Slashdot Mirror

His famous paper "Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players who suit muds"
            http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm [mud.co.uk]
incorrectly assumes that the taxonomy MUST include kilers.

Those players are still there. Just because (some) modern games have been designed with the intent of excluding them doesn't make them stop existing, and knowing that they exist is important for future game designers.

I think you find most players these days are more interested in cooperation then competition

I'm a long way from convinced. If this were true, why do people complain every time an MMO's cash shop offers an item that gives the players who buy it an "advantage" (scare quotes because it's not entirely clear that items that make a game easier are actually advantageous to the players who purchase them, as doing so actually reduces the amount of fun they get from the game)?

Does Richard understand modern game design?

Yes. And if you want to start understanding it yourself, read that article. Then read it again. This is at least part of the key to why WoW is still the most popular subscription-based game in the world, all these years later.

The veritable Mr Bartle discussed this a short while ago: http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2009/QBlog170509A.html

-Jar

I have heard it suggested a few times that this is true of all game designers, that when a real designer plays a game, all he sees are the design decisions; the game itself can't be seen behind the mechanics, and that a good game for a designer is a well-designed game, which is not necessarily related to having fun with the gameplay. Richard Bartle once wrote an interesting blog entry about a zone's design in World of Warcraft; he definitely doesn't see and play the game like most people.

I am glad people like you exist, because that's why I have games. I think you're really missing out sometimes, though.