Uh...mr. scientist, just so you know I only killed him because he had a really nice shotgun...and money.
Science Judges Your Personality Using Fallout 3
- Thread starter Fanghawk
- Start date
Now see if this was a different kind of study, it would say that game behavior effects real life behavior.
While I'm not too sure about the validity of their findings so far, I'm interested to see where this goes.
Haha, I don't think the others get it, that or I'm not getting it, but you intended it as the gh from say toughmaking an f or ph sound to sound as fool, while referencing ghouls from fallout... Am I right? I love clever word play in puns.DVS BSTrD said:
OT: While an interesting concept, and a worthwhile thing to pursue testing on, I think it's still too early to call it completely accurate, need more example games, more test subjects, larger test groups.
Or a new and more useful way to use RPGs. Just name all their characters Mary SueGrouchy Imp said:
No seriously, I think most people can't actually role play. They play the character, but really they're expressing their own choices in situations, not actually thinking about their character's motivations. I think you can tell it's happening when people are saying "I" will go do something in a game, instead of "he" or "she".
Also, I think this is pretty much an interactive version of the Bartle gamer test, which I find to be an excellent way to predict behavior. I'm an ESAK and while these people have not officially taken the test, I'd bet my best friend is an ASKE and my nephew a KASE. When I use that knowledge in my interactions with them, it's much easier to work in my own goals.
And the study only picked people who had never played Fallout 3. He consciously eliminated those who had in an effort to confirm his theory. Also it didn't say if he chose people who identified themselves as gamers or not. While this study may help to determine behaviour among non-gamers the question remains if it will be as accurate with gamers and which gamers.Legion said:
A gamer may be more meticulous in his play style than he/she is in real-life. Also if the person has already played the game, they'll skip unnecessary dialogue and cut through the game faster having already learned the story. A gamers' play style may change depending if they've played before or if certain aspects are more appealing. Example: they may normally rush through a game but if the story attracts them they'll take their time and seek out everything in the world.
I think he should choose a game with a single concrete goal and conclusion but an open world like Hitman. No matter what their personality the person still has to kill their target, how they do so would be a better indicator in my opinion. Do they run through the level firing wildly, do they sit and wait for the perfect opportunity, do they seek out disguises and plan ingress and exit strategies, do they avoid large crowds and people even if its their best option for completion?
At least with something like that you won't have people saying "we'll i'm a dick in the game but a saint in real life." There's no option to be good or evil, just different ways and play styles to complete your goal.
What people seem to be ignoring is the fact that in Real Life, one is also role-playing. We adopt personas or social masks, depending on the task at hand and who one is with. The interesting thing about this test is that it allows for testing that's more analogous to real life, while retaining the anonymity element that comes from standard testing. And part of the point is that one assumes that it is assumed you aren't trying to fuck with game/test constraints. It's following what you would naturally do as a person, pretending the scenario is real.
w00tage said:Yeah, the Bartle test is quite a good way of getting a read on peoples' priorities. Certainly it helps when forming parties/guilds/clans etc to make sure you're bringing in people who are going to appreciate the way you play any given game. I know a couple of KASEs and whilst they're both good friends they do get kind of tiresome if we're in the same lobby (and they probably think the same of me - ESAK here too, by the way).Grouchy Imp said:Or a new and more useful way to use RPGs. Just name all their characters Mary SueMr.Tea said:
No seriously, I think most people can't actually role play. They play the character, but really they're expressing their own choices in situations, not actually thinking about their character's motivations. I think you can tell it's happening when people are saying "I" will go do something in a game, instead of "he" or "she".
Also, I think this is pretty much an interactive version of the Bartle gamer test, which I find to be an excellent way to predict behavior. I'm an ESAK and while these people have not officially taken the test, I'd bet my best friend is an ASKE and my nephew a KASE. When I use that knowledge in my interactions with them, it's much easier to work in my own goals.
I think a lot of roleplayers start out simply transferring their own personality onto a blank avatar at first. Certainly it's an easier concept to grasp for people new to RPGs than the creation and control of entirely new psyches, but after a couple of years playing essentially the same character but in various games I tend to find that people will either a) get bored of RP and go and find something else to do or b) get bored of always being themselves and create new personas for their characters. There are always exceptions, of course, but most of the players I've RPed with over the years have gone one of those two ways.
Don't worry, I won't hold it against you.GamerMage said:
Hey, I have a great idea! Why don't companies have such games upload the personality information garnered from a playthrough to a central server, so they can sell that information to advertisers who can use it to more effectively target their advertising?
And by "a great idea" I of course mean, "Please, for the love of God, don't ever, ever let them do this."
And by "a great idea" I of course mean, "Please, for the love of God, don't ever, ever let them do this."
As in all things the more effort you put into something, the more you get out of it. Play as yourself instead of a fictional avatar wielding a handy save button: better results. Take the limits of the test into account: better results. Reflect upon what you know about yourself and compare the test to previous experiences...well you get the picture.
Personality tests are only a tool, not the answer. In the end, only you know you the best and even then you can't be 100% sure of anything until you've been in the situation with your real-life future at stake.
That being said, meta-analysis can be useful or at least interesting. Don't look at whether the data fits your spectrum of results but what patterns the raw data shows. Do you explore a lot? Do you talk to people a lot? Do you solve problems with aggression more often than not? The best thing to do is to answer these questions as you play by yourself with as few expectations as possible and draw your own conclusions.
In short: want a fair assessment? Do it yourself.
Personality tests are only a tool, not the answer. In the end, only you know you the best and even then you can't be 100% sure of anything until you've been in the situation with your real-life future at stake.
That being said, meta-analysis can be useful or at least interesting. Don't look at whether the data fits your spectrum of results but what patterns the raw data shows. Do you explore a lot? Do you talk to people a lot? Do you solve problems with aggression more often than not? The best thing to do is to answer these questions as you play by yourself with as few expectations as possible and draw your own conclusions.
In short: want a fair assessment? Do it yourself.
Yeah, with all the "video games make you violent" stuff in the news in the recent past, it seems Escapists have gotten more defensive about video games than they have about science.Legion said:
What I'm curious about is if they're using your decisions as a means to decide your personality, how do they figure out if the correlation is statistically significant? I mean, if you decide that "people who blow up Megaton are less conscientious," then obviously you're going to get 100% of your test subjects who blow up Megaton being classified as conscientious.
So not only am I sadistic, narcissistic and have a proclivity to murder prostitutes after sleeping with them but I'm also a woman trapped in a man's body?! Yeah, I can roll with that. God bless science (Christ, what a contradictory statement)