|
Something I've thought about quite a bit is how your personality is reflected in gaming. I think that the decisions and choices you make in a game are evidence of who you are as a person. Part of it, I think, is who you are and this shows in what you do inside of a game. Another part of it is probably what you wish you could be. In the end, you still get to choose how to represent yourself.
The first time I ever gave this topic any thought was when I played World of Warcraft. I originally started playing WoW around patch 1.2 or 1.3. I actually installed the game on a Monday night before the release of whatever patch it was. If you haven't played WoW, when you go to create your character, you get to choose your faction and class. These are the two most important decisions you have to make. Your faction and class directly affect gameplay. Your race, to a lesser extent does as well, but not in the same sense as your class choice. Past that, you choose your gender, and then other novelties such as hair style, hair color, and so on. While these lesser choices may seem insignificant, I think there's something behind how you arrive at those conclusions. Why did I always create male undead characters with bald heads, blue skin, and the most "clean" looking face possible? Other MMORPGs have similar systems. The Age of Conan character creation system is much more in depth and you could literally spend hours with it if you wanted to. Again, these choices you make, I think, say something about you as a person and your personality.
In MMORPGs, I almost always go immediately for the archer or ranger class. I played a hunter in WoW, I played a ranger in AoC, and I played a shadow warrior in Warhammer Online. I never think about it; I just see the classes and go find the one that's supposed to be agile and attack from a safe distance. If I'm not playing a ranger class, I'm playing an assassin class. My alt in WoW was a rogue, and I also had a feral druid that I played mostly in cat form before I decided to make it a healer for a change of pace. I didn't have an alt in AoC, oddly enough, and in WHO I had a witch elf.
After I initially quit WoW, I actually ended up playing Assassin's Creed (and I eventually bought the sequel), which is odd for me as I usually don't buy many single player games. I absolutely loved it. Playing full time as this badass assassin was pretty damn sweet. When I started playing WoW again (we always go back, admit it) I really started playing a rogue a lot more.
Eventually I quit playing MMORPGs as much and I ended up diving into MOBAs. I, of course, started off playing DotA, and eventually I got into League of Legends. I noticed a similar pattern in DotA. I always went for agility based ranged heroes, like Sniper, Razer, and Medusa. I notice that the advantage to being ranged is amazing; I'm relatively safe, however, I found that I was always willing to give up range if the hero something worthwhile like a good escape mechanism. It was more of the same for me in LoL. I played Ashe, Annie, Tristana, and Teemo a lot, all of whom are ranged champions that have some nice tricks up their sleeves. I especially love Annie as she's this little girl who's secretly the devil. She throws fire at you and her teddy bear of doom is just too funny to get kills with.
The thing that I really got out of DotA, though, was its stats system. Your hero had three stats: strength, agility, and intelligence. (Yes, I'm aware other games do the same thing; DotA was the first time I ever really gave it any thought so that's why I'm talking about this with regards to DotA.) When it comes down to combat, these three things are what define your abilities. Either you're really strong and powerful, or you're quick, or you're clever. Out of the three, I've always been drawn to agility. I like the idea of being fast, being able to dodge attacks rather than block them the way a strong person would.
Given that I've established I like ranged combat, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that I like FPSs. While I'm a rather strong critic of the Call of Duty series, I've still played them. Battlefield 2 was the first shooter I played seriously, and I loved it. BF2 was for shooters what WoW was to me for MMORPGs. I played the game extensively and ended up really loving the assault class. The assault class had a (spoiler) assault rifle with a grenade launcher, a smoke grenade, and had body armor. So, you had a good weapon that was effective at the majority of the ranges you'd be fighting at, and you had a grenade launcher so you had some utility and flexibility. I don't like having weapons and equipment that effectively forces me to do one thing well and everything else poorly. So, having a sniper rifle and a pistol, while it doesn't force me to play any particular way, certainly benefits from being able to sit really far away from the action and pick people off. I'd rather be able to move to where I'm comfortable being, still be combat effective, and so on.
