http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Personally, I seem to be closest to the explorer type. I always liked single player games more, and I prefer well-written lore, depth and new things to discover over the mechanics or social aspect.
Yeah, it's a classic. It's even called Bartle taxonomy, after the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_taxonomy_of_player_type...
I do however always accumulate/optimize for maximum ammo/currency/gear/weapons/items, to the point where I believe I completed >80% of Half-Life with the crowbar, to conserve ammo.
I also like you love singleplayer games and a well-written story, but I on the other hand hate open world games (because they're never open nor "worldy" enough), and equally hate too linear games (looking at CoD past 3 and the like).
I grew up loving games like Quake (for the multiplayer/mechanics/general tech side of it), The Longest Journey for the story, Half-Life for both aspects, and a bunch of games struggling with either storytelling/mechanics or other but loveable for their attempt at trying something more than they could achieve (examples being Outcast, Citizen Kabuto, Oni, Advent Rising, Too Human).
When thinking of what the last bigger/sorta AAA games I enjoyed playing was I think it's Half-Life 2 (kind of obvious), but also FarCry (1), Crysis (1, but also Warhead), Just Cause 2.
All of them had a story, most of them were open world and allowed you to approach a problem with undesigned solutions, which is what I really love.
I've bought GTA 4, 5, Far Cry 3, 4, Just Cause 3, and many many others, played them for less than a handful hours, and given up because it just feels like I have to churn this mill just to advance a movie, at which point I may as well watch a movie, or watch someone else play the game (which I now completely understand as a concept).
"Open world" games I've played in recent years - after the original concept of open world once went linear for consoles, and then consoles catching up enough to enable open world games again - don't seem to be so much about designing a world with some rules and a number of tools, but simply providing more than 1 or 2 designed solutions to a problem, which feels completely hollow to me.
I have no doubt that this is why MineCraft (which I haven't played much for lack of story/"game", although having plenty of sandbox/open world) and that genre has sprouted up to much success.
Sorry for hijacking. I don't know how this turned into a longwinded games rant, but it raised questions since I identified with you, while still feeling characterized under "achiever".
Interesting, because I identify with a lot of what you wrote, too.
- optimizing for ammo/currency: check; I do that out of the fear that I might need it later, which in case of Fallout 1 and 2 ended up with me finishing the game with more gear and cash than I knew what to do with
- I did play a lot of shooters too - mostly Quake 2 & 3, Unreal Tournament, and currently Overwatch
- I do enjoy achievements in most games a lot, which presumably makes me fall under the "achiever" archetype
As for open world games - they tend to bore me out after a while, when I hit the discovery limit. First time I discovered Minecraft (a friend gave me a pirate copy -> no multiplayer), I spent many hours exploring caves, discovering biomes, and building subway tunnels. But when I reached the point of knowing pretty much all the mobs, blocks and features of the game, I got bored. Similarly with Terraria and Starbound (though I started playing it again now on a server with a group of friends - probably scratching my "social" itch there).
So the categories are pretty fluid, I guess.
Yeah, I think that's what I was trying to get at. I want both what MineCraft and Terraria (played some of that) gives you as well as a story on top of it, otherwise I don't feel I have a motivation/direction towards which to utilize the world. (I assume psychologists would have a field day with that)
Yes, they do work a lot better in multiplayer, but like you said, then it's much closer to socializing.
I played Dota (2) for a few years (stopped a couple of years back), which is simultaneously the best and worst game. It has depth enough that no one can define the outer bounds of possible strategies, all while only inhabitating a single map. But it also has so many frustrating legacy mechanics that should not be there, as well as a community that is, let's say, mixed.
I also realized how impossible it is to attempt to even grasp it when a youtube video named "7.00 Patch Notes First Impressions" [1] (the latest version of the game) is a non-sarcastic 9h26m long without breaks. It also destroys the myth that people don't have attention spans for videos longer than 10m when the mentioned video has 347k views.
