Bartle's Taxonomy - What Type of Player are You? - Extra Credits
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Bartle's Taxonomy was the earliest attempt to break down player psychology in a multiplayer environment. Richard Bartle, who created the first MUD in 1978, interviewed the players of his games about why they played. Their responses fit into four categories, which we now call Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers.
Subscribe for new episodes every Wednesday! bit.ly/SubToEC (---More below)
_______
Get your Extra Credits gear at the store! bit.ly/ExtraStore
Play games with us on Extra Play! bit.ly/WatchEXP
Watch more episodes from this season of Extra Credits! bit.ly/2wUpNyb
Contribute community subtitles to Extra Credits: / timedtext_cs_p. .
Talk to us on Twitter (@ExtraCreditz): bit.ly/ECTweet
Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/ECFBPage
Get our list of recommended games on Steam: bit.ly/ECCurator
_________
Would you like James to speak at your school or organization? For info, contact us at: contact@extra-credits.net
_________
♪ Intro Music: "Penguin Cap" by CarboHydroM
bit.ly/1eIHTDS
♪ Outro Music: "Prima Variations" by Calum Bowen
bit.ly/1FN6mp6
2:26
Did we just get rickrolled by Extra Credits...?
Oh my... °A°
+WhiteZerko You must be an explorer! lol. Nice catch
😂 well spotted
Holy Shit, so genius...
+WhiteZerko must be an explorer ;)
+WhiteZerko My mind is blown o_o
I'd say I'm like Herman Cortez. An high-achieving socialising explorator who also happens to be a (mass) killer.
+scarfacemperor 10/10/10/10, max value on all axes, i.e a nice diamond shape on the diagram.
6:01 When the mix of players is just right.
my bad it's 5:58
OH SHIT, IT'S MCREEAM!!!!
I used to be a PlayStation trophy hunter, but now I'm more of just general play person. It all depends on the game, but I guess mostly socializer. More so for the fact I'm traditionally a healer/really into co-op.
Doesn't Wildstar use this directly? Also.. good to hear about Bartle again, read a lot about his MUD in MicroAdventurer as a kid and it inspired me to get quite involved with LP-MUD later.
I don't know where I'd fall on this chart anymore.
And Undertale accommodates all four of them so well. Holy shit.
I think I fall into the explorer and socialiser catergory
So many killers or every games xD!
Im most likely a Explorer, not in the litteral sence, i enjoy crafting every item, learning everything i can about mechanics and mobs, plus I like having mobility for when I do want to explore terrain.
Im definately NOT an acheiver or a socializer, and i probably have a small part of ne being a killer. Mainly when im mad. Anyone agree with me?
Isn't that a Master Roshi face at 0:14? :D
What happened to the power creep episodes? Did I miss the conclusion to that?
I'm on the fence of the World Axis, between Achiever and Explorer; games like Minecraft or 7 Days to Die, where not only can there be goals unique to the player, but also millions of different possible methods of achieving said goals; do I use trial and error to find a weak point on a boss? Or do I simply find the best possible gear I can obtain at the moment to beat this thing?
0:14 How have you been Master Roshi? It's been a while. lol
This is super interesting, but I do have a few questions and concerns about the "Killer" category. When I heard it, I thought these were people specifically out to kill and slay enemies in game. So I was wondering if this category had any correlation with having a lack of empathy and/or Antisocial Personality Disorder. I also thought that maybe it should be renamed "Slayer" because these people were out to beat powerful monsters and such. Now I see that that is more of an "Achiever" category thing to be into. Now that I see that "Killers" want to act on other players, I wonder if they should instead be called "Dominators", "Controllers", or "Influencers", since they want to act upon other players, don't necessarily want to kill, and since "Killer" has a negative connotation.
The Chad achiever versus the beta explorer versus the Stacy socialiser versus the virgin killer
What if you play it for the story, setting and fun gameplay?
2:25...
...
D-Did I get rickrolled by text?
I really wish I could find a website that allowed me to filter games by what kind of player I wanted to be.
AI makes all things possible.
Did you ever find a solution?
nope@@kxmode
We have a word for Killers in the real world, too; they're called "assholes".
or trolls.
+Sporkaganza Or sadists.
+Sporkaganza yeah ussually some kind of 13 year old kid with parents that dont care about him taking his/her anger on others.
Billy Hatzi 'killers' is kind of a misnomer. It's anyone who preys on the weak for "S and giggles
+Sporkaganza Human nature, dominance = success so humans tend to feel happy when they exert their dominance, the key word is tend. I fall into this group along with explorer
I feel like the archetype you fall into can vary from game to game.
@@CaptainScarf ah yes, murder
For example i am a killer in wow but a socialist in animal crossing,an explorer in hollow knight and an achiever in a hat in time
I feel like that’s mostly because of how each game puts emphasis on different aspects of our personalities. I believe we all fall into one archetype or another, period, but that doesn’t exclude us from having elements of other archetypes. So we are more likely of falling into a ‘secondary’ archetype if the game we’re playing puts more emphasis on those qualities.
For example, I’d say I’m primarily an Explorer, but I have that highly competitive quality that Killers do. So in games that cater more towards Killers, I’m more likely to be part of the killer dichotomy, as opposed to the Achiever or Socializer archetypes.
I don't switch types between games. but I've seen my friends do this. Like we'd be playing minecraft and I'll be consistently exploring and achieving, but my friends will either be socializing or killing one another. But I don't change a lot, so I'll be showing them the new thing I found in the nether, and they'll follow me around because it's interesting to them in their own way. Like the social friends will use the striders to travel with one another, me and my explorer friends are finding more biomes in the nether while my achiever friends are following along for xp grinding, and of course my killer friends are finding ways to turn the piglins against eachother. So we'll flip from each type depending on the circumstances.
@@13Rats to be honest....i like kiling more...though i can switch inbetween them depending onthe situation
Example:if i want a cool set of armor i need to start achieving
If i want some cool bits of lore or secret powers i have to start exploring
If i want help to organise an event i start sociolizing
This is seriously interesting!
I must be somewhere inbetween Explorer and Achiever I guess. Mainly Explorer though.
+The Beaver King me too :)
+The Beaver King
Same here, I just enjoy the world period.
+The Guardian of Time (GoldLight64) So when I am playing a game that has a "100% of map Explored" 'Cheevo.... yaaassss!
+The Beaver King I'm definitely an Explorer, but I like to explore the limits of the game mechanics, with quirky builds, unplanned synergies, latching onto secondary objectives, and abusing weird power curves.
