MMORPG founding father Richard Bartle establishes new unplayer matrix

    
35

Dr Richard Bartle, best known to MMORPG players for establishing the research that ultimately led to the admittedly flawed but widely quoted “Bartle test,” spoke at Gamelab Barcelona 2017 last week with research of continuing interest to gamers: a new model for non-player types, floated by him publicly for the first time.

His original model was “insular,” he argues. “It tells you why people do play, but not why they don’t, which is often more useful.” The new matrix covers what is essentially the developer’s quest for accessibility, the “sweet spot where the game’s depth matches the player’s insight,” on a quadrant of easy vs. hard mapped over shallow vs. deep. Like Bartle, I’m not sure “rock babies and opera zombies” will catch on, but he manages to apply it convincingly to explain who buys what and why in free-to-play MMOs.

The whole slideshow is worth a look (doesn’t load in Chrome, note), though I suggest you choose to read that font ironically! With luck we’ll get a video of the whole talk at some point.

Incidentally, Bartle also blogged about meeting Richard Garriott at the event, which you might be surprised to learn marked the first time the pair had rubbed elbows. “When Richard collected his award, he invited me up onto the stage for the photo,” Bartle writes. “It was his award; he didn’t have to do that. I’d heard before that he’s a class act; now I know for sure that he is.”

Source: QBlog. Thanks, Sally!

35
LEAVE A COMMENT

Please Login to comment
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
Reader
Alex Malone

This is certainly an interesting theory. Analysis of why people aren’t playing your games is definitely a worthy pursuit. I’m not sure I agree with boiling down peoples reasons to difficulty and complexity. I’ve had a think about a lot of the big games that I don’t play and admittedly difficulty and complexity are two of the main reasons for not playing games.

However, there are three other big reasons that fall completely outside of these axes – creative direction (IP), multiplayer and business practices.

There are tons of games out there that I won’t play because I don’t like the design – for example, I don’t like the typically androgynous design that comes with a lot of Asian RPGs. There are also loads I won’t play either due to lack of splitscreen multiplayer or lack of social features for online games. Finally, some games I simply won’t play due to bad business practices. I avoid nearly all Electronic Arts games, as well as F2P MMOs and early access games. Voting with my wallet is pretty much the only meaningful thing I can do so I refuse to support game devs with shaky business practices.

I guess you could bundle multiplayer into the complexity axes, but creative direction and business practices have nothing to do with gameplay, yet still play a large role in determining buying practices.

Reader
Melissa McDonald

He must live in Denver or Seattle, he’s definitely been smoking something.

Reader
Loyal Patron
Patreon Donor
Dobablo

That is an amusing, tongue-in-check yet insightful presentation.

kjempff
Reader
kjempff

In regards to mmorpgs I think such a graph is inadequate to describe what makes players stay or not. There are so many factors regarding game mechanics and design that I think plays a bigger role than a generic axis placement. Also mmorpgs are often on several points of the axis at the same time and also depending on what features the player is using (many players are only playing half the game, the parts they like and completely ignoring the other parts).
For simpler games I am sure the graphs can be used more accurately, for mmorpgs the sheer complexity I think obscures such a method.

Reader
angrakhan

Without the talk the chart is a bit confusing. What is the difference between “Hard” and “Heavyweight”? Seem pretty similar to me.

In a completely unrelated note I just want to point out that I have never once had someone attempt to hack my steam account until I started logging on to this site with my steam account to post comments. The reported IP address for the attempt was from Russia. They didn’t get past the multi-factor authentication, but still it tells me that either MMORPG or whatever service you’re using for that authentication process has had a breach. Might want to look into it. I, of course, have changed my steam password.

It could be coincidental, I suppose. Just raising the red flag.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Loyal Patron
Tobasco da Gama

“Heavyweight” is more like “complex” or “complicated”, as in games with lots of interacting systems, which is why he illustrates the lower-left quadrant with games like Civilization and Oblivion. “Hard” is more like traditional measures of difficulty: completing challenges requires tight timing and precision control, which is the the upper-right quadrant is illustrated with games like Pong.

