Chris Bateman, author of 21st Century Game Design, sees four play styles gamers fit into:
- Type 1 Conqueror play style is associated with challenge and the emotional payoff of Fiero — triumph over adversity. This correlates with what Nicole Lazarro has called “Hard fun”. We associate Type 1 play with players who aim to utterly defeat games they play — they finish games they start.
- Type 2 Manager play style is associated with mastery and systems. Victory for people preferring this play style seems to be the sign that they have acquired the necessary skills, not a goal in and of itself. They may not finish many games that they start playing.
- Type 3 Wanderer play style is associated with experience and identity. This correlates somewhat with what Nicole Lazarro has called “Easy fun”. Challenge is not especially desired, but may be tolerated — what they enjoy is unique and interesting experiences. Stories and mimicry are key draws.
- Type 4 Participant play style is associated with emotions and involvement. It connects with what Nicole Lazarro calls “The People Factor”. Participants seem happiest when they are playing with people, but they also enjoy play which is rooted in emotion. Any game which allows the player an emotional stake is a potential Type 4 game.
The play-style test easily pegged me as a manager.
The distinctions between hardcore and casual gamers were not quite what Bateman expected:
Unexpectedly, we found these patterns spread across the Hardcore and the Casual market segments — that is, those players who buy and play many games versus those who buy and play few games. This, we had not anticipated. The Hardcore clusters were universally more Introverted and Intuitive (in Myers-Briggs terms), while the Casual clusters were generally more biased towards Sensing and (to some relative extent) Extroversion.