+The Beaver King I guess Im 70% achiever, 30% killer
Achiever, Explorer, Socializer, Killer: What type of player are you? #ExtraCredits
Explorer!
+Extra Credits I see your Rickroll game is strong, WP.
+Extra Credits I think I'm an achiever, but I'm not sure. I play games start to finish but I usually don't go for the 100%. I found in my recent play through of Fallout new vegas I stuck to the main quest and usually did not venture off. I feel like I'm too nice of a guy to be a killer, but I will do the ocational spawn camping in tf2. I might be a socializer, but, since in a mmo I played a while back I enjoyed helping out new people.
Explorer/Socialiser , a type of hybrid between does two.
all of the above achiever to complete the game explorer to see what can be done (usually on a second play through) killer when when the others have brought me strength which can be competitive in organized pvp and socializer when I have reached a point that its fan is a part of me
1:12 "They disagreed, violently"
me - "How violently?"
I would argue you have a 5th member of the (Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers) Group. This Player is the "Do-Nothingers" this player is a typically a solo player in a multiplayer game that doesnt play the games plot. Insead they are Farming, Fishing and Hunting insead of playing the game. They like the little things in games.
Jarid, I think those people who spend their time "doing nothing" fishing/farming/hunting in solo games (you picked really good examples of typical single player game side activities!) could probably be classified as Explorers (because they're exploring niche game mechanics that flesh out the game world), or maybe Achievers for some (because side activities often have completion-based rewards and achievements). Games like Animal Crossing are centered around those types of players (with elements of social gaming built in).
Just call them Owners
They do their own thing
does "only plays a game for the sandbox mode" count as a do-nothinger? if yes, that is me
those are basically the middle
I find it interesting that this can be found in even the subtlest ways. Take the difference between Playstation's Trophies, and Xbox's Achievements. With the trophies, you can see how many other people earned it, and what percentage of players actually earned it. But with achievements, you get a score based on it's difficulty. In this regard, Playstation's trophies are better for the killers and achievers, or the ones who like to push the boundaries and find the most difficult achievements. But with Xbox relying on a score, it's targeting the socialisers and explorers, who want to see their high score compared with their friends. It's a subtle difference, but fascinating to see the difference in mentality between these two rival giants.
Trophies also give you a "score" as well, no? With trophy levels and stuff.
+DiscoClam Trophies also give you a scoore, the trophies have point associations and it's easy to compare with your friends on PSN
+DiscoClam It's really easy to game Xbox achievements. Just play a bunch of games with garbage achievements for a quick boost.
I'm not talking about the score, I'm talking about the reason you WANT to earn the trophies and achievements, besides 100% completion. The small touches that show the mentality of the two companies.
Nice analysis! I wish the playstation/steam system of rarity was more ubiquitous, I shoot for the crazy hard and weird achievements but don't really care for my "high score' so I'm always dissapointed when that's the only metric.
Can these overlap? I like exploring and high completion rates.
+BB5 Productions yeah they can
+BB5 Productions A lot of games combine multiple if not all the profiles in some way. JRPGs : secret bosses/dungeons stronger than the story ones, lots of exploring to do), Far Cry : lots of achievements, lots of exploring, MGS games : lots of secret items unlockable by completing certain challenges (like finishing the game without killing anyone), lots of easter eggs, "Soulsborne" games : Explorer/achiever/killer/socialiser (exploring is important to find valuable items and optional locations, the gameplay gives a great sense of achievement, and the online part rely on helping/killing other players), MMORPGs are another example of games that try to please the 4 profiles (lots of exploration, PvE, PvP, raid dungeons, guilds...).
+BB5 Productions Gravity falls + Nacho's? Great :D
And yes they can overlap. I'm more like a social explorer.
Very rarely. The only person in my experience who's a mix is RockLeeSmile . And I've been bracketing people for years. Even non gamers. Just look at kids in high school and you'll easily divide them into these four groups.
MajkaSrajka Comfort zone? Exactly. If one has a comfort zone this chart works very well. Do you know what I mean? IMHO I don't agree with your opinion. Peace.
There are combinations I thought of:
Explorer-killer: they explore the game for super annoying stuff, then throw it at newer players
Explorer-socialiser: they find cool stuff by exploring, then show it off
Explorer-achiever: theorists, they explore the map and then make theories on the game, they find it super satisfying
Killer-socialiser: trolls who make friends with the victim, then grief them , worse than normal killers
Killer-achiever: exploiters
Socialiser-achiever: tries to get as many friends as possible for the fun of it
Cool
I'm late af, buy imo explorer-achievers are people who enjoy exploring the game to better understand it's mechanics and become better players
@@yonyon5432 Which of course leads to asserting dominance in someway.
I think killer-socializer would be trolls that dont betray them like you just said, just annoy them in the chat or something else.
@@jomppidev1845 Joined Channel [1. General - The Barrens]
Speed runners are definitely achievers, just saying.
Actually from my research, Speed runners are explorers
what?
I think speedrunners are the achievers, and glitch hunters are the explorers.
Some speedrunners are also glitch hunters. So some qualify for explorers too
I can't help but notice how similar these groups are to Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, and Slytherin respectively.
Griffindor achievers, Ravenclaw explorers, Huffelpuff socialisers, and Slytherin killers.
Though Harry Potter most probably are closer to Keirsey Temperament. They are pretty much the same though
〈-thatguyoverthere that is an excellent observation
〈-thatguyoverthere Hufflepuff being socializers? Nah, theyre just losers
Philosophers Stone was published in '97, Bartle's paper in '96. It's entirely possible (depending on when she started writing) that bartle influnenced JK Rowling.
explorer :)
+Mohamed AlNass Me too :)
+Mohamed AlNass Yup, I'm totally an Explorer, with a little bit of Socializer. Although I think I prefer socializing with NPCs over other players XD
+Crazy Boy Studios it sometimes depends on the game like cod killer most of the time xD
hard to say...but maybe action gamer , I don't think there's just 4 different kinds
Depending on the context, I would either fall into the Killer or Explorer camp. It might seem odd at first, considering that they're opposites on the chart, but it also makes sense. In both cases, I'm the one in control. Killers use their skill to control the outcome of the game when playing with other players and explorers choose their own path rather than letting the world dictate their actions. (as opposed to socializers who rely on other people to accomplish their goals, and achievers who follow the path laid out before them)
It's quite interesting how combinations of groups create their own characteristics. As a killer/explorer, I'm sort of a lone wolf kind of player who likes to put their own skills to the test and doing their own thing. Somebody like +ZeldaCraftr who is an explorer/achiever could be described as a completionist. They too like exploring, but for the reason of finding everything there is to do, which is different from the curious exploration of a lone wolf.