Reader
Sunken Visions

This kind of mapping is pointless, since people have different skill levels and interests. Clicker Heroes is one of the most popular games on Steam, but I will never play it.

The only way a game can be ‘too’ anything is in relation to age groups. Unless of course one of these components is missing or broken.

Reader
Patreon Donor
Veldan

People having different skill levels and interests is why this kind of mapping exists

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
mistressbrazen

Some of the slides are interesting, of course, this is theoretical, which is fine. I guess I am what he considers a core player. I agree with @Woetoo below that core players seem to be valued less today. We will actually play the game that was developed with all of its challenges and we don’t expect someone to give us a way around them. Today, emphasis seems to be on monetizing an option to get around the challenges. It was also interesting to see Wildstar in the Too Hard Too Heavyweight sector. I assume this was from the initial complaints about the skewer towards end game content.

Reader
Patreon Donor
Veldan

I think I’m in between core and hardcore, though judging by the games I’m playing right now I’m more towards core.

Core gamers are indeed terribly undervalued in most MMOs. That’s a big part of the reason I haven’t actually played an MMO in quite a while. All the open world and dungeon content is designed for casuals and carebears, and anything that’s challenging (like raiding) is designed for hardcores.

Reader
Sorenthaz

Yep most MMOs operate between the extremes because they want the hardcore/carebear players who’ll stick around and pay up a large sum of $$$ (basically whales in F2Ps) and they also want to keep roping in casual players for the sake of keeping numbers up, queue times down, and extra sources of $$$ from people who’ll dip in and buy some stuff on occasion.

Reader
Witches

Can’t really find my niche in this scale anymore, superhard content that i just can’t surpass doesn’t really bother me, what bothers me is that elements of the game that are within my skill level are hidden behind said superhard content.

miol
Reader
miol

:/

miol
Reader
miol

Sorry, having a really hard time wrapping my head around the comparisons of killers=casual=zombies, but explorers=hardcore=books=EVE, the biggest playground for “killers”!

I thought, killers can be hardcore too and weren’t explorers care bears, especially if they mostly want interact with the world instead of players, as initially put before this here?!

I think, there is a bad PvP/PvE (players/world=too easy/too hard -axis) mix-up going on here!

miol
Reader
miol

That would be true, if it weren’t for the graph shown in the header, where he went from the non-player graph back again to a player graph, combining the results of 1 & 2!

He refers to “orthogonal” (page 16) only between the two axis within the 2nd graph >> between insight (lightweight/heavyweight) and playing skill (too easy/too hard)!

Reader
fanggwj

I would change the graph names to meaningless v cerebral on one axis and streamlining v challenge on the other. Though I am puzzled by the chart since there seems to be no “correct” option unless it is to design content closer to where the axes meet.
Or perhaps the message is that if you are designing content that is:
Too meaningless or too cerebral- don’t make it too streamlined or to challenging
Too streamlined or too challenging – don’t make it too meaningless or too cerebral

I would also contend that streamlining something cerebral or making it overly accessible would tend to make it lose its complexity. I think cherry picking is a great example of this.
Yet I would also contend that making something challenging and meaningless would not always be wrong. Grinding is mostly bad but when the player can witness their character’s growth it becomes a lot more palatable and won’t show warts for a long while.

Like no place else, in games the journey becomes more enriching than the destination. There are plenty of examples of games where the ending has sucked or gives the sensation of being unfinished yet they are still great games or even classic games. In a lot of old school classic games your only ending was a 4-16 color pixelated picture with some credits. Or maybe it was just “the end”.

miol
Reader
miol

Awesome link! Thx!

Reader
fanggwj

I like the overlay of mechanical vs mental. For instance something like Dragon’s Lair had only a joystick and one button but was both mechanically difficult with regards to timing and mentally difficult over time. Another example would be a flight sim were simple goals require a dozen steps, checks and gauges to maintain that grow with the size of the aircraft.