Today I have a compound post for you all. This is mostly because I have been lazy lately and have avoided going to work on the main part of the synthesis. I procrastinated on it so much that I instead did a synthesis of one model I was going to leave out: BrainHex. Previously, I had not found much written about BrainHex. By happenstance, I managed to drum up a source that contains descriptions for each of the seven types described by the BrainHex model. I decided to include it because the source was there and it would give me a nice fourth model to describe. Further, it gave me a reason to put off the overarching synthesis for another day. Well, that was two weeks ago, and so I figure it would be a good idea to let you know what I found, and to do this actual synthesis work. In this post, I am going to describe my approach towards the synthesis and draw some preliminary conclusions. First, though, BrainHex.
I recently replied to someone who asked, “Is this Skyrim game fun?” If you don’t know, I have been doing research into play styles (or how we play games). My reply to this person was that the idea of “fun” was too complex and that different games appeal to different people. Then I ran my initial thoughts of Skyrim through the DGD1 model from Bateman and Boon (21st Century Game Design), which makes a (newer than Bartle 1996) typology of players based on Myers-Briggs personality types (as well as the Keirsey Temperament Sorter). This was the results of my initial thinking:
This semester, I have a book-a-week class on games in culture. I’ve tentatively decided to try giving a go at posting a blog on each after both reading and discussing the book in class. This is a bit ambitious, considering all I have to do, so I might get backlogged. Please bear with me 🙂
The first book we read for class is Roger Caillois’s Man, Play and Games, a rather foundational book for games studies. Caillois discusses the social nature of play and tries his best to categorize play into four distinct categories (with two distinct styles). I, personally, latch on to theoretical frame works (and subvert them, usually), and this is mostly what I got out of the book. To a sociologist, the chapters on sociocultural play practices might be infinitely more interesting than a theoretical framework. Here is my take-away.