[MUD-Dev2] [Design] 4Cs (was Who to design for?)

[Mike Sellers]

Sean Howard wrote:
> "Mike Sellers" <mike at onlinealchemy.com> wrote:
> > We differentiate those interested in a high-time vs. low-time
> commitment,
> > and those who enjoy an aggressive, direct experience in the world vs.
> > those who want a more indirect, non-aggressive, and/or arms-length
> > experience.
> 
> First, let me say that I think you are on to something with the high-time
> vs low-time. However, I'd extend it to a per-task basis. 

This can be viewed as per-task or per-session pretty easily.  

> Second, I'm not sure I'd go down the aggressive/direct experience
> approach. Pretty much all gameplay is an "arms-length experience". I mean,
> any combat system where you queue combat actions can't be considered a
> direct experience. I think you are grouping several different things under
> one umbrella, and perhaps things would work better if you had three or
> even four binary switches.

Experiences like in a FPS are more direct in psychological terms; those like
in a Tycoon game are more indirect: "you" aren't represented in the world,
or if you are, it's incidental.  This is a big dividing point for many
people that drives a lot of genre adoption or avoidance.

> I think competitiveness may be something worth factoring in.
> Socialization, perhaps (for all intents and purposes, small, closed social
> groups like duoing with your wife or friend should be considered asocial
> to the greater community). Maybe one more... I'm against achievement
> because I think everybody like achievement systems even if they don't
> gravitate towards them or engage in them if they are stupid.

But really, they don't: there are many people (more women than men) who find
achievement systems to be poor motivators at best.  Our society is highly
slanted in the direction of achievers, but that doesn't mean this fits
everyone.  

Competitiveness is a sub-phenomena of achievement (see for example
discussions on 'agon' gameplay as according to Callois).  Socialization is a
separable phenomenon.  In our parlance, Committed players tend to focus more
on sociability, while Core players tend to focus more on achievement (but
these are not simply "Achievers" and "Socializers" in Bartle's terms).

> Perhaps, curiousity? One's comfortability with unknown factors,
> randomness, or new systems. Usually, curiosity is the opposite of
> competitiveness, since the unknown makes it difficult to defeat an
> opponent. 

Curiosity is not linked with competitiveness; these vary independently, and
should be considered independently.

> If not curiosity, then how about creativity? 

In most psychological models, these two are almost synonymous. :)
Differentiating players based on creativity or curiosity isn't likely to
lead to different forms of gameplay more amenable to some than others (with
a few extreme exceptions like "The Incredible Machine" perhaps).

> > Commando - low-time, aggressive.  Sometimes you just want to shoot
> > something. :)  This focus is barely supported in current MMOs.
> 
> I would not describe anybody with a low commitment as aggressive. This is
> where I think your system falls apart. 

I believe this is a type or focus area that we'll see more of in the coming
years.  Consider the recent flourishing of "casual" but aggressive/violent
Flash games (e.g. Boxhead).  

> > The trick to using it is in giving all four types significant gameplay,
> > and even more so, making their gameplay relevant to one another without
> > making them play each other's way.
> 
> The problem with using a system like this for game design is that it tends
> to make you blind to those the system ignores or otherwise doesn't
> understand, just like those stupid Bartle types. There's always a Joker.
> Sometimes, there's a lot of them. It's admirable to try to understand why
> people are like they are, but if you decide to use that for a measure or
> goal, you'll be doing a disservice to yourself and to those you supposedly
> are designing for.

Perhaps.  The point of a system like this is to help qualify gameplay
features, to see where a design is strong or weak, and how different kinds
of people might be attracted (or not) to a game.

Mike Sellers