Play-Persona: Modeling Player Behaviour in Computer Games

Following the humanistic tradition that sees the player as a function of the game and not an actual,
historical person, Aarseth [1] talks of the “implied player”: a role made for the player by the game,
a set of expectations that the player must fulfil for the game to “exercise its effect”. In later work
Aarseth posits that “the game houses expectations for a player’s behaviour, which is supported by
an interface, and represented in-game by an avatar. Even more than the implied reader, the
implied player has a concrete, material existence, because the game will not be realized unless
some mechanism allows player input” [3]. The implied player is seen as a boundary imposed on the
actions of the player by the game; this limit to the freedom of players is enforced both through the
game’s rules (in games where the avatar lacks the ability to jump, players will never be allowed
that option) and the game’s aesthetic elements (in dark environments players will not be able to
see much further ahead, limiting the navigation possibilities).
A considerable group of game researchers, more oriented towards social sciences, set off
investigating players as historical, situated, flesh and blood entities. One of the earliest attempts
was conducted by Bartle [13] investigating the motivation of a group of people interacting in a
MUD. His method was rather empirical: he studied several hundred bulletin-board postings and his
findings are the now famous four classes of players: socializers, explorers, killers and achievers.
Subsequently Yee [100] tightened data samples and methods, shifting even more the focus on
motivation and individuated five factors: relationship, immersion, grief, achievement and
leadership.
Another attempt to define types of players has been conducted by Bateman and Boon [14]. The 16
types individuated by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator have been reduced to 4 and adapted to the
field of games: Conquerors, Managers, Wanderers and Participants.
A different approach and motivation led Smith to the “Rational Player Model” [89], a tool for
understanding the relationship between game goals and the behaviour of players who try to reach
these goals. The rational player is one of four player types individuated, the other three are: the
susceptible player, the selective player and the active player.
Play-personas are used to imply players both before any play actually happens and to study players’
behaviour after the interaction with the game, spanning from the humanistic view of fictional,
idealized players, to an approach closer to social sciences focused on empirical players.
Play-personas do not claim to capture universal features of players nor they are deduced from
abstract principles, instead they emerge from the aesthetic and ludic structure of each single game.
33