You could keep going and make connections between other combinations. Here are some of my attempts:
*Killers/Socializers (Squadmembers):* Like to interact with other people, whether it's competitively or cooperatively. Players who typically like team-based competitive games (MOBAs for example) might fall into this category.
*Killers/Acheievers (Elites):* Players who strive to perfect their skills and try to outdo other players.
*Socializers/Explorers (Casual players):* Players who play more for the experience of playing rather than for the sake of achieving goals. They might like to play with their friends, but do so mostly to have fun.
*Achievers/Socializers (Collaborators):* MMO / coop players. People who like to collaborate to accomplish goals that the game's world presents them.
I guess you might even go one step further and combine things even more to create groups like Squad(Moba)-Elites and so on, I suppose.
achiever: goes for high elo
explorer: nonmeta builds and unpopular champions
socializer: gets into the community and is a nontoxic player
killer: goes to high elo and makes a smurf
What's elo ? Dwarf Fortress rules!!
+Flailmorpho So playing Lux top and orianna support in s3 makes me an explorer I guess...
+Flailmorpho Some socializers are very toxic.
Some smurfs are killers who simply want more relaxing play, not wanting to deal with bots who practically wall hack.
+MajkaSrajka is that the same at an MMR? (match making rating)
+Simply Solus
Socializers wouldn't be toxic as toxicity is covered in Killers.
"Any way to taunt other people" loosely includes their own team, but the "assert dominance" is itself a definition of toxic players.
They degrade others to make themselves feel better, and to make others feel bad, instantly giving them a step up in their eyes.
2:25 I see you, I see you, Rick astley 👌🏽 classy
I am The Origin. All comes from Me, nothing Cannot come to Me, only away. I am at the center of Everything.
at least, on the graph.
...I meant the other kind of Origin. like in a graph. at the center.MajkaSrajka
+cable c
Lies. Only Our Lord Gaben will save us.
+MajkaSrajka Aren't you a little short to be Lord Apocalypse? Though I guess the new movie might not have him quite so tall... O.o
me too
"They disagreed. Violently."
And the ensuing conflict would later be known to the world as the Second Chechen War.
I'm not sure where I fit on this graph. I love interacting with the world in games, but it's not about discovering new places and stuff, it's more about feeling like I'm part of that world for a short while and having an impact on the story and characters.
If I had to use a label, I'd be a "Role-Player". :P
+Aegix Drakan I'd say that's a Socializer. Even if it's not a specific person you're directly interacting with, you're still exploring someone as a person: By immersing yourself in the world, you're getting to know the designer, and the characters they create.
Depends on who you'd rather role play? And with who? Would you rather play with good friends or you don't care that much as long as you're enjoying yourself?
+Aegix Drakan Depends on whether you are talking about online or offline RP. Online RP tends to be more socializing, whereas offline tends to be more similar to exploring.
In PvP: killer/achiever
In PvE: socializer/explorer
What's happening here, help me?!
+Anston Music like almost everything in psychology, everyone is at least a bit of everything. You are classified as the most predominant of the 4.
Also, how you play in a game would depend on the experience you want to have. If you're playing, say, a competitive MOBA or FPS, you're going to play very differently from, say, a single-player FPS or a strategy game. Heck, I switch player types in the same game sometimes. In TF2, for instance, it's easy to go from "Killer" or "Achiever" to "Socializer" by, say, doing a conga or changing classes, or just trying a different kind of server. And like Wolf Pytlak said above, people are always a mix of things, almost never an absolute. I say "almost never" because saying "never an absolute" feels silly.
I doubt you're a killer. Do you enjoy insulting your opponent and putting them down? As for the environment I'll be able to help you if you give me more information. Do you prefer pvp or pve ?
Anton Adelson I've played GW2 World vs World with very much killer-like styles, and boy do I love wrecking someone in 1v1 and then dancing on their body. Sometimes even 1v2 or more by surprise when they are trying to kill certain npc's. In that game mode only do I like to feel the dominance flow through me. *FEAR ME!*'
I should upload some videos of that sometimes. Guild Wars 2 is the greatest MMORPG at the moment, really. I've played a lot of both pvp (structured and WvW, they feel very distinct) and pve, once I get bored of the other I'll play more of the other, so I can't tell which I like better.
Anston Music But your avatar is so cute :)) Anyway, if in real world you could do absolutely anything you want and no one could punish you for it, would you dominate others and dance on their bodies? Knowing that it upsets them?
i dont know what i am. in this system
+Anton M Same Here.
+Anton M A mix of multiple classes? Killer-explorer or semi-achiever or socializer-killer? Maybe pure center? Or just victim other players to play upon.
+Fionn Conner me too
+MrDUneven Explorer-killer maybe...
+Anton M I mean, I don't what I am either. But if I force myself to pick one I think it would be Explorer-Socializer.
You know, I just downloaded Wildstar recently with the f2p move, and their "path" system (which I love) must have been the direct result of Bartle's theory. It's like, literally 1:1.
+TacoSteven I was about to make this comment too. It was an interesting idea, played it when it first came out, but after a while it felt like some paths had more thought put into them.
+TacoSteven Its by design. I was following Wildstar's development a while back, and I recall Bartle's Taxonomy being specifically called out, by name, in one of their pre-release dev blogs or some such. They built the path system with that in mind, and with the direct intent of giving some form of tailored side-content experience for every player group on the grid.
I never got into WIldstar, might give it try again someday now that its free, but credit where credit is due; the path system is a fantastic idea and one of the best innovations to the MMO genre in a LONG time.
+TacoSteven Checked their web, went onto their FAQ aaaand...
"How did you come up with these Paths?"
"Have you heard of Bartle types? Our Paths are loosely based on those. But mainly we just looked at the ways players play MMOs, and designed cool content around them."
+TacoSteven I think that is amazing. I had a lot of fun being an explorer in that game =)
I was going to make this comment as well, hope it gets brought up in the rest of EC's discussion on the taxonomy. Although it feels in some way Achiever is lost out on in wildstar, as the scientist is more of an explorer path but in a less physical sense, while the other three align fairly well to the taxonomy. Each path rather segments every thing an achiever could want, making it actually more difficult for them to be fulfilled by the game.
