Myers Briggs Personality Types:
First I will discuss the 'Myers Briggs Personality Types'. As talked about by (Myersbriggs, 2016), these are 16 different personality types in order to list and categorise different types of people. The system for this was designed by Isabel Briggs Myers, and her mother Katharine Cook Briggs. They created these personality types (with a table of them all below), along with a questionnaire for people to fill out and discover their own type, in order to make the psychology behind different people more understandable to a wider general audience. Since every person technically has their own personality type, it's a way for everyone to maybe learn about themselves.
 |
| A chart depicting all 16 personality types, with four separate 'categories' which each have 4 personality types inside them. (Nwhm, 2016) |
I filled out a personality quiz myself that was posted by (Psych Central Staff, 2016), which uses those 16 values as possible results depending on the answers you input into the quiz. I received 'ISTJ - The Duty Fulfiller', which (as shown below) I feel is slightly accurate to me as a person, but is in no way 100% true, so it's something to be aware of when reading your personality type. I feel from these results that I'm not a very serious or quiet person usually, however I do believe that I'm very interested in security and peaceful living, wanting to stay safe. So really from my answers in this small survey it has been able to calculate a few things about me, but isn't 100% accurate. I feel however that every personality type has quite an elaborate answer after filling out the survey, and to sum up all 7 billion people on earth with only 16 different traits and 4 bars in a chart is just not specific enough for the range of people and personalities in the world, in my opinion. So the reliability of these answers isn't completely solid, but as a general overview it's better than nothing.
The personality types can also be applied to the creation of games, as different types of people will experience and react to games in a different manner. Someone who thinks with a much more logical approach like an architect or inventor will probably be able to pick apart a game's mechanics, and critically analyse them whilst playing, and are much more likely to nit-pick smaller problems. Whereas a performer may have much lower standard of what makes a great game, and may just play them to pass the time without giving much thought into the content they're in-taking. It's a lot for a designer to think about, and their target audience for a game's release could be directly related to a certain personality type, so it's an important fact to consider (so for example, if you were releasing a hardcore text-heavy MMO game, it's a given your demographic will be highly critical and analytical people, so it's important you deliver a deep game experience to cater to their needs). All in all it's a good idea for any games developer to have an understanding of these personality types, as it can give you a valuable insight into human nature and also the way different people react to different games. This is also supported by Forbes journalist Todd Essig, who states that it's only really good to use to test your friends for fun, and it also works well in schools against developing children who are still producing their own personality. Todd has been quoted to say: "The test is pretty much nonsense, sciencey snake oil. As is well-established by research, it has no more reliability and validity than a good Tarot card reading." (Essig, 2014)
Now I will talk about Bartle types, and how it compares to the original Myers Briggs theory. It's one of the oldest psychological theories that were related to video games, and it was used to catalogue different types of people when playing a multiplayer game. Essentially, as talked about by (Kyatric, 2013), Bartle types can be applied more directly to games design. One of the things he created was the 'Multi-User Dungeon' game genre, which game before the popular online MMOs like Guild Wars, it's similar in design however the game (called MUD) is very text heavy. The man behind it, Bartle, started to notice a distinct pattern between players, where they could be fitted into four main categories: achievers, killers, socialisers and explorers. These four groups of people acted in the way you'd expect in the game, and the amount of personality types in Bartle's theory is a fourth less than the 16 in the Briggs theory. However the Bartle types define game players much better than the 16, more open and universal set of personality types of Briggs, and I feel it helps define players even in modern games today like Guild Wars 2. Where most people in that game usually have one favourite activity to do which still follows the trend (be it fighting other players, meeting up with friends or collecting goodies). I do feel that the Briggs theory is much more applicable to general psychology in various jobs and industries though, it's just the four Bartle roles I feel summarise the basics of different game players into recognisable categories.
