[L31mr0d]

Was reading this the other day and it was like my whole life of experiences with gaming with others just clicked.

http://www.pixelpoppers.com/2009/11/...d-to-fake.html

Basically the crux is:

Say you take a person with a performance orientation ("Paul") and a person with a mastery orientation ("Matt"). Give them each an easy puzzle, and they will both do well. Paul will complete it quickly and smile proudly at how well he performed. Matt will complete it quickly and be satisfied that he has mastered the skill involved.

Now give them each a difficult puzzle. Paul will jump in gamely, but it will soon become clear he cannot overcome it as impressively as he did the last one. The opportunity to show off has disappeared, and Paul will lose interest and give up. Matt, on the other hand, when stymied, will push harder. His early failure means there's still something to be learned here, and he will persevere until he does so and solves the puzzle.

I know loads of people who fall into the "performance" category of gaming. If they aren't immediately good at it, the struggle to get good is of no importance to them so they quit.

I'd put myself in the mastery category (not that I ever really succeed though) if a game is a challenge it's instantly more appealing to me than a game where the difficulty curve is not steep. I'd pick a highscore based game over a story based RPG any day.

I heard a good quote there the other day regarding Street Fighter IV, it went something like "In RPGs the player levels their character, in SFIV the player levels themselves".

Anyway, opinions.

[Xyo]

I'm definitely a "Paul" type of gamer

[Pushtrak]

I don't think I'm either or. If a game has a great story, then it is enough for me to play through it and that be its own reward. Of course, take shooters or stealth games. I love to play them on a hard difficulty and keep trying until I complete the given objective.

I guess, then it depends on my mood, the type of game and probably multiple other factors that don't immediately come to mind. I am highly competitive, if playing against other opponents and they beat me, I'll want to keep playing so as to improve.

[sarumite]

I prefer games with a decent plot ....I usually quit a game because I am bored with the story line rather than I hit a hard spot. I will readily quit a game that hits a hard spot if the plot is crap whereas I will probably persevere beyond reason if I find myself wanting to progress the story line. Though if I had to call it I am probably a performance person....I would prefer to be a Jack of all trades than a master of one.

[Atlas_IRL]

Im a Paul i rarely finish games if they are hard, i hate time based games, puzzle games and score based games with the exception of peggles.

[Rev. Kitchen]

You forgot Frank who thinks if "its not COD its rubbish" While at the same time moaning about games that come out that try to copy COD.

[Kiith]

I would consider myself a Matt type of gamer, but if a game is needlessly hard or has pointless puzzles that are just there to annoy/frustrate, then i'll turn into a 'Paul' type. Basically, i'll spend hours trying to beat something, but if its not fun in the first place, then i dont see any reason to stick with it.

[Xyo]

Originally Posted by Kiith

I would consider myself a Matt type of gamer, but if a game is needlessly hard or has pointless puzzles that are just there to annoy/frustrate, then i'll turn into a 'Paul' type. Basically, i'll spend hours trying to beat something, but if its not fun in the first place, then i dont see any reason to stick with it.

You're a "Pat" gamer then

[rizzla]

That analogy doesn't work with all games though.

A multi-player only game, with no actual ending which can't be finished/solved, so both Matt and Paul would give up eventually, it would just be a case of when.

However, playing difficult single player games and beating them is a great reward. With achievements and trophies now an ever present reminder that you completed a tough game is even nicer.

I'd be a Matt gamer.

[SeantheMan]

I'm more of a Pat tbh (Paul+Matt)

[jonnybadd]

Although my gaming hours have dropped considerably over the past few years and with that the completion percentage has decreased but I would still consider myself a "Matt".

I very rarely fully complete a game nowadays, but the challenging ones tend to be the ones I play for the longest. Take Devil May Cry 4, Having only flirted briefly in the past with DMC games, I found myself completly addicted to the game, more so as the difficulty increased.

I think the problem is nowadays is that games just don't offer the same challenge as they did (with a few notable exceptions) and because of this the Matts will die out

[Overheal]

Matthew is my middle name.

Konami games are brilliant for this. Once you've learned those skills though you can blaze a serious performance trail.

I swear im this close from finding a PS2 on craigslist... I need Ace Combat again.

[EGriff]

I like when the game is designed so i can play like Paul but get Matts sense of achievement.

[Monotype]

Mix of both, I suppose. I like to stretch games as far as possible, but some games just require too much dedication.

[uberpixie]

Depends entirely on the game.

Quake 3: grinded till I could play on nightmare and beat the vast majority of levels on nightmare. Really helped me when I played once or twice at a LAN against players much much better than me.

Soul Caliber 1: will grind away until I could beat the game easily on ultra and beat most people I played (not that I am amazingly good at the game or anything by any stretch of the imagination)

Geometry Wars 2: will play it for hours trying to beat my "high" (very low score in comparison to the world!) score on evolution, is prob the only reason I will replace my dead xbox 360 so I can play it again. Love it.

Resi 4: one of the few games I beat on all skill settings through multiple play throughs bar easy...

Supreme Commander: play it fairly competitively with a small group of friends of friends, will play Co Op a lot with my housemate to pick up strategies and tactics.

If I find a game that gets really lame I will dial it down to easy for parts:

Dragon Age: played some sections on easy because the fights were getting too pissy and I had already hit my head against a brick wall with 10 attempts on some sections.

Most shooters: I play on medium and never go back after beating them.

Stealth games: I have no problem fudging a level or two and go for cheap kills, loved Thief 1/2 but had no problem killing guards and playing sloppy on some of the hard parts of the game, never would play a stealth game on ultra hard or anything above normal.