Totally Explorer, mainly the lore, for example, I'm a fan of MGS lore but I never played any Metal Gear game.
same
Another important thing you didn't mention: in most multiplayer games, the four types of players are NOT evenly spread out. The spread is more like 75% socialisers, 10% achievers, 10% explorers, and 5% killers.
+Najarala That is one of the tricky parts about balance. An 'ideal' game (whatever that means) is not a perfect balance of the play types, and different balances will attract different players. For instance look at EvE, who's mechanics (and marketing) heavily favor the 'killer' archetype, to the point they struggle to keep the other types interested. There is constant argument over the needs of the various groups and their patches show a back and forth while they try to figure out how to draw in the players they want.
+Najarala I think that will be in the next episode.
+Najarala Where'd you get those numbers? I tried looking for some but only found a survey of Everquest players (the type of game greatly affecting the spread?)
their numbers were
34% explorers
25% achievers
23% socializers
15% killers
books.google.com/books?id=Re8tGpC6_PsC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=Achievers,+Explorers,+Socializers,+and+Killers+percentage+of+players&source=bl&ots=2nS_fqXruo&sig=MCg9kVLRahMb6bs8yLLPuRWmHk4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBmoVChMI_8bf3N_CyAIVyCiICh28QgOO#v=onepage&q=Achievers%2C%20Explorers%2C%20Socializers%2C%20and%20Killers%20percentage%20of%20players&f=false
+neeneko Even killers have a hard time staying interested in EVE. I played if for a while.... but any more, all the actual content is built for players who have been playing the game for years and have all of the character skills on one alt or another.
Well survival games (rust, reign of kings, etc,) mostly consist of killers. And they are extremely annoying. Killers are really just dicks
So... Can someone help me figure out which kind of player I am? I enjoy games primarily because I like solving problems, (Layton puzzles, Zelda boss fights, Minecraft redstone circuits, The Last of Us stealth combat, etc.) but not for the achievement's sake. I like the challenge of doing it much more than the satisfaction of achieving it. Sort of a journey-not-the-destination attitude. Does this fit into any of these categories in some way I'm not seeing?
+Jake Pillsbury That's explorer I think. It kind of fits with 2:56.
+Jake Pillsbury It sounds like you fall into a combination of Explorer and Achiever. You are exploring what makes up the game. Taking Minecraft for example and seeing how far you can take the crafting system.
Your exploring the "Mechanics" of the game so to speak, taking the system the game world is set upon and messing with it, seeing how far you can take it.
+Randygandalf95 That's not quite what my thought process is, but it's kinda close. I'm in it more for the part where my wheels are turning than finally figuring out the answer.
+Jake Pillsbury I would say that you are a achiever then, as from my understanding, does a achiever go after achievements mostly for the challenge of getting them, otherwise wouldn't they be much worth, and an achiever isn't defined by wanting to get an achievement, they just usually likes it when a game acknowledges them beating a challenge (in which a achievement system does a good job of doing so).
though, I might be wrong, but that's what I think.
+Jake Pillsbury Seems like me. I'd say we're World side, and slightly more Achiever than Explorer but not so clear cut on that axis.
Lookit dat high score list at 2:24. What a lovely easter egg that was.
What about those who play minecraft for hours to build things? Artists? Creators? I don't think this explicitly falls under explorers or socializers. Maybe achievers?
There is a lot of stuff for explorers in Minecraft.
2:26 gosh darn it guys
I'm definitely an achiever, but there is nothing more satisfying than dominating a killer and watching their fantasy fall apart.
The only respectable way to be of the "killer" category
"Socializers [are] there for the community."
Well, then they're nowhere in MOBAs, then.
You got one part of that wrong.
There is a chance to find Socializer in MOBAs.
a slim one.
A quite slim one.
I'd like to propose a 5th type of player that's rather hard to categorise.
The Survivor.
Named for the role in mafia games like Town of Salem or Starcraft 2 Mafia, the Survivor exists outside the axis (or in the dead centre, really) and doesn't really commit to any true side - they win with everyone. Their only real goal in a game is to survive to the end of it. They will do whatever it takes to do this goal - interact on players, interact with players, interact on the game world, interact with the game world. They just want you to leave them alone and do their own thing. These are the lone wolves of multiplayer games - they're not there to make friends, they're not there to make enemies, they're not there to win, they're not there to look at things, they're just there cause they feel like it.
those are a hybrid, called "participants"
www.gamasutra.com/db_area/images/feature/6474/06-UM-DGD1.png
I'm curious how this holds up in the modern environment, considering few players fit into a single group. As an example, I'm both an explorer and socializer. I love exploring the world, so much so that even areas I've already picked apart continue to hold lasting appeal to me. I also find intense satisfaction both in taking an active role in a guild, and grinding content (mobs, dungeons, whatever) for loot to share with others who can find use for it.
lol i'm definitelly the Killer type player XD
I couldn't help but compare these to Magic the Gathering's player archetypes that are often referred to on magicthegathering.com. "Timmy"- The player who wants to experience something. "Johnny"- The player who wants to express something, "Spike"- The player who wants to prove something, "Melvin"- who loves delving into game mechanics,and "Vorthos"- who loves the flavor and lore of the world.
these are literally not the MtG archetypes, those descriptions are all wrong
WOOHOO YOU PUT SMITE IN THE MOBA LIST I LOVE YOU!!!
Feels good to see Smite up there with the big boys :)
+Nicholas Zacharias they once snubbed dota 2 when they mentioned mobas and I was pissed (for no good reason).
+Nicholas Zacharias smite is pretty much the 3rd most popular moba, no matter how you look at it so it would be silly if it isn't mentioned when talking about moba's. Also considering its the most innovative moba so far..
InoshiKenshi
what the fuck are you talking about, I never said anything about lol....
I love how the first three are described in a fairly neutral way. And then there are the Killers who are just the typical bullies
3:18 You buy cat, my wife is sick.
Ooooh I like kittens, how soft are the bones?
Cat no for sale!!
I think the type of player I am depends on the game that I am playing. If I'm playing a MOBA like League Of Legends, I tend to be more of a socializer than anything else. If I'm playing an open-world RPG like Xenoblade Chronicles, I'd be an explorer since that game has a really big world. I think it's an interesting concept to think about. I look forward to a more in-depth look at it next week.
0:30 0/10 sniper not pictured pissing on everything/going full bear grylls mode.
It almost seems as though the "killer" player category could be interchanged with the term "Dominator" due to them typically showing dominance in game.
You mean "flamer", "douchebag" or "scum".