You had little control over your equipment and weapons in BF2, but in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, you had a lot more control. You could create your own class loadouts, choosing your primary and secondary weapons in addition to other equipment such as grenades or claymores, and then you could still choose "Perks" which were basically ridiculous upgrades to your soldier.
While MW really was the first game to do this that I'm aware of, other games would follow suit. Of course, MW2 did the same types of things, as did Black Ops. Both MW1 and 2 allowed you to use different weapon skins. I remember playing forever and ever with the M4 to get the blue tiger skin. The M4 is exactly what I want in an FPS in MW: it is accurate, has a fast firing rate, and does respectable damage. So, it's good in every regard, but it's best where it counts: being able to consistently hit my target.
Most recently Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Vietnam came out and I just bought it within the last week or so. I noticed that even though I didn't know a whole lot about the weapons or equipment, I just instinctively went for certain things with certain classes. Certain guns I've yet to even touch. So, as I referenced before, I like efficiency and flexibility. I mostly play as assault using the M16, which has a hire rate of fire and good accuracy, and the kit by default includes a grenade launcher, giving some flexibility. It lets you blow out walls to kill those on the other side, or you can use the splash damage to take out someone hiding behind a rock or something. In vanilla BC2, I do the same types of things. Hell, I even go for IFVs over tanks because of their increased mobility (not to mention the alt weapon spec's rocket is unbeatable in providing flexibility in terms of damage output), even if they lack the firepower of a tank's main gun.
Now here's the only part I can't figure out: I play protoss in SC2. I played protoss in BW, too. But, protoss goes against my general inclinations so far. They have the strongest units in terms of life and damage output. They are generally regarded to be less flexible than the other races. On the other hand, cannons are about as well rounded as you get. Anti air, anti ground, and detection all in one nice little building. Observers are also another great thing about protoss. They're a detector, but you need a detector to find them. They're cheap, too. Furthermore, their flexibility isn't so much in terms of speed at which a protoss can change techs. Instead, protoss is flexible in being able to warp in units wherever there's a power field, and since I can create one with a unit, that's pretty damn flexible. On top of that, protoss' spells are pretty amazing. Force field is insanely powerful, and storm is another great spell. Since it hits just about everything, it ends up being really useful. So maybe in the end it sort of makes sense, but I still think terran is way more flexible than protoss in general. I think I find the mechanics, spells, and units more appealing, even if they slightly go against what I normally strive for.
I started thinking less about individual games and more about the patterns as a whole and how they reflect who I am or what I strive for. I like to be expeditious (i.e. fast and efficient). I prefer flexibility and being well rounded to be being strong and powerful. I like having options.
I, as a person, am probably best described as being quiet; I'm an introvert. I like being self sufficient and always strive to not have to rely on others. I can see some of that in terms of some of the characters I've played in MMORPGs. Shadow warriors in WHO, according to lore, are big loners. Hunters, rangers, and so forth are generally regarded as being "lone wolves" and being self sufficient. In real life, I want to learn more about survival and how to live outside the conveniences of society. It also shouldn't be a surprise then that I like to go camping. I'm not talking camping with showers and running water hook ups; I'm talking camping with a tent out in the middle of absolutely nowhere.
I also wish I was in better shape. I'm still overweight from eating too many Hot Pockets (is there such a thing?) and drinking too much Mountain Dew (there isn't such a thing) while playing WoW. If you've seen the South Park episode on WoW...well you know where I'm going with this. I wish I was more agile. I wish I was more adept with a firearm. I wish I was a lot of things that I can "do" through a video game. You don't flinch or have poor trigger control in a video game.
Part of the escapism aspect of gaming is that you get to do things you can't normally do but wish you could do anyways. I mean, I'm an overweight nerd, but if I play Assassin's Creed I get to be an assassin with the dexterity of a cat and the vision of an eagle (I never really got that part, to be honest). While aspects of my personality that are real and that I like show through, I get to "be" a bit of what I wish I was like through games.
