| Keirsey Temperament | Bartle Type | GNS Theory | Problem-Solving Style | Game example |
| Artisan | Killer | Experientialist | Power | GTA |
| Guardian | Achiever | Gamist | Persistence | Pokemon |
| Rational | Explorer | Simulationist | Perception | Half-life |
| Idealist | Socializer | Narrativist | Persuasion | WoW |
From Bartle’s blog
I added the game example column.
It started with this Gamasutra article about Limbo being a case of bad game design, article I totally agree with.
But Bart Stewart in the comments sums up something important: other than this gaming failing at being fair to the player, it’s really hard to make everybody happy in front of a game. There are types of temperament and unlike non-interactive forms of entertainment, we do play following them.
If you look at the Guardian type in games, it’s the most common –in both gamers and game developer’s heart- type. I hate that kind of game. I loved the Megaman concept but hated this stupid shit that is making it the hardest and the most unfair possible for the player. Like the article says, it feels for me that I’m losing my time and that developers are just crazy: it is not enjoyable (or if enjoying is just a matter of pure luck or pure madness, then I don’t like it because it’s a total rip-off of Life). There’s so many games I could have loved if they weren’t based on this arbitrary game design… That’s why the Mario series recently had strong changes regarding this issue (making it less and less arbitrary, helping the player etc).
Something I noticed with this chart: in problem-solving style, only Perception is not a Brute force technique. Actually, it seems that it’s the only smart problem-solving solution. Of course in games we have a mix of all of these, like in life we change our temperament too, but the main point is no, we don’t change not a lot, not that much…
The Perception problem solving style should be much more promoted in game design. For example FPS games are inherently made to be explorative but companies inject the Power problem-solving style and we end up with loads of killing simulator. Why?
In terms of responsibility for game designers, I’d rather push on the Rational temperament because if games are primary learning tools, well, the Rational temperament trains your perception and teaches you something that you can use in real life: getting better at recognizing patterns, at aggregating data and processing it. On the contrary, favoring the Achiever role, teaching the never ending greed for more, in a world where we’re running out of resources is not a good thing. That’s something we have to think about too. Not so much to show our support for a better world and how concerned we are about the Earth, but because being synchronized with society problems is a good thing to sell stuff. BP knows it (“Look! We’re totally green!”) even if they lie. We need to use this power too (not the lying part, mind you).
Also Perception calls for subtlety. Perception is the fascinating angle that can speak differently to people, without compromising the core design. That’s how Mario/Portal/Braid/Deus Ex/Peggle do, pretty well: you can find it hard or easy, it’s all about your perception and you exploring the game mechanics. The game respects and lets you achieve what you want. I think successful physics-based puzzle games like Angry Birds show how people freaking LOVE that, being challenged, getting smarter, being in control. That’s a rush of good feelings for sure.
And you know, that’s how art touches people, with different angle from the same piece of work.
<insert obvious La Joconde smile picture>