Well, I disagree, since a achiever may have good items and can protect themselves pretty easily, obviously if they're high ranking, which they'll achieve or have already achieved, and killers may not be that powerful
Is this why Pokemon Go is such a worldwide phenomenon? All four groups work so inherently well in the design since it's so tightly designed in this regard and anyone can enjoy it. I mean, you've got real world Exploration, which can help you discover Social Interaction with other people as you can Achieve a completed pokedex or defeat/Kill the local gyms.
Except in CO. :(
Pokémon GO lasted **a** week in this town - cause there wasn't anything to appeal to these four.
no not really, killers have nothing interesting in pokemon go.
i guess there are gymn battles but thats not there killers thrive.
the reason why pokemon go became so big, is becasue they managed to combine the real world and the boring part of pokemon(which was running around from town to town for no damn reason...)
I still don't quite get what the difference between action and interaction is in this context. My best guess is that when you act on the world/ players you hope to change some aspect of them (i.e. how many levels you've cleared, or how many times they've lost) while interaction you hope to instead adapt to the world/ players (like learning Mario's jumps in Super Mario 64 so you can learn how to get around, or learning the "politics" of an MMO so you know where you would fit in best).
Am I on the right track?
+EchoL0C0 I think "action" is doing something within the game, like jumping on enemies or talking to NPCs. "Interaction" would be things you do that alters the world around you in some way, such as unplugging a drain to lower the water level in the room or using a key to unlock a door.
+EchoL0C0 In this context, when you "act", you are expressing dominance. When an Achiever beats a level, they are defeating the level itself. When a killer curbstomps someone in PvP they are defeating another player. On the other hand, "interaction" is all about working with the other person or object. When an explorer finds an easter egg, they are working with the level in order to uncover all its secrets. When a socializer organizes a raid, they are working with other players in order to achieve something greater.
+Joss Goyanko Though that isn't entirely accurate either. Killers do not always seek to win. Some simply seek a challenge which AI can't provide.
Killer actually has a bunch of different subsets. I, personally, was what I'd call a joker or a wildcard. I didn't seek to win. I simply wanted to cause chaos. Not to bring about emotional distress or such, but simply to alleviate stagnation by being a random element in the world. With half health I'd attack full teams, die quickly, and enjoy it because it provided me various thrills I wanted.
Simply Solus That phrase, "various thrills I wanted" is a little too vague for my taste. Still, I suppose you have a point. I think I will amend my previous statement. Perhaps a better and simpler definition for "Action" in this case would be, "Competition." When you attack another player, you are instigating a combative, adversarial relationship of a competitive nature between you and the other player. The difference then between "Action" and "Interaction" would be that Interaction is Cooperative. A Socializer Cooperates with other players while a Killer Competes against them. An Achiever Competes against the game itself, while the Explorer is essentially Cooperating with it, working with the mechanics and level design in order to uncover new secrets. I think the flaw here in Bartle's Taxonomy is it assumes that the player desires Victory through Action or Interaction, but doesn't realize that some players, such as yourself, find the Challenge itself more engaging than the win condition.
Joss Goyanko Various thrills can be all sorts of things for me. It can be the stealth aspects, the attempt to escape, the chase of someone fleeing, simple chaos, and all sorts of other things.
That said, I think you are really onto something with the issue being in seeking victory. With the concept of victory thrown away, this allows for people who simply maintain theirself to fit on the chart. (e.g., someone who just logs in to maintain their crops in minecraft.)
"In fact, they disagreed violently"
MORTAL COMBAT
In which category fall players that play the game mainly to experience the main story?
+jerome96114 I'd say explorer, because you want to see the content that's in the game, ie the world. That may also involve acting upon the world, so there's an achiever element to it, but if the primary motivation is the experience of content, yeah I'd say explorer. However, if you tend to not read quests, skip through cutscenes, and finish as fast as possible, then you're an achiever.
+jerome96114 I'd say explorer. That's the group I place myself in and I'm very much playing for the setting and story. I made another comment about how I collect useless trinkets with connections to the lore.
+jerome96114 I probably would say a combination of Explorer and Achiever. Explorer because people want to experience the story and their interaction with the world and NPCs in the game world really intrigue them. Achiever simply because sometimes to explore new areas or find different things within the game, a task(s) must be accomplished. I have to say I experience the main story, more as an achiever than an explorer so I am making this comment knowing I have that tendency.
+jerome96114 depends a little bit how you see it from your point of view, but most probably explorer. Since you play the game to find something you never had/knew before.
TopHatPangolin
There are multiplayer games that have a main storyline. Final Fantasy 14 for example. One might also consider the community oriented plot of Elite: Dangerous as a main story. Though, thinking about it some more, I'm not sure if the explorer archetype applies to on-the-rails experiences. It's more about how you play along the way. Stop and smell the roses, as it were. That would be exploring.
So did this influence Magic the Gathering's Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin archetypes and D&D's Actor/Explorer/Instigator/Power Gamer/Slayer/Storyteller/Thinker/Watcher player types? Or did everyone come to these similar conclusions independent of each other?
+Wakka Seta Technically, Timmy, Johnny, and Spike make up one set of archetypes and form a 3-dimensional continuum as people can be any combination of those three to any degree, with Vorthos and Melvin making up another continuum, albeit a 1-dimensional one as a lack of one trait means a lot of the other. But I'm just splitting hairs here.
I always enjoy different systems of categorisation like these. I find Rosewater's types very useful to apply to social situations even when there are no literal games being played.
I prefer the psychographic profiles from MtG.
Timmy - plays because of the feeling
Johnny - plays to be creative
Spike - aims to be as competitive as possible
Edit 3: THIS IS A PERSONAL THEORY BASED ON THIS VIDEO AND SOME BEHAVIOR I HAVE OBSERVED OR HEARD ABOUT, THERE PROBABLY ARE MISTAKES AND I HAVE A LACK OF EVIDENCE, PLEASE FIND EVIDENCE YOURSELF IF YOU FIND THIS INTERESTING AS I AM AN UNRELIABLE NARRATOR, IF YOU DISAGREE PLEASE DO SO IN A WELL MANNERED METHOD WITH EVIDENCE YOU HAVE GATHERED YOURSELF IF YOU HAVE ANY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
There seems to be subcategories for all four groups, the absolute, and the mixed, where someone is primarily one of the four, and the second most prominent one is also seen, like a hypothetical Socializer(killer) someone who does want to socialize but has a desire to "kill" the conversation, to cause as much pain and/or distress as possible.
Edit: or dominate the conversation.