Everyone has their own inclinations, and I'm sure others will find patterns in their gaming that reflects them. Furthermore, I don't think that's anything new or groundbreaking. Of course your decisions reflect who you are. I'm just interested on it on a deeper level. I wish I was in a doctorate program in psychology; I'd totally study the crap out of this.
So, what I hope to get out of this is well, to put my ideas down into words. I'd also like to hear what you guys have to say. Do you find patterns in your gaming? Do you tend to gravitate towards certain things or avoid other things in games for any reason?
 
|
I notice some of the same tendencies in my own gaming for sure. I believe that I like finesse, preciseness, and being clever as far as my gameplay goes. I also enjoy things for aesthetic gameplay if that makes sense. Not how something looks graphics wise, but how something looks when you do it, like how splitting marines is aesthetic, or perfect zergling surrounds are. In addition, I also really enjoy minimalism in my gameplay. I tend to generally avoid anything that involves simply using brute force or strength.
In WoW, the only class I've ever really played has been rogue. I've never played it as combat either, always assassination and/or subtlety, where you (normally) can't stand toe-to-toe with your opponents, but have to outmaneuver and out-think them. Even in other games, I am always attracted to finesse fighters, or even some mage classes, depending on them.
In shooters I always go for either sniper or stealth classes. I find a certain finesse in head-shotting an enemy across the entire map after waiting silently in place for such an opportunity to present itself. I also play stealth classes, and this would include things like SMG classes in MW for me, things of that sort. I always loved playing the spies in Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, and playing with an MP5, throwing knife, silenced pistol, and flash bangs in MW. I liked classes that gave me limited resources to do things with, forcing me to come up with creative ways to work around them. Even when I play assault classes, I always go for single-shot guns, preferring accuracy and control over force and power.
In Starcraft 2, I play Zerg. Some people might think of them as a brute force race, throwing wave after wave at the enemy, but that's not the style I like. I see protoss as a brute-force race towards the endgame, with their deathballs, and Terran as the generalists. I like Zerg because it seems you don't have as many resources as the other races. You must use your units effectively, or you will die. You must traverse the thin line between droning and making an army, keeping the minimal amount of units to barely survive your opponents attack. Zerg are minimalist in the extreme really.
At least, this is how I see my own gaming, control and mastery, subtleness and finesse, those are the things I enjoy in gameplay.
|
In some ways, I'm similar.
I've never been into FPS games, however, whenever I did play them (such as HALO), I always went for a versatile loadout (well-rounded weapon as a primary, secondary as some kind of support).
However, that versatility leeches into other strategy games I've played. I've dabbed into WC3 a bit, playing Night Elves. The reason for that was because their units and heroes seemed to be the most rounded of the bunch, at least until T3. They also complimented eachother well, and if you played smart, you wouldn't be caught out of position or with a bad unit comp. I played DoW for a bit as well, and I was always the Space Marines. They were well rounded as well, with decent options for any situation. They could beat you at range, or up close. They could specialize with weapons needed to take out whatever was most threatening, yet still pack a punch against the exact opposite threats. They could do it all, you just had to make sure that you didn't try to make them do too much, or they would become ineffective.
I played Tyranids in Warhammer 40k. I had a pretty crazy win rate with them, yet I never used an "abusive" army design - I used something that was able to deal with anything. If you could dominate one of the phases of the game, I'd be able to beat you in 2 other phases lol. When I dabbed into Space Marines as well, I came up with a similar style. I played Dark Elves in Fantasy, and it required me to play with a mobile, balanced army, or I would get the snot kicked out of me. I dabbed into Chaos Warriors, and initially tried to come up with something that was on the "abusive" side, but gravitated back to a versatile list.
