classes if u ask me but that’s where I allow the player many choices throughout the game that’ll reflect on the endings they’re karma really give u freedom even thoe u gotta eventually just take a class n stick with it. I understand not everyone’s cookie cutter and it’s good that u have self love above all having that no matter who shows interest or not ur always making stuff for u that’s a great thing!
Hi Tim!
How would you feel about a Fallout 1 remaster in 3D? Would you be willing to work on it if offered? What do you think the biggest hurdles would be?
He has a video about how he would have gone about a remaster of Fallout 1 if given an opportunity. Not about 3d version though.
Sometimes I wish I could hit the like button twice.
In the 360 days I thought these new fangled Achievements/Trophies were a bit ridiculous. But these days I rarely opt to buy a PC game outside of Steam simply because then I won't be able to hoard all of my achievements in one place. I'm also not so interested in PVP these days, so I think the archetypes can change over time too.
Hey Tim, I want to make my own system like you guys did when making SPECIAL
Did you guys have any rules guidelines or tips for making special?
Not to tempt a recovering addict Tim but the annual EQ Progression Servers are opening up towards the end of May;).
Tim, is there any way you would consider releasing only the audio from these videos on some podcast site or even spotify? While I much prefer to watch your videos, at work I can only listen and I am running out of good game dev podcasts (so many are complete trash and I'm on the second loop of Designer notes already).
I hope you'll consider it! :)
There are various apps that let you listen to the audio only. For instance NewPipe or the firefox browser.
For some Podcast recommendations if you would like them:
- Eggplant: the secret lives of games
- Gamedev Field Guide
- Yeah, I make games
- Gamedev London Podcast (very much not just for london)
- Every game in the city (escape room design)
- The dialog box
- Designer Notes
- The AIAS Game Maker's Toolbox
- Nice Games Club
- Branching factor
- Level Design Lobby
@@emmdieh I will check that out, thanks!
"All models are wrong, some are useful."
I'd say I'm... socializer 50%, 25% explorer, 20% achiever, and 5% killer.
I suppose that makes me a fairly fussy player regarding setting, narrative and gameplay, but I don't care about niche game design details as much (being able to kill characters at any point, or being able to pick up any item, etc.).
That said, there's a youtuber whose content I enjoy, and I'd say he's quite heavy on the killer side. What I noticed from his playstyle was that the "killer" side of game design allowed players to enjoy a game that was otherwise annoying them - is a character designed in such a way it accidentally aggravates the player? Bam, they're gone, and the player can enjoy venting. Do they find themselves not being sympathetic towards the story? Cool, they've got a big gun/sword to have fun with instead.
Hey, uh the pdf book in your description doesn't actually let you read the book even if you have an account. :)
Well crap, didn’t realize how much I fit into a box, I’m 100% explorer
I always saw achievers as min maxers not killers and I think bartle even said that's why killers hate achievers cause they can't kill them
So I'm a soldier-explorer-scientist.
Well, I knew that already.
I wouldn't want to be locked like Wildstar did in a singleplayer game, but in an mmo where you are encouraged to play with other people, I guess it's okay.
After all, usually you are already class-locked in that type of games anyway.
Hello Tim, I’m everyone
You are many. You are Legion
@@MythrilZenith WE are Legion
Mine was your (our) 69th upvote. Nice
@@Zoroasterisk WE are most honored