@ Stabs: “WoW is not a linear game or an Achiever game or a yellow brick road. WoW is probably the most accomodating of different playstyles of any game, including notable sandbox games like Eve.”

I respectfully disagree. WoW is quite linear and the player experience is guided with clear objectives from 1-80 and into the raiding game: gain exp and loot so as to increase your character’s power. There’s a tiny, cursory exploration mechanic tacked onto what is 85% achiever and 14% killer (though that ratio can change on a PvP server). There’s little to no focus on socializing. Yes, players can work to spend their time exploring, or socializing, but the game doesn’t really mechanically support those playstyles – in the same sense that I could choose to live in my car… but it doesn’t have plumbing, or refrigeration, or a comfortable place to sleep. Just because you can force WoW’s square peg into a round hole (with a lot of obvious effort) doesn’t make it a round peg.

WoW is not a linear game or an Achiever game or a yellow brick road. WoW is probably the most accomodating of different playstyles of any game, including notable sandbox games like Eve.

“Bartle argues that a good MMO/ virtual world should offer opportunities for all of these playstyles.”

Dr Bartle only thinks WoW is not this type of game because he quests to 80 to, in his own words, “update my qualifications” then stops with a sigh of relief.

While he is quite correct that a good MMO should offer those opportunities his perception of WoW is fundamentally flawed because of the way in which he chooses to experience the game.

I’m not convinced about how good the various tests are, but coming from an engineering pov, a model can still be useful for designers even if it isn’t 100% accurate (or even 80%). Even without agreeing with the classification, I know some people play very differently from me. (I’m kind of an anti-achiever in some ways and hate achievements .. but I really like raiding and killing bosses and getting loot. Other people I know are totally opposite.)

And yeah, I agree totally. I don’t see why games have to specialise so much. I’d like to see more of a mixture too. And I agree also that most players aren’t ‘pure’ achievers/socialisers etc, they may even change from session to session.

I tend to lean towards “Alice”, and it is sad that most games nowadays cater so much for “Dorothy” and are heavily linear theme park games.

I am a bit sceptical about Bartle’s schemes and other typology tests.

I know so many players that scored as ESAK or EASK or whatever, but in the end WoW and satifisied WoW players are big “A” and very little “e” and “s”, and the player killing “k” of olde is also not comparable to e-sports and IMO does not even exist anymore.

The Myer-Briggs-Typology tests that is so popular says I am an INTJ. For some odd reason, the huge majority of people who take it are INxx at least, if not INTJ, too. That could mean most of us are actually that kind of player, but I know so many INTJ guys that are so totally different, it just cannot be true.

The new Alice, Dorothy and Wendy idea seems to fit better modern times, and I share his observation: We get virtual worlds like Metaplace and Second Life, IMO rather glorified chat rooms, and game worlds that brim with achievements, basically to-do-lists for ever content hungry gamers.

This is just sad. Both extremes are dumb and boring. I also wonder why it should not possible to combine an interesting game with socialization and community spirit.

Many people do sports not only for sports, but to meet friends. And they do not play dumbed down games so that they can easier socialize. Or just go to a bar to have a drink with someone.