I started SCBW as Terran, because I found their units were the most versatile. I gravitated towards Zerg as I got better, because I could see more potential in the race - the ability to increase their economy exponentially, the ability to produce massive amounts of units, or switch techs nearly instantly, etc. The units can also compliment eachother pretty well (I absolutely love Zerglings for that reason, they're such an amazing unit that can be mixed with other units with great effect, or even used on their own with good positioning and use of their mobility and burrowing ability). In SC2, I didn't get the same vibe from Z, so I play T. I gave it a shot, but it didn't really speak to me as it used to. T in SC2 definitely has the most versatile units. And the ability to literally have 200/200 in army, plus an income from MULEs, is an amazing thing. The units also seem to work really well with eachother - and Marines are absolutely brutal now.
Extending past this - my choice of University and the program I came here for was for the same reasons. I was accepted into a "emergency management and environmental sciences" dual degree, which is very specific, however, I decided to stick with Civil engineering, because of how broad and transferrable the the education actually is. Two other universities in the province have "better" equivalent programs than the university I attend, however, there were things outside of the actual education that were the problem, and the ideal choice for me was definitely the one I chose. The program taught in the University of Ottawa is a very generic one, giving a taste of several different specific strains of civil engineering, before giving the option of specializing.
I'm kind of a "jack of all trades, master of none", and as much as I value specialization, I'd rather not be specialized myself. It's not to say that I don't take advantage of any strengths that I have - on the contrary, I actually try to use any applicable strengths I have when the situations present themselves. It's that I value having many strengths, rather than a single really, really strong point. It's helped me be successful at times, when I was at a "disadvantage".
For instance; when I played Highschool Football, I was one of the smallest guys going for a offensive or defensive line position - I had an agility advantage, and I played it smarter than the other guys, and I made sure that I used better technique. It got me a starting position much quicker than it should have, and I was able to keep my starting position after I had broken my arm (I broke my arm in the first game of the season, and I got a cast on it and then started playing again 2 weeks later). Our team wasn't a terrible team, in fact, we went to the Ontario finals that year, with our previous year having a 0-6 record! Essentially, I knew where my strong points were, relative to what was needed, and I exploited them, rather dwelling on the disadvantages i had.
And that is why I like versatility. And it translates into just about everything that I do.
|
Sorry, I've been busy and I haven't had time to respond. T_T
On January 08 2011 08:27 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I notice some of the same tendencies in my own gaming for sure. I believe that I like finesse, preciseness, and being clever as far as my gameplay goes. I also enjoy things for aesthetic gameplay if that makes sense. Not how something looks graphics wise, but how something looks when you do it, like how splitting marines is aesthetic, or perfect zergling surrounds are. In addition, I also really enjoy minimalism in my gameplay. I tend to generally avoid anything that involves simply using brute force or strength.
In WoW, the only class I've ever really played has been rogue. I've never played it as combat either, always assassination and/or subtlety, where you (normally) can't stand toe-to-toe with your opponents, but have to outmaneuver and out-think them. Even in other games, I am always attracted to finesse fighters, or even some mage classes, depending on them.
In shooters I always go for either sniper or stealth classes. I find a certain finesse in head-shotting an enemy across the entire map after waiting silently in place for such an opportunity to present itself. I also play stealth classes, and this would include things like SMG classes in MW for me, things of that sort. I always loved playing the spies in Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, and playing with an MP5, throwing knife, silenced pistol, and flash bangs in MW. I liked classes that gave me limited resources to do things with, forcing me to come up with creative ways to work around them. Even when I play assault classes, I always go for single-shot guns, preferring accuracy and control over force and power.
In Starcraft 2, I play Zerg. Some people might think of them as a brute force race, throwing wave after wave at the enemy, but that's not the style I like. I see protoss as a brute-force race towards the endgame, with their deathballs, and Terran as the generalists. I like Zerg because it seems you don't have as many resources as the other races. You must use your units effectively, or you will die. You must traverse the thin line between droning and making an army, keeping the minimal amount of units to barely survive your opponents attack. Zerg are minimalist in the extreme really.
