Do you approach games with a performance or mastery mentality?

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/awesome-by-proxy-addicted-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

Kiith wrote: »

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) :rolleyes:

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.

L31mr0d

I think the point of the article is that a Matt can be a Paul, but a Paul cannot be a Matt.

I play games with little to no difficulty, but I'm not put off by the difficulty, in fact the more difficult it gets the less likely I am to quit. I will stay up till sunrise if I reach a point in a game that has me stumped and keep hammering away at it.

My first experience of this was when the original Xbox was released. A friend of mine bought it and we went over and had a whole day session playing through the 10 or so games he bought. But we reached a point in Splinter Cell where nobody could figure out what to do next, they all decided to call it quits and get some sleep. I couldn't let it rest, I stayed up and eventually passed it.

I also think all casual gamers fall into this Paul bracket. Take Peggle, people like to imagine they are getting better at the game, but it's the gaming equivalent of putting a cup behind you and throwing a ball of paper over your shoulder and hoping it lands in it. If you do it for long enough eventually it will land in the cup. It gives people that instant sense of achievement while not being difficult at all.

Super Sidious

I was a Paul when I was younger now Im a Matt...

I remember getting Resident evil 1 for the PS1 and returning it after a day or two because I thought it was too hard and didnt like it...

Couple of months later a mate had the game and told me all the cool things about it, and I got it again.

The thing was at the time I didnt have a memory card, and as you know playing a game with no saves like resident evil is litterally a nightmare, I got to the Tyrant at the end and died... had to start the game again! This time I beat it... Ever since I've been a Matt.

I wont stop playing my friends in Pro evo if they beat me, I wont give up trying to get a star in Super Mario Galaxy and stuff like that, in an FPS if I get a negative score in one round, Il try harder in the next, il change stratergies, change my weapons etc.

The only thing is, sometimes il delay completing a game, and I know alot of people who wont complete a game, because I just dont want it to end...

I think alot of it comes down to being competetive, some people dont mind losing, I feckin hate it! It certainly made me a better rugby player and the same for games!

I think Il always play games, after im married with kids, il play games just to escape reality, to escape the drone of work etc.

Parsley

Overheal wrote: »

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

Good god that game took up so much of my life...

K.O.Kiki

I definitely play games to master them - but that means I only play a tiny portion of my games library. However, whether it's levelling up my entire party to 99, mastering combos or just speed-running a stage for the umpteenth time, it also is an indicator of a game's underlying quality that I will persist in it to such a degree. Of course, a part of this stubbornness was bred back when I only had a few games, and as such had to make the best of them, too.

Something I wonder about with today's piracy-driven generation is whether they'll even be able to breed the same hardcore attitudes as ours, since they are very throw-away in their habits.

Kiith

Parsley wrote: »

Good god that game took up so much of my life...

As it should have done. Ace Comat 4 and 5 were absolutly fantastic. Been thinking of picking them up again for the PS2, along with Belkan War which i missed 1st time around.

SeantheMan

Parsley wrote: »

Good god that game took up so much of my life...

Loved that game

I think the Final rank after getting every single medal was
"Commander in Chief" :P

Spent ages shooting down every single special plane, Fox Force Four etc

Maximilian

Bloody Pauls are what's wrong with L4d.

WolfForager

Probably leaning towards Matt myself, however i will give all games a fair shot. The only game i can honestly say i put on my shelf to gather dust after an hour of playing is halo3.

BeansBeans

L31mr0d wrote: »

I think the point of the article is that a Matt can be a Paul, but a Paul cannot be a Matt.

I play games with little to no difficulty, but I'm not put off by the difficulty, in fact the more difficult it gets the less likely I am to quit. I will stay up till sunrise if I reach a point in a game that has me stumped and keep hammering away at it.

My first experience of this was when the original Xbox was released. A friend of mine bought it and we went over and had a whole day session playing through the 10 or so games he bought. But we reached a point in Splinter Cell where nobody could figure out what to do next, they all decided to call it quits and get some sleep. I couldn't let it rest, I stayed up and eventually passed it.

I also think all casual gamers fall into this Paul bracket. Take Peggle, people like to imagine they are getting better at the game, but it's the gaming equivalent of putting a cup behind you and throwing a ball of paper over your shoulder and hoping it lands in it. If you do it for long enough eventually it will land in the cup. It gives people that instant sense of achievement while not being difficult at all.

If thats the point of the article i would say theyre all wrong. I generally would be a paul these days, there are very few captivating games around. But when i do find one, i become a matt.
But for me i suppose i only get matt about story driven games otherwise i lose interest quickly, not due to difficulty level but because gaming is escapism for me and there is nowhere near the level of immersion without a good story.
Having said that i think that matt and paul are actually reversed in that article

Earthhorse

Hmmm, it's an interesting take on things but I'm not sure how much the theory is applicable to games and gamers, because we play games for fun, not to achieve something (like getting a degree, finishing a novel, completing a work project).

So I agree with uberpixie, it depends on the game. If a game is fun and enjoyable and challenging I will probably want to master it. In the days before the internet (when I was gaming ) this made for some pretty tough challenges. I think it took me a whole summer to finish The Secret of Monkey Island and I was stumped on one puzzle for weeks. But it was only worth persevering with because it was so good.

More recently, I was playing Quake 4, got to a difficult part and just couldn't have been bothered trying to overcome it. So sometimes it's about the game rather than the gamer.

Grimebox

Where does the metroid series fit into this scheme?

Overheal

Kiith wrote: »

As it should have done. Ace Comat 4 and 5 were absolutly fantastic. Been thinking of picking them up again for the PS2, along with Belkan War which i missed 1st time around.

Same. and I heard BW was pretty good too. 5 though was just above and beyond anything before it.

lazlo

Depends on the genre. Shooters, platformers and some sports games are 'performance' for me. Adventure, puzzle, rpg and strategy games bring out the Matt in me.

silvine

The Guitar Hero games seem pretty much built for Matt - practice, practice, practice.

Shooters like COD are more Paul orientated - bang, bang your dead.

ClayDavis

For certain games I'm a bit of a matt, Trials HD being a prime example. Don't generally have the time or patience any more though. The sense of satisfaction when you do 'perfect' something matt style is immense. I can't see myself doing it that much any more.

MooseJam

Too complicated for me, I just approach in the hope of some fun.