Games People Play

  The ninth in a series of articles on the psychology of gaming

In Dave Booth's final article on Ultima Online, printed in issue
68, he mentioned something that especially caught my eye. What he
said was this:

   Some time ago, an academic paper (the title, and its author,
   escape me I'm afraid) expounded the theory of different types
   of player of on-line games. There is the Explorer, who would
   walk the length and breadth of the land to experience
   everything there was.  There's the Achiever, the man who wanted
   to be first to own a Castle in the New Lands (I bet there's a
   few of those!). The Predator, of course, is the player killer.
   Then there is the Social player.

For a split second I thought - I wonder which type I'd be? And the
answer came immediately because it was connected to a related
topic.

A little while ago, I'd been talking to Alex about his exploits in
EverQuest, another on-line game. He said that he was currently
holed up with a few other players at a spawning ground in Black
Burrow, waiting for the next batch of monsters to appear so that
they could bump them off. And I thought - I couldn't do that, I'd
be bored to tears. I could see the logic of waiting in an area
where you know the pickings are good, especially if you've made up
a party with other players so that they help you kill the baddies,
which you might not be able to do unaided, but it all seems
terribly mechanical. Wait, kill monster, heal up, wait some more.
Repeat until bored. Well, that'd be me done pretty quickly.

I must admit that I haven't played a graphical on-line game; I'd
love to but I haven't got the time to get far enough into it to
make it worth while. I can only speak for my experiences playing
text- based MUGs and RPGs. To me, games are there to be explored
and experienced. When I'm playing an RPG - Swords of Xeen was the
last one, but the principle applies to any of them - I thoroughly
enjoy entering a new area. What will it look like?  Forest,
desert, mountains? Will there be towns and dungeons?  Quests? What
will the monsters be like? What about the puzzles?  Will there be
riddles? Good treasure? Lots of gold and XP to collect? Here's a
locked door - what's behind it? Shall I climb the stairs or go
down this corridor?

From what I've heard of EverQuest (and Ultima Online) the playing
area is vast and varied. No matter how lucrative the area in
EverQuest's Black Burrow, I couldn't just sit still. I'd have to
be out exploring. When Alex and I have our weekly chats, I enjoy
hearing about where he's been in EverQuest and who he's met.
That, to me, is what gaming's all about. I might die more,
exploring. I might not progress as quickly through the levels. But
I'd be out there, smelling the virtual air.

One thing that we used to say set us adventurers apart from arcade
gamers was our largely non-competitive natures. People playing
arcade games were always very concerned with their scores and how
many levels they'd completed of a game - especially in comparison
with someone else. Adventurers, on the other hand, were in it for
the experience. Only text adventures usually had a score and then
it was simply to show how far you'd got through the game.

You have to move up through the ranks in order to survive in later
stages of RPGs or in certain areas of on-line games where the
monsters are tougher. When playing an RPG, I'll agree that it's
nice to have enough gold to buy a better sword or some really cool
armour. The idea of being able to buy your own horse or house
appeals to me too. But not as much as the anticipation of sailing
across a stretch of sea to a new area and landing on a tiny island
to find a hut containing ... well, that's the fun. You never know
what's going to be there.

We all play games for different reasons, mostly to do with a
combination of escapism and pure entertainment. RPGs have to be
approached in similar ways in order to be able to survive and
ultimately complete the game. But in an on-line game, you can -
literally - be whoever you want. You can even be a bad guy. Add
the fact that you're playing with real people, unlike an RPG where
all the other characters are computer generated, and anything can
happen. You need to be a combination of achiever, socialiser and
explorer with just a dash of bloodthirsty maniac. But it would be
the thrill of opening the next closed door or crossing a mountain
range that would encourage me to play an on-line game and
ultimately suck me in.

There must be a psychological basis for this division into player
types so, as usual, I wanted to know more. Once again, I asked
psychotherapist Adrian Blake for his explanation. He said:

   "Computer games - and games away from the computer screen - are
   fascinating. For me it's being the explorer. 'Explorer' sounds
   quite complimentary, flattering even. However it's really about
   being extremely nosy. I like to see what the characters are
   getting up to in their computer landscapes. What are they doing
   in that cave or behind those trees? This is a voyeuristic
   tendency.  What are they doing that I'm not? What am I missing
   out on?


   For other explorers the prime object might be to boldly go
   where no-one has gone before, to find and establish a new
   territory. So it suggests the primitive urge to migrate to a
   new landscape has woken and predominates. This in turn might
   suggest we're dissatisfied with our present situation and feel
   a need to move on.

   Playing is a serious business. Fun of course on the outside,
   but games are a rehearsal for the real thing. What I mean is
   that as children we play games. Kittens and puppies do the
   same. The game-playing is an ancient practice, a preparation
   for things yet to come - to learn the ability to hunt and
   defend ourselves, to co-ordinate brain, hand and eye to this
   end, to learn skills in exploring and finding new territory
   (and so to establish territorial rights).

   Or of course you could choose to be a killer. Being the killer
   in contemporary times usually equates to being the bad guy. But
   not always. If you enlisted in the Army and were ordered to
   kill you would have to do so (and would be punished if you
   didn't!). In fact, if you killed enough people you'd get a
   medal. So whether you're rewarded or punished for being a
   killer depends on politics. Kill a German in 1940 and you'd be
   congratulated. Do so today and you'd be locked up. And so on.
   Yes, life is complicated!

   So it is in computer games. Here you can be your own political
   or military leader, who makes decisions based either on what's
   expedient, or on a moral code, or simply on what you feel like
   doing. You may choose just one of these three roads, or you
   could grapple with the daunting task of trying to reconcile the
   tensions between all three. You might find your game-playing
   changes.  Perhaps you start off as Attila the Hun but then move
   on to more sophisticated leadership qualities. Either way it
   will say something about you.

   Game-playing serves a purpose. Whatever game you like to play
   is the one you most need to play. If the killing or hunting
   instinct is to the forefront and being 'played out' on the
   computer screen then you can, if you choose, learn something
   from this. It might be an outlet for anger, it might be you
   want to kill something off in your life, it might be you need
   to feel superior. Rather than seeing it as bad, it could be
   more useful to see what it might be trying to tell you. After
   all, nothing just happens for no reason.  The universe doesn't
   work like that."













                              - o -