Here is a Youtube video embedded below by ((Extra Credits, 2015), also available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxpW2ltDNow), which discusses ways which you can find out your own Bartle type. But it's also something you may already know yourself, since some people are aware of certain playstyles and classes they're naturally drawn to in games (I personally prefer playing a more exploration-based game, usually as a support class to help the whole team). Developers can especially take advantage of learning these 4 personality types, similarly to the Briggs theory as I talked about, and then developers can design games more dedicated to their target market. For example, the developers may want to create a more open and social game that focuses on exploring large landscapes, as previous games in a series how proven that a large portion of their fans enjoy that gameplay style the most. So adding too much combat and violence into the new game may alienate their existing established fanbase as they could feel, as the franchise's oldest fans, that they're being pushed away.
The Hypodermic Needle Theory:
Now I will evaluate the theory of the hypodermic needle model, here is a brief quote outlining its origins: "Developed in the 1920s and 30s after researchers observed the effect of propaganda during World War I. The Hypodermic Needle Theory is a linear communication theory which suggests that media messages are injected directly into the brains of a passive audience. It suggests that we’re all the same and we all respond to media messages in the same way." (Lamb, 2013).
This is essentially the theory some people believe, which states that whatever source of media you show an audience, they will believe all of it, even some things most people will deem unrealistic. As researched from (Wilson, 2011), the theory expects every member of that audience to react and respond in the exact same way due to the effects of peer pressure around them. An example of this would be the widespread controversial debate whether or not violent video games make people violent, however this is a suitable example as it’s partially true. Young children generally do not question what they see and what they’re told so playing a violent game series such as Grand Theft Auto could possibly leave a lasting effect on them, due to them having difficulty distinguishing between a video game and reality. Other forms of widespread media have done this in the past too, such as the Elvis Presley debate and whether or not Rock and Roll music was ‘evil’ for people to listen to. And also Father Christmas, a widespread fictional character that many children believe to be real of whom gives presents every year until they ‘grow out of it’ and stop believing. It's become a cultural tradition around the world and is an example of the hypodermic needle model that actually has a positive outcome and isn't just used for hate speech, Father Christmas was designed to spread happiness to families everywhere.
It's a theory that I personally believe in, to a certain degree of course. I do feel that children can be influence by 'negative propaganda' (like violent games) when growing up, however I feel that it's a parent's responsibility to step in and ensure that if a child is in-taking a certain theme inappropriate for their age, then a parent should mentor them and explain the process that is happening and why it may be wrong. I feel that the theory can also apply to others who aren't children too in certain cases, perhaps mentally ill adults may be affected by this theory under certain circumstances, since they may also struggle to tell right from wrong and see this 'bad' content as a role-model figure. It's when things can get quite controversial: where do we draw the line with widespread propaganda and what can we do to minimise the effects on other people?
The Uses and Gratification Theory:
Now I'll be researching a theory that's a step-up from the Hypodermic Needle Model. Researched a paper published by (Chandler, 1995), this is a completely different theory to the Hypodermic Needle Model. It predicts that a media’s audience members don’t just consume that product, they think for themselves and don’t believe that it’s actually real, but instead feel that whatever they're consuming has a use or purpose beneficial to them. The audience usually receive some sort of gratification from consuming the product (which is suggested in the name) and need a reason to do so, such as laughing at a comedy movie to feel happier, playing a sad story-driven video game like Fire Emblem: Awakening (to make themselves feel better about their own real-life problems as they feel empathy for the characters that die throughout the game), visiting an informative blog to gain helpful knowledge about the world, or just reading a really exciting page-turner novel with plot twists throughout!
Sometimes (as discussed here (Wilson, 2011)) a person can't always have a reason for enjoying something, sometimes it may just fit into their personally or they have just gotten into the routine of doing it, even if they know that they shouldn't (like eating junk food, we all know it's bad for us, but many people love eating it regardless because the gratification comes from the good taste). Whatever media a viewer is consuming, these things aren't always taken directly to heart by the user, instead I believe people analyse and question the media they're viewing to develop their own opinions and interpretations, and this theory sees what each individual person thinks. That statement is something I feel I especially do when critically analysing media to form my own basis of opinion, as evidenced by the coverage of games in my gameplay journal when playing a range of digital and physical games.