Edit 2: or say a Achiever(socializer) who does want to master the game, but shares it with other people. The mixed categories can sometimes seem similar to the other ones, but can have differences on closer inspection. Absolutes, these are people who seem to fit the descriptions the closest, the absolute Achiever is a person who wants to complete the game to the best of their capabilities, or a killer who wants to assert dominance, with no preference to the socializer or achiever spaces, the absolutes show little to no traits from the other groups. The mixes of seeming opposites can come out strange but are still there, but I am not the most clever of people so I can't think of anything for myself. And then there are people who mix the 4 types so closely that it can be hard to determine which group they fit in, or who might fit into a different group depending on a variety of factors, I am pretty sure these kinds of people exist, I'm not 100% sure but I do strongly believe so, and they display traits of all 4.
Seems like builders might be an additional category, creating large ingame structures not to explore the mechanic, not for social impact or to meet any specific ingame goal and certainly not to kill is a significant independent drive for many players.
I think that category sounds very similar to the Achiever mindset, maybe with a bit of Explorer added to the mix. Although building large structures might not be an overt objective, it's sort of an implied challenge in games that facilitate building, so there you have the Achiever bit. Also, to build really advanced structures, you generally need at least some advanced knowledge about the building mechanics, meaning that some level of exploration is required.
Another way of looking at it is this: Building large structures is very clearly a way of acting upon the world, and if you need to go around gathering resources to build with, you also need to interact with the world a bit. Going by the graph at 5:13, that places "builders" mostly in the Achiever quadrant, but leaning a bit towards the Explorer side.
Huitzilopochtli i think there is more to the achiever type than just acting on the world, the challenge and acknowledgement part is an important part and your typical achiever does not like single player minecraft creative mode, nor would an typical explorer. Similarly there is more to the drive to build than acting/changing the world, that the change is constructive and targeted is crucial but acknowledgement, exploration and achievement is irrelevant , they will like single player minecraft creative. I predict that builders and achievers act and want very different things from their games, but that they are consistent in their behaviour with little overlap between groups. When the game mechanics support building, achievers build monuments or farms, socializers build clubhouses or communities, killers build fortresses or traps, explorers build labs or camps but each of these are functional serving an in game purpose. Builders build for the sake of building, generally their works are non functional in a sense which just does not apply to the other arketypes. 5 clusters always fits the data >= than 4, but i would wager there would be support for it even accounting for this. Put another way, if there we limit ourselves to 4, building might remain while the others get reshuffled. To be clear though i propose an extension to the model.
Wouldn't a large construction without other functions than visual appeal count as a "monument," which you put as an example of what achievers might build? And I personally think constructing things definitely counts as acting upon the world.
As for acknowledgement, that depends on the person and situation. I mean, I consider myself mostly an explorer but also partly an achiever. Whenever I accomplish something challenging (getting 100% completion, succeeding with a self-imposed challenge, et cetera) I usually talk to a few friends about it, but I generally don't make too much noise unless it's something insanely difficult.
As a side note, I may have misunderstood what you mean. When you were talking about creating large ingame structures, I thought you were referring to people who do that with the explicit intent to show it. People who do things like building a 1:1 scale model of the USS Enterprise in Minecraft and then post it on RUclips.
It can be, and yes for a typical achiever it would be, in particular if it serves the purpose of visual appeal, my idea is that there is a group of players for which it isnt, where the result appealing or not does not matter. I think of monuments as anything which serves to honor or glorify the subject/dedicatee - displaying ability is a very straightforward way to do that. The difference to builders lies in wheter the construction process or the result is the part they enjoy/ find important. Asking would i be the slightest bothered by someone else taking or receving all the credit for my work? is a decent separator. An acheiver would care, a hardcore builder would not.
Another example is if some asked me to help them build something would i ask why, what it is, who to do it with or what tools i can use?
With regards to acknowledgement the most common kind is self acknowledgement, we value making efforts, but that isnt what drives a builder.
You are correct, "large" was an ill chosen word, prolific might be a better one.
Fundamentally you are right, they act upon the gameworld but placing them with the acheivers is a severe modelling error. If you do youll conclude that since acheivers generally prefer that everyone plays by the same rules so that acheivements are comparable allowing mods might actually be a bad thing or likely not important to your mostly acheiver playerbase. But builders thrive upon modding since sometimes the thing they want todo just isnt in game or too grindy. Think about how much minecraft changed the rules, atleast part of this might be because everyone played by a rulebook which hid this drive from developers.
Ah, now I see. I misinterpreted you before, and now that you've clarifed and I've thought about it, I think you're right. Builders don't fit neatly into any of the four categories. I still think there is some overlapping, but not a perfect match.
I wonder if this is why Undertale was liked by so many.
Undertale appealed to Achievers by having a good story, challenging gameplay, and decent play-length.
Explorers could find a plethora of responses the game made to choices from the player, as well as Easter-eggs.
Socializers got likeable characters and an active fanbase. (Not necessarily talking about the trashy side, guys.)
Killers got... True Genocide
Just spotted the troll-reference at 2:25, well done EC! :)
Stefan Stranne That Meme will never die, and I appreciate that fact.
Mmm. Immersive roleplayer / builder who eschews multiplayer games.
I use mods to make the world more realistic and intricate, even if it unbalances the game out of my favor. I can freeze to death in my Skyrim build. I need to eat, but I removed all the food from abandoned dungeons. I spend most of my time in Terraria building fantastical, functionally defensive castles. I'll decide on a character persona and I'll play to that character, leading me down completely different builds I never would have picked for myself. And usually I refuse to play multiplayer because meta-gaming destroys everything I love about it.
Honestly, I don't see my play style included. Explorer is the closest, but it hardly fits.
Please do a video on *HuniePop*.
Pls, EC
that game doesn't seem like it demonstrates any interesting game making traits.
+olegator5 Actually, they can talk about it's impact on the gaming world. The game, on a whole, is seen as one of those "guilty pleasure" games which are generally looked down upon by the gaming world except for niche players.
However, the game still has a HUGE impact on the gaming world and is generally accepted. Does it have to do with it's intention to be satire? or maybe the devs being all female give it immunity? or maybe even some other factor most people have still yet to consider?
Just what about this game makes it so different from other dating simulator games? Especially since it's main goal is "earning" these girls, just like trophies.
Kinda makes you think.
Yeah it's basically candy crush with anime grils
In terms of an "ending" there really isn't one.
+r0mit As someone who plays eroge I never really understood all the fuss about that game. It's just a western eroge with puzzle elements, nothing groundbreaking. It's not the first one on steam either, heck nowadays you can even get Grisaia on steam.