Needless to say I can't go back to it.
I recently picked up the latest Hitman game, and while the story is minimal, and you can still see the seams of a lot of solutions to each hit, there are enough variables at your disposal that you can engineer a lot of your own solutions. It is the Hitman:iest game since the first one I think.
I tend to do that too, but I hate it. Ruins the fun. Though, one time I did tell a friend playing Doom 3 to conserve ammo as much as possible because he'd "need it later". He wasn't too happy with me after his hard work was stripped from him mid-game. :)
It's even worse though when the game itself incentivizes the behavior. Deus Ex: Human Revolution, for example. Melee kills awarded more XP, so it made sense to just melee everything to max your skill progression. Then you finish the game (and its terrible ending, unfortunately) with enough ammo to fight a one-man ground war.
Also, some of what you describe can be counted as explorer. Particularly exploring the game mechanics to see whether they'd allow you to do certain things.
I've been out of the community for a while, but the updates have been somewhat controversial due to people missing/enjoying the sandboxy simplicity of the game; the new systems have added complexity that some believe doesn't really enhance the game.
Minecraft was more of a social game for me anyways -shrugs-
Rimworld is now the only game I have and it is the first time I didn't regret a single cent I spend for it. Even when it's 30$.
Rimworld is a Base Building game. Handling may be compared to Prison Architect but with seemingly never ending depth (Prison Architect didn't work for me too...). The learning curve is part of the game and even now with the extended tutorial, you'll find new ways to optimize and new possibilities. The Modding community is very active too.
Also the reddit community is also pretty active: https://www.reddit.com/r/RimWorld
Going by yours and your child-comment, I'll have to look into Rimworld. I steered clear from Dwarf Fortress after trying it for an hour, because of the daunting learning curve. And funny enough I've bought and played Prison Architect too, but didn't find it very fun after a couple of hours.
Thanks for the tip!
I'm also a game developer, and I believe you will love the game I'm making:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/539400
It's a roguelike with various weapons and items like The Binding of Isaac, but has 4-player co-op, fantasy theme and different combat styles depend on the starting character you choose.
Anyway, shoot me an e-mail, I'll send you a free Steam key. The address is in my HN profile.
Nuclear Throne, while having an avid fan base, is too unpredictive, and leaves no room for strategy and planning. In BoI you can (mostly) see all enemies, and when hit you get a grace period. In Nuclear Throne you can get shot up off screen, and lose any amount of your HP in a second (most often 50% or more of it). I wanted to like it but couldn't.
Neurovoider I haven't tried, but the criticism I've heard mirror that I experienced with Nuclear Throne, which makes me hesitant.
Risk of Rain was fun and worked both in single-player and multi-player, but didn't have as much depth, so it didn't last as long.
The Madness of Little Emma (as the name suggests) is a very blatant try to mimic BoI, but as a sidescroller instead, and mouse aim. I couldn't get into it, but can't articulate why.
You absolutely don't have to, but I'd gladly take a key and try it out, my wife has been asking me for games we could play together, so it could be fun to try. I'll shoot you an email, thanks.
I have the same problem with it. I mostly play local co-op and it's even worse because you often at the edge of the screen.
From similar games I can recommend Rampage Knights, although there aren't many weapon/item synergies it's got pretty fair and fun combat.
And thank you for the Linux version. Added to my wishlist
I just completed the original (Shadow of Chernobyl, ca 2007), with the bug-fix and enhancement mod from 2009 (Stalker Complete 2009) last week, and it's hands down one of my all time favorite games, such that I immediately started the sequel.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1023242/The-Gamer-Motivation-Pr... is the GDC version, though I imagine they're exactly the same, with the slides at http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1022959/The-Gamer-Motivation-Pr...
This kind of reminds me of enneagram in the sense that it seeks to uncover intrinsic motivations and drives. I'm 7w6.