Kilrogg said:
Interesting. I saw your other post where you said it's business and so on, and I agree... Yet, I find this list pretty stupid. Nothing to do with cynicism, just that I'm thinking of some games that hit only a few of these points (and in some cases, barely hit any at all) and have been more successful than pretty much any other game in existence. Where does Super Mario Bros. fit? Nowhere. Where does Mario Kart fit? Only socializing, and maybe griefers/achievers to a lesser extent. Wii Fit? None. Interestingly, Minecraft does seem to hit several of them (most notably Explorers, Nurturers and Builders I'd assume), but maybe it's just that it actually does it well without hampering the experience of other types of players.
If most people in marketing indeed are using this template or a variation thereof, then no wonder why so many games bomb, and a good proportion of the successful ones seem boring and sterile to me. And again, I'm not dissing the fact that they're viewing the thing from a business angle (I would do the same in their place, you don't make games for the sake of it), but that this part of their methodology is laughably wrong. If that's what passes for good, reliable marketing, I fear for the future of games.
I don't want to make it seem like I'm vehemently defending this methodology or anything, I'm just explaining. And to clarify a few things...
For one, this stuff isn't meant to be a marketing tool, it's meant to be a production and design tool, though producers stray into marketing territory quite often in the game industry.
Furthermore, it doesn't mean the game has to have something as a primary "focus" for it to include different types. For instance, you said Super Mario Bros. doesn't hit any of them. That wouldn't be accurate. Looking at Super Mario Bros. in particular through the lens of somebody using this method:
- Collectors: coins, powerups, one-ups are scattered all over the place, becoming a compulsive "need to get" thing for Collectors
- Achievers: high scores
- Killers: plenty of enemies to defeat in various ways
Later on, the Mario games would include Explorers (things like secret areas, large expansive 3D worlds, etc.). I know it doesn't seem like Mario would appeal to a "killers" set but maybe the name is throwing you -- it really just has to do with defeating enemies in some way. Some players that play Mario won't go through without killing practically every enemy they see. This would be the "killers" type, the type that enjoys defeating enemies.
At any rate, it's supposed to be about identifying what compels people to play, and what they're interested in. Also, hitting more points doesn't mean a game will be more successful, which is a huge mistake this guy seems to be subscribing to. he's trying to cast a wide net by saying the game has "something for everyone," but those features have to be compelling on their own in order to really function. It's kind of the jack of all trades, master of none sort of thing. Mario is very specific but it does what it does extremely well.