I guess it's more accepted because of all the noise it made among people who are less knowledgeable about this genre because of the 2nd degree humour that characterize the game. It was enough to trigger the attention of youtubers and streamers, wich made it even more popular. So rather than only reaching o a nich of hard core VN fans (like the ones who put money on localization Kickstarters for games like Grisaia or more recently the Muv-Luv serie), it became popular with a larger public that isn't necessarily into VNs and especially dating-sim and eroge.
+Paradox Acres
With the kind of thing that HuniePop is known for, mixing together Extra Credits and HuniePop is probably going to be like mixing together #GamerGate and third-wave feminism; highly explosive.
I usually just play games to get the coolest looking armor/character and beat/ kill everything > hence role playing games. Achiever
BARTLES TAXONOMY RULES
I think his categories were a little premature, since they came before the explosion of the "Builder" archetype (with games like Minecraft really exploding it). Players in this category seem to be a mix of the Explorer and Achiever, liking to explore complex systems but also create something lasting. In short, they don't neatly fit any of the categories...
A fine theory, though for me the types of players are more types of play.
Lemme explain; I can´t clearly place myself in the "explorer" group, for example. Instead, I definitely enjoy all these types of play, almost equally, with the exception of the "killer" group. They all serve to immerse and motivate me in a game, if that particular title offers them.
I´m not always equally drawn to these types of play, though. That´s when I choose the game satisfying my need. The one I expect to cater to that interest particularly well.
+playdude92 You are not defined to only one group, and you can be mixture of two or more. The graph is made to understand your dominate personality. I would categorize myself as in the killer group, but I also enjoy socializing and exploring. I believe is hard to fully understand this material in a personal level. All said and done, regardless on what category you lie on it doesn't matter. As long as you're enjoy playing your games.
You say you seek immersion as your primary source of fun. That's a clearly defined explorer trait. I'm one too. Don't worry :))
Like almost all things psychological, it's less of an absolute single type and more a mixture. Nobody's just one specific player type, it depends on what you're in the mood for and what's going on in the game.
One thing that the chart is very similar to is a political chart. It also looks almost exactly like that. With progressive and conservative on the vertical axis and left and right winged on the horizontal axis. We should treat it the same way and so people all the way on one side are more the exception.
Personally, I'm more of an achiever/explorer. I like finding stuff in the game (I love any open-world or exploration game), but I can also be a socializer at times.
Soooo... Dark Souls is the perfect game no matter what kind of player you are?
Here's a deeper guide for designing your game mechanics based on player types (taking Bartle’s player type taxonomy into practice):
uxdesign.cc/designing-your-game-mechanics-based-on-player-types-b16a95fb7f60
I don't see why anyone has to or wants to cater to the killers of the game-world. They're what made Halo multiplayer online so miserable at times, and I'm sure other games.
I'm more of the explorer type. However, I usually don't strive to find unexplored territory or things like that. Rather I like to take in as much of the lore and setting as possible. I explore to learn more, find new places and hear their legends. I tend to hold on to useless trinkets that have historical connections in games. Like in Guild Wars 2 I have many items in my bank that are way too weak for my character, but they have names or flavour text which connects to the lore and thus I collect them. It's really wasting a lot of space, but I can't stop. I keep buying more bank space to accomodate my collection.
I'm feel like I might be a bit crazy in the way I do it though. I have two characters. My main is a male human warrior. In my mind he is the one who collects these historical items, and also some items with military connections. My secondary character is a female human ranger. She doesn't collect as much as my main, but she does occationally hold on to trinkets related to animals and plants. Why do I do this? It's I who play both of them, so why the split? I'm not really that into roleplaying. At least not openly or with other people. I guess most of the roleplaying I do goes on in my head as I try to make my characters live in the world. If I love a setting I want to live in it and I can only do that through my characters, but I would feel weird about roleplaying in interaction with other players.
Thanks for reading about my mild insanity. :P
What about those who care about the narrative & characters?
Divixion that could fall under the socializer or explorer
Lore and stories? Explorers, with maybe some minor overlap with socializers in case of NPCs.
Erica Trent you know you could be 2 or more type at once to a degree right?
The killers are the worst people in mobas
The goal isnt to win the game
The goal is to humiliaite your opponent
Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.
Yeah. So pretty much the worst people in mobas.
COMLITBETA doodly doot de doot
Yeah but support players can also be categorized as killers... I think?
Just replace the "Killers" with "Psychopaths", no need to soften their description. ^_^
I wouldn't say thats all true. As I am a socialite at core with MMO's - however if nobody else will rise up, or I find I easily stomp my entire guild and pull 90% of the weight then I transition to killer... But I still give advice and starter equipment to new players.
Funny.. What games do you play?
I'm easily an explorer, favoring games like Minecraft, Terraria, and Roblox for their infinite artistic and discoverbilty.
Killers all the way. Be it in TF2 or Tanki Online. What is best in games? Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear their lamentations in the chat.
cool stuff, pretty sure I'm an achiever, since I hate multiplayer, both competitively and socially, and finding ways to come up with a game breaking strategy to beat a level or boss fight or whatever as efficiently or masterfully as possible is my main thrill. And when that ceases to amuse me, I tend to set myself personal goals. Leaderboards never really mattered to me though since those tend to feel more like a competition than an achievement.
FANTASTIC! I want MORE! I am making an MMO style Minecraft server and your videos have been incredibly helpful. I have thought of many of these things on my own for the server, but it is so helpful to have the fully fleshed out theory with examples. I WANT MORE EXAMPLES of ways games have done each category well! I am trying to think of systems to implement to my minecraft world so that players of each of these 4 types can be satisfied, and I think the solutions we have so far are excellent: Particularly for achievers, and Killers, but we could use some more ideas for Social players and Those who enjoy Exploring.
Are you sure players can be divided and categorized like that? I've enjoyed games, seemingly, as all four of those archetypes. And I go to different games for different reasons. For example, I play Dustforce or Super Meat Boy like an achiever, while I play Yomi like both a Socializer and a Killer alternately.
I really like competitive play but I do it for the gameplay rather then the dominance. Am I a form of achiever/killer? My ultimate goal is the become the best I can with any game.
Explorer here! Always good to understand how categories in gaming preferences work, it's always a very interesting topic. However, I feel like gamers should be considered as being all four aspects of Bartle's Taxonomy, with aspect in majority and three of varying potence.
