Talk:Bartle taxonomy of player types

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BarKoL test[edit]

There's a variation of the Bartle test that I think was written by a player of Kingdom of Loathing for fellow players. I thought it was worth mentioning, so I'm doing so here; but wasn't sure it was appropriate for inclusion in the external links, so I didn't add it to the article. I suppose it could somehow be worked into the Kingdom of Loathing article, so that that article links back to this one. B7T 22:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clubbing behaviors[edit]

They're called 'Killers', but theft and sabotage could also be classified as Club behaviors. There are players who thrive on finishing off another player's opponent for the rewards, beating other players to high value targets that spawn with lower frequency, foiling attempts at completing quests, luring packs of hostiles into unsuspecting populations of players, or simply pick-pocketing other players. While they may not be motivated to PvP, their conduct tends to provoke (and deserve) violent responses from their fellow players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.77.13 (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One-sided view of Killers[edit]

The view of the Killer was very one-sided, probably written by someone who didn't care for PvP but was at the receiving end of "gankers" nonetheless. I for one am a "Killer" myself, but it isn't my sole purpose to cause misery among other players. Our entire (PvP) guild has rules on how we treat others. When I see a hostile player being attacked by mobs I rescue him, rather than kill him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.131.63 (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, the killer category is people who enjoy the challenge of pitting themselves against others, the achievers is the ones that enjoy the feeling of managing to do something that no one else have done or something that's very hard to do, the explorer is someone who enjoys knowing more then anyone else about something or who enjoys learning new things and the socializer... Well, you know what that is all about... Luredreier (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added the 8-Types version by Bartle[edit]

= The Eight Categories of Players =

Richard Bartle also created an 8-part version of his player types model for virtual world players.

  • Friend
  • Griefer
  • Hacker
  • Networker
  • Opportunist
  • Planner
  • Politician
  • Scientist

According to Bartle: "The 4-part version is easy to draw because it's 2D, but the 8-part one is 3D; it's therefore much harder to draw in such a way as it doesn't collapse in a mass of lines." [1] There are no known online version of Bartle's 8-Types Gamer Test.
— User:Laibcoms 01:40, 26 November 2008

--- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 01:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 8 Types, http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2008/QBlog251108B.html

Keirsey and Myers-Briggs correlations[edit]

There's a chart on Erwin Andreasen's site (where the original online version of the Bartle Test was hosted) correlating the four facets of personality in the Bartle Test with the four facets in the Keirsey Temperament Sorter and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, two well-known personality tests. Thought it might be worth mentioning; maybe someone could work it into the article somehow. B7T (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Bartle's test[edit]

Bartle didn't create the test nor did his paper describe the test. The article was confused on one or both of these points, so best keep an eye out for this error. Ieriv (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information or...?[edit]

I saw this image today on the Guild Wars 2 Guru forums today here:

http://www.guildwars2guru.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=766&d=1274809609

I'm pointing this out in reference to this line: The result of the Bartle Test is the "Bartle Quotient", which is calculated based on the answers to a series of 30 random questions in the test, and totals 200% across all categories, with no single category exceeding 100%.

It would seem that many players taking the test on that forum have gotten scores that don't total to 200%, but this specific one also broke the clause about individual scores reaching over 100%. What exactly does this mean? 66.219.148.4 (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Creation[edit]

How can the test be created in 1999-2000 if it is written below that the data was collected since August, 28th in 1996? see also: http://www.gamerdna.com/quizzes/bartle-test-of-gamer-psychology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.103.77 (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Move and Delete[edit]

I added a Prod tag and it was removed. I have done some work on this article - Character theory (Media). I have known Bartle's work for donkey's years, and while it is highly relevant even today with MMORGs, I don't think it warrants a whole article. If you think that even as learned people as learned as Erving Goffman and Vladimir Propp don't have a whole page dedicate to their character theory, only one on that article I've edited, you can see how it is excessive. I will be placing Bartle's model onto that page as it should be there in any case. Perhaps others could say whether they think AfD should be run afterwards. --VCHunter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hum, if I haven't understood the wiki rules wrong then the amount of references to a subject online should matter when deciding weather or not it should have it's own article. And let's just say that the bartle test got a lot of references out there... Luredreier (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Influencers?[edit]

just heard a talk based on bartles but it mentioned that "Influncers" are 1.5% of the types yet they arent mentioned in the main four types here...

has the types been expanded? Qazwiz (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bartle Test. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bartle taxonomy[edit]

Shouldn't the article be named after the original taxonomy, rather than the test devised on it? Most of the article's content is about describing the elements in the taxonomy, not the particular questions in the personality test. It seems like were putting the cart in front of the horses. If nobody object, I will move it to Bartle taxonomy. Diego (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. Or conceivably Bartle taxonomy of game players, but that might not be necessary. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bartle taxonomy of player types seems to be a common term (having been used here and here), and it's fairly descriptive. I'll move it there and create a redirect for the simple term. Diego (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bartle taxonomy of player types. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related article[edit]

Nautilus carries an article describing the background of Bartle's taxonomy[1] Diego (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021-tags[edit]

Are some of the sources I added unreliable? In that case, I would love to know, so that I avoid making the same mistake in the future. Spannerjam (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dead external links in Criticism[edit]

Some of the external links are down. I don't know the best replacements, but these are what I came across:

Jon Radoff's article on substack: https://meditations.metavert.io/p/game-player-motivations

Blog discussing Radoff's article from 2011: https://www.gamification.co/2011/09/16/game-play-motivation/.

I guess there's also an option of using the Wayback Machine. Any ideas of which to pursue? Shurane (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bartle_taxonomy_of_player_types&oldid=1205774299"