RPGWW

http://survey.ihobo.com/BrainHex/

I turned out to be an Achiever-Survivor... which is an as of yet rare being representing only 0,45% of the entire gaming population. :{

Achiever: 20
Survivor: 16
Seeker: 8
Mastermind: 7
Daredevil: 3
Conqueror: 2
Socialiser: -2

With the 'No Mercy' Exception... and that's pretty inaccurate. I certainly do not like socializing with strangers online, but I try never to be rude. And as I suck in most PvP, I doubt I can even show them any mercy.

Survivor-Daredevil here, Anti-Completionist.

Conqueror! That's me!

Oh, and they call me the Conqueror-Seeker (I been searchin' low and hiIIIIIIIIIIIIGH...)

Your BrainHex Class is Socialiser.

Your BrainHex Class Your BrainHex Sub-Class is Socialiser-Mastermind.

You like hanging around with people you trust and helping people as well as solving puzzles and devising strategies.

Each BrainHex Class also has an Exception, which describes what you dislike about playing games. Your Exceptions are:

» No Punishment: You dislike struggling to overcome seemingly impossible challenges, and repeating the same task over and over again.

Learn more about your classes and exceptions at BrainHex.com.

Your scores for each of the classes in this test were as follows:

Socialiser: 17
Mastermind: 16
Seeker: 13
Survivor: 11
Daredevil: 9
Achiever: 2
Conqueror: -2

This feels fairly close to me.

Conquerer-Mastermind, No Fear exception. No one is really surprised, I imagine.

Your BrainHex Class is Seeker.

Your BrainHex Class Your BrainHex Sub-Class is Seeker-Survivor.

You like finding strange and wonderful things or finding familiar things as well as pulse-pounding risks and escaping from hideous and scary threats.

Each BrainHex Class also has an Exception, which describes what you dislike about playing games. Your Exceptions are:

» No Commitment: You dislike being asked to complete everything, preferring to pick and choose which tasks you will attempt, or simply messing around with a game.

Learn more about your classes and exceptions at BrainHex.com.

Your scores for each of the classes in this test were as follows:

Seeker: 17
Survivor: 15
Conqueror: 14
Daredevil: 9
Socialiser: 8
Mastermind: 7
Achiever: 0

Eh, kinda.

Class: Achiever (You like collecting anything you can collect or doing everything you possibly can)
Sub-Class: Achiever-Mastermind (as well as solving puzzles and devising strategies)
Exception: No Pressure (You dislike being asked to perform under pressure, preferring to take your time so you can make the right decision)

• Achiever: 18
• Mastermind: 15
• Seeker: 13
• Conqueror: 11
• Socialiser: 10
• Survivor: 3
• Daredevil: 0

Seems about right, though some of those numbers are awfully close there.

Your BrainHex Sub-Class is Conqueror-Socialiser.

You like defeating impossibly difficult foes, struggling until you eventually achieve victory, and beating other players as well as hanging around with people you trust and helping people.

» No Wonder: You dislike being asked to search for things, preferring clearly defined tasks.

Conqueror: 18
Socialiser: 14
Mastermind: 11
Daredevil: 10
Survivor: 4
Achiever: 2
Seeker: -4

This test is boring, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't measure what it thinks it measures. For one thing, it asks way too directly, it practically invites bias with formal letters that include the word "cordially." I'm also pretty sure these people don't really know any gamers, and haven't talked to any gamers in pursuit of this theoretical model--modern gaming, especially, is a social interaction process, and any psychologist or anthropologist or sociologist will gleefully tell you that social interactions are complex as fuck. How many times, when answering these questions, did you say to yourself, "well, I (don't) like that, except..."?

I really hope they test for reliability and usefulness in this study, and see how worthless it is. Gaming deserves a real, thorough, and well-planned and -elucidated analytical treatment, not something like this tripe. Go back to helloquizzy.com, sheesh.

edit: Also, the misspelling in the thread title has been remedied.

Honestly, Priam, I know I'm the odd one out, but although multiplayer does dominate the market right now, I don't play them if I can. I prefer single-player experience far more than online gaming, and when I was playing World of Warcraft, I saw it more as a single-player experience where sometimes it was necessary to elicit the help of other players to finish of an elite boss.

'course, I never really got into end-game that much.

Just saying. I don't disagree with you that social aspects are important these days.

Keep in mind that a single-player game can still have a social aspect. It doesn't just mean playing the game with others in-game, it also means playing the game with others out-of-game around you.

Point of fact: Amplitude was, for a very long time, the best single-player party game I owned.

Also, regarding the quality of the test. I honestly didn't think it was necessary to mention that this is an extremely limited thing that only categorizes you into what they consider stereotypes, with obviously shallow questions and answers. I found the graphical layout neat, and I've always liked taking tests like this, so I figured I should post it.

Admittedly, I did agree with what the test said, more or less, simply because out of those options, that was the closest thing I could see myself at, but it's hardly a great big "This is Christian" test that tells me exactly who I am.

The fact that they're trying to sell this off as scientific research was actually brought to my attention by Idran, I hadn't even thought about that.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not attacking you for having posted this; I'm attacking them for taking this project so cavalierly, so without substance. A good personality test will take what you said, extrapolate the principles, and use the interactions of parts to explore deeper, more combinative processes not already explicitly stated by the user as a part of answering the questions themselves. Famous examples of good personality tests include the Big Five test and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

A bad test, on the other hand, will see you answering questions 1, 2, and 3 with C, B, and A, and then report that you answered A for 3, B for 2, and C for question 1. I knew that, thanks; I was there, watching me while I answered the questions. That's the type of test this is, and we as gamers deserve better.

The next step, if we care to take another step, is, how do we go about getting, or making, better.

PriamNevhausten wrote:Famous examples of good personality tests include the Big Five test and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

Oh god no. Myers-Briggs is a famous example of a personality test, yes. But by no means is it good. It's just as flawed and unscientific as this test here. There is no scientific basis or even research behind it, it's just that a ton of employers and management types have leaned on it for whatever reason as the key to finding good hires, and it's caught on from there throughout the general populace.

Big Five is pretty much the only good, reliable personality test.

That is true, the MBTI is not good in a science sense. But it is good in that it does something besides parrot back what you told it first, which in my book makes it a good personality test. As you mentioned (or at least implied), the bar is automatically set very low at the words "personality test," but Myers-Briggs at least does something with what it collects.

Personally, I don't think something can qualify as a good personality test unless you can demonstrate that the resulting categories partition the class of people that take it. That is, it can't be good (read: successful) at testing and determining personality unless the categories have minimal overlap, there's little to no individuals that occur in multiple categories. Big Five accomplishes this quantitatively, sociological studies have shown that for whatever reasons its categories are fairly distinct (though the debate about why exactly this is is a huge one). But Myers-Briggs doesn't. Since you can't necessarily accurately place a given individual into a single Myers-Briggs category uniquely and accurately, I don't think you can call the categories accurate personality descriptors. And if the categories don't describe personality, there's no way I can consider it good at testing personality.

Primary: Conquerer.
Secondary: Conquerer-Socializer.

You like defeating impossibly difficult foes, struggling until you eventually achieve victory, and beating other players as well as hanging around with people you trust and helping people.

That seems right. Also, I concur with every criticism Priam has of this test. Now I'm going to go conquer some food. With conquering.