Would something like a racing or sports game (anything that's primarily a competitive experience) cater to killers? Because my understanding of the "killer" type, based on this video, is that it's primarily about being the best (and showing it by dominating other players), which happens when you win a race or a sporting match, doesn't it?
2:25 rick rolled, well played Extra Credits well played.
While I'm sure how you explained the idea is a good way of explaining it (never heard of it until now), I feel like there has to be more. Not all players fit into one of those categories.
For example, let's take me. I enjoy all of those aspects of a game. I enjoy some more than others, but based on the descriptions given, I wouldn't say that I fit comfortably into any one of those. Now if that chart, instead of being divided into quadrants was more of a venn diagram (not sure how that'd work), then I might say that I agree with it. But as my understanding (what I learned from this episode) sits, I don't agree with this classification.
That's ok. Could you provide more information please? What is your main source of fun in your favorite games?
Anton Adelson
It's hard for me to break down a "main" source of fun. I tend to enjoy games with combat and story, but at the same time I also do enjoy exploring a well crafted world and accomplishing things within that world.
I think that an mmo would best explain what I enjoy, so I'll use Wildstar since it has the path system which I'm betting is designed using this.
So I chose to be an explorer, but not necessarily because I enjoyed exploring the world, but more because I really enjoyed the puzzles and platforming that were a part of the explorer's missions. So I like pvp, I like world events like dungeons or world bosses, I like being in a guild a socializing (I played an mmo for 2-3 years longer that I probably would have because I was in a great guild with great people), and I enjoyed exploring the world and having those "Wow" moments as I found something new.
I guess that I would say that socializing (in a guild) would probably be my favorite, since it had the power to keep me playing longer that I may have, but I can't really say with any sort of confidence that I loved it "more" than any other part. I really like them all basically the same. This is why I don't really feel that I fit into one of those categories.
Sorry if I rambled. Hope that I made sense there.
Samus11111 I get it that you really enjoy having new experiences from a game. Would you rather share these experiences with someone else or it doesn't bother you? If you enjoy sharing an experience more than having it (without sharing it), you're a socializer. Otherwise you're an explorer like me :)) Most people are socializers. They love sharing their experiences with others.
Anton Adelson
I don't know if I would say that I enjoy sharing an experience more than having it. I definitely enjoy sharing, but I'd say that I enjoy having it more.
So basically just whatever you enjoy most lumps you into one of these categories? It doesn't seem that that would be very accurate.
+Samus11111 The point of this isn't to label individuals, but to split larger groups up for statistics based on trends. Few people would identify solely with a single category.
Yeah, I mentioned this in the main topic, but since a lot of other people have been time-stamping references, mine is at 1:57. That's a pinball dot-matrix display, and I never expected to see a pinball photograph come up in Extra Credits. It is awesome. I'll bet most people didn't even recognize it as a pinball machine.
this is very interesting because i thought "I'm really a explorer but i also like socializing and gaining achievements, but i find no joy in messing others up because there is no real challenge." and then i realize that explorer is right next to socializer and achiever, but far away from killer.
You should talk about Minecraft Story Mode next!
3:46 i guess I'm the killer type. I only pvp in WoW and i love tea bagging my kills. in minecraft i love to use the invisibility potion and go around chucking eggs and snowballs at other players till they go mad.
Masochists enjoy being acted on by players
Grinders who "enjoy" being acted on by the world
Antisocial Shut Ins who (secretly) love being interacted with by players
Escapists who enjoy being interacted with by the world.
I once made a character in the FATE system. (Table Top RPG)
He was a Workaholic Accountant, his only friend was a Janitor that worked for the building not the company.
He only joined the part because the Party Face, A Crazy Ex-Military One Man Army, hired him as an accountant after destroying my characters computer.
Long Story Short, My character has a taken down an alien planets illegal dictator, based on made up interplanetary tax codes.
+BubblegumArchives Also he worked 20 hours a day for about a month at a space bank.
Your right, but as you said, Bartele's work to me seems dated.
I know your probably not going to read it, but try to find a copy of Robins Laws of good Game Mastering.
It's short (just 36 pages with pictures) and address table top RPG directly, but it goes into great depth about different character types and player types, how to interact and engage different players and how to give unique consideration to a broad range of players without driving yourself nuts.
There is another short piece I would suggest but I can't find it and it is not a published book to my knowledge Uncle Figlie (phiglie Phigley. . . Can't remember how it's spelled) guide to good playing. which covers things from a player side.
These Multiplayer issues and even general game structure issues have been indirectly resolved for decades around coffee tables and mountains of cheetoes everywhere.
Because it's not a social or multiplayer issue at all, but an individual issue.
+Tristra Gyopsie
Uncle Figgy's role-play guide
I’m definitely an achiever, but oh boy do I love beating up noobs
I would like to argue the idea that the explorer style has gone largely without innovation and actually gone backwards in gaming. If we break this taxonomy down what makes an explorer is their interactivity with the world. To me this means that your actions in the game largely change the game and how it's presented. Now you see parts of games that incorporate this. In World of Warcraft you get factions like the frost giants (Hodir) in Northrend that only show up and unlock periodically by upping your faction reputation with them. When you unlock them you cannot go back, the part of the world where they are is now indelibly a city. You also see hope for this area of play in things like Fallout 4 which is largely an explorer game. However, developers have opted to make explorers have to make their own game. They do this by putting modding in more explorer oriented games like Skyrim.
However, years ago there was a time when explorer oriented games actually let you enjoy the game by changing the world. The best example I can think of was an old title called The Suikoden Series. Quite literally the aim of the game was to recruit many characters in order to populate your large area. They would become merchants, crafters, and sometimes just set pieces. This felt like you were interacting with the world on a large scale. Your actions changed things and made all these characters gather in your town/castle/boat. The closest thing I have found recently to this area of explorer oriented games is Fire Emblem: Awakening. Part of why it was such a big hit, was because your pairing of husband/wives would fundamentally change the future world and what children were built like.
I think the industry needs to get back to innovation on the interactivity of a world. There were some amazing games that seem to have fallen by the way side. Dark Cloud, Suikoden, and Radiatta Story, were some of my favorite games as a child. There seems to be next to nothing like it anymore.
No, your actions changing the world is not interacting with the world. That is acting on the world.
Making your own population is again acting on the world. It's your decisions changing the world instead of the game changing your decisions.
I really don't like acting on the game world that much which is why I prefer Echoes. It throws more stuff your way and you just have to deal with it as it comes along.
I think the terminology here is leading to some confusion because games that have a lot of possibility to act upon the world brand themselves as 'interactive'.