Reception Theories:
This is the final theory I'll talk about in this post, and reception theories relate to exactly how different people play games, as well as what they can take away from it. A reception theory is especially useful for conveying hidden messages that are constantly reinforced throughout a game's story, and also brought up, either abruptly or subtly, through character dialogue. As discussed by (alexbentley17, 2013) there are three 'main' reception theories that are used in games, and they apply directly to the way different people take in a message. These are dominant, negotiated and oppositional. I will cover all three of them now, along with my thoughts and opinions on that theory.
First is dominant, this is the meaning that the audience is intended to think about from the text they have just consumed. Such as a games advert intending to encourage feelings of interest and excitement, so the consumer is impressed by the product so much that they want to buy it for themselves, and they will be constantly frustrated until they can buy themselves a copy of the game. This is different to the hypodermic needle model where, even though it’s intended that the people who consume the text are supposed to feel a certain way, they don’t necessarily have to feel it. The text is only pushed towards that type of emotion. For example, the Professor Layton games are designed to make the player wonder in mystery about the story ahead and care deeply about the main characters, however all the other characters are unique and quirky enough to have their own likeable traits too. Such as having distinct facial features or personalities, however a lot can be quite rude to the main characters, possibly putting the player off them (some characters shown below).
 |
| Professor Layton characters (Langdon, 2016) |
Next is negotiated, this theory suggests that both the audience and the text come together to create the meaning of an individual media piece. This means that the text can imply and hint at you to do something, however the consumer can use to do something else if they wish. For example, some video games like Grand Theft Auto are violent and contain many mature themes, however the player themselves are not completely obliged to do these tasks within the game as they could be evil and destructive, but they instead can choose to play a neutral role without doing anything inherently ‘wrong’. Some other games like Animal Crossing: New Leaf, a life simulation game where you're the mayor of a village, encourage you as the player to own a beautiful town as the mayor to look after and nurture. Although the game doesn't ever imply or encourage it, as the user you can choose instead to wreck and destroy your town while harassing and upsetting your neighbours, this theory helps imply that the player also affects a game's intention, as the game can explain everything as much as it likes, in the end the player is the one who has to follow through with those rules and regulations.
 |
| Animal Crossing (Giantbomb, 2013) |
Finally there is oppositional, this theory believes that a piece of media can have a target audience. However, the theory also implies that the media is designed so that people outside of that audience, even people who are completely opposite to what it was designed for, can respect and acknowledge the reading with some even having their own alternate message that only those from outside the main demographic can understand. A good example of this would be the adult male fans of ‘My Little Pony’, this TV show is designed for young children usually who are usually female due to the bright pink colours and characters, however it has gained ironic popularity with late teen and adult males who strangely find hidden values and messages inside of it that the primarily young target audience miss. Likewise in games, the Pokemon series has always had a primary target audience of children throughout the years it has been around, but because so many people that once grew up with the franchise are adults now, many people still play it for the nostalgic value it provides and as a hallmark of entertainment for how the series has grown and developed over the years with new species of Pokemon, places and game mechanics.
A great example of a game which uses reception theories well is the RPG Undertale. Where as briefly mentioned in my visual-style blog post, has a constant theme of player choice and consequences for your actions. Since it's an RPG with a battle system where you can either kill enemies for exp, or befriend them with witty/clever dialogue to let them go unharmed for... no reward at all. The game really questions why players make either good or bad decisions, and enforces a general tone of empathy on the player as they try to defy every pre-established RPG mechanic (like battling, collecting weapons, grinding enemies for exp, etc), to feel like a better person as they either play through the whole thing not killing anyone, or brutally slay every monster in their path. Because of this the reception theory applies very strongly to this game, and every single person who plays through Undertale may have a completely different experience, and thus 'receive' something more relevant to who that person is personally and relatable to their actions.