At least, this is how I see my own gaming, control and mastery, subtleness and finesse, those are the things I enjoy in gameplay.
I find that finesse is really rewarding. It reminds me of when I first started playing WoW and was first really exploring what I liked and didn't like.
Initially my friend had me start off with a rogue. I like the idea of subtlety and finesse. However, I didn't particularly care for it. I found it tedious. (Keep in mind the game was completely different back then.) Eventually I started wishing I could just blow through mobs without having to position myself, or stay stealthed, and so on.
Then I saw a mage just blowing stuff up, and I remember I turned to my friend and I was like, "I want to do that." (We were both in his dorm room playing on his laptop.) I played that mage for a very long time, and this is when I realized that I enjoyed not being a tank, but rather relying on distance for relative safety and relying on proper use of abilities to stay safe, as opposed to simply being strong enough to just take the damage. So, use of ice block, ice barrier, blink, frost nova, and other utility abilities to stay alive was more fun to me than just being like, "Well, I have enough HP so whatever."
I greatly prided myself on being a frost mage while fire was more popular. I PvPed a lot, and at that point in time the vast majority of mages were of the AP/PoM/Pyro variety; I however, was not. I enjoyed the finesse required at the time to maintain enough distance from melee classes to not get hit but still be able to frost nova them in place to wind up the dreaded frostbolt/CoC shatter combo. (You gained a +50% critical strike chance boost against rooted targets from a talent. So, rooting an opponent, and then hitting them with a frostbolt followed by cone of cold, an AoE ability, would usually result in two crits, and they'd almost instantly take about 4000 damage, which for most classes was lethal.) I found the finesse required to be insanely rewarding.
I'd play my friend's warrior, and I'd charge in, whack some stuff, get some points, get healed and do it all over again. That got boring in five minutes. So, I totally agree with you there. Some finesse is really awesome.On January 08 2011 08:36 Impervious wrote:
In some ways, I'm similar.
I've never been into FPS games, however, whenever I did play them (such as HALO), I always went for a versatile loadout (well-rounded weapon as a primary, secondary as some kind of support).
However, that versatility leeches into other strategy games I've played. I've dabbed into WC3 a bit, playing Night Elves. The reason for that was because their units and heroes seemed to be the most rounded of the bunch, at least until T3. They also complimented eachother well, and if you played smart, you wouldn't be caught out of position or with a bad unit comp. I played DoW for a bit as well, and I was always the Space Marines. They were well rounded as well, with decent options for any situation. They could beat you at range, or up close. They could specialize with weapons needed to take out whatever was most threatening, yet still pack a punch against the exact opposite threats. They could do it all, you just had to make sure that you didn't try to make them do too much, or they would become ineffective.
I played Tyranids in Warhammer 40k. I had a pretty crazy win rate with them, yet I never used an "abusive" army design - I used something that was able to deal with anything. If you could dominate one of the phases of the game, I'd be able to beat you in 2 other phases lol. When I dabbed into Space Marines as well, I came up with a similar style. I played Dark Elves in Fantasy, and it required me to play with a mobile, balanced army, or I would get the snot kicked out of me. I dabbed into Chaos Warriors, and initially tried to come up with something that was on the "abusive" side, but gravitated back to a versatile list.
I started SCBW as Terran, because I found their units were the most versatile. I gravitated towards Zerg as I got better, because I could see more potential in the race - the ability to increase their economy exponentially, the ability to produce massive amounts of units, or switch techs nearly instantly, etc. The units can also compliment eachother pretty well (I absolutely love Zerglings for that reason, they're such an amazing unit that can be mixed with other units with great effect, or even used on their own with good positioning and use of their mobility and burrowing ability). In SC2, I didn't get the same vibe from Z, so I play T. I gave it a shot, but it didn't really speak to me as it used to. T in SC2 definitely has the most versatile units. And the ability to literally have 200/200 in army, plus an income from MULEs, is an amazing thing. The units also seem to work really well with eachother - and Marines are absolutely brutal now.
Extending past this - my choice of University and the program I came here for was for the same reasons. I was accepted into a "emergency management and environmental sciences" dual degree, which is very specific, however, I decided to stick with Civil engineering, because of how broad and transferrable the the education actually is. Two other universities in the province have "better" equivalent programs than the university I attend, however, there were things outside of the actual education that were the problem, and the ideal choice for me was definitely the one I chose. The program taught in the University of Ottawa is a very generic one, giving a taste of several different specific strains of civil engineering, before giving the option of specializing.
I'm kind of a "jack of all trades, master of none", and as much as I value specialization, I'd rather not be specialized myself. It's not to say that I don't take advantage of any strengths that I have - on the contrary, I actually try to use any applicable strengths I have when the situations present themselves. It's that I value having many strengths, rather than a single really, really strong point. It's helped me be successful at times, when I was at a "disadvantage".
For instance; when I played Highschool Football, I was one of the smallest guys going for a offensive or defensive line position - I had an agility advantage, and I played it smarter than the other guys, and I made sure that I used better technique. It got me a starting position much quicker than it should have, and I was able to keep my starting position after I had broken my arm (I broke my arm in the first game of the season, and I got a cast on it and then started playing again 2 weeks later). Our team wasn't a terrible team, in fact, we went to the Ontario finals that year, with our previous year having a 0-6 record! Essentially, I knew where my strong points were, relative to what was needed, and I exploited them, rather dwelling on the disadvantages i had.
And that is why I like versatility. And it translates into just about everything that I do.
I like versatility as well. I even got a liberal arts degree. (In before "useless.")
I think it's good to have options open. I can't play a game that doesn't let you remain fairly well rounded while still attempting to excel in some area.
For example, hunters in WoW have a lot of utility, but are still really good RPDS. The use of a pet is also really nice.
I also tend to prefer really safe builds in SC2 (and I did in BW, as well).
|
This is interesting topic actually... though, I am not sure if my gaming reflects who I am.
In Ultima Online, I was basically a front-line warrior, in terms of skills. The same pattern would follow up in Dark Age of Camelot and other MMO's I played. I enjoyed being that tank, protecting my friends from getting hit and I could go all wild as a warrior-based character. No hidding behind the corner, just boom, boom, boom, you hit, you kill. In roleplaying games and in world of Star Wars, I always stylized my character into Guardian type (so basically again, a warrior protecting others)
SC2 being basically my first RTS, playing Protoss. I picked Protoss because of the fact I enjoyed their lore and the gameplay suited me the best (aka was the most enjoyable). They are warriors advanced both on mental/psionic and technological aspects.
I'm not sure what that'd make me by your theory, LazyMacro. 
Because, in my real life, I am quite introverted and shy person (so pretty much an opposite of my gaming tendencies), being mostly loner, having difficulty to find people who'd share some of my hobbies or mere understanding of who I am. I have quite bad self-confidence - this maybe may be an indicator why I am so passive in my SC2 games, but maybe it's just because I play too much in the dark and don't scout too well. 
Thinking it through, I'd say that I pick my game roles based on who I'd want to be, rather than who I am, personality wise.
Interesting topic though, as I said.
|
There's definitely a pattern somewhere.
I gave this some thought before so maybe typing this out will make more sense. In a lot of shooters and fighting games I seem to pick speed. Sub machine guns so I could run faster and fast rushers in games to end it quicker.
I also don't like straight forward things. In Starcraft that's why I loved zerg. There's no build saying, keep making drones until 34 then start Lair vs a build order for sair/dt. I like the improv.
I'm always impatient in real life and can see why I want things to be done quickly. And I definitely am not a by the book guy. I can't stand following instructions and like doing things my own way. Mostly ending up in fail, but the success is better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
