How Personality Can Help You Reflect on Why You Enjoy a Game

A short answer: compare the reward across sessions

Personality can help you name possible tendencies, but it cannot tell you why you enjoy a particular game. Compare what feels rewarding across sessions that differ: a close loss, an easy win, or play with different company. If improving a skill still feels satisfying after a loss, mastery may matter. If the result, rank, or comparison carries the pleasure, winning may matter. If play feels better with conversation, cooperation, or familiar players, social enjoyment may be part of it. More than one answer can fit a session. A trait is a broad tendency that may recur across situations; a motive is the nearer reason an activity feels worthwhile. Neither is a fixed player identity. A 2023 systematic review, “Overviewing Gaming Motivation and Its Associated Psychological and Sociodemographic Variables,” included 53 studies and reports that all were cross-sectional, with measures and findings varying across the literature. It supports caution about turning a general personality association into an explanation of one person's enjoyment. Treat a possible trait connection as a hypothesis, then check it against what felt rewarding in more than one session. Ask which part of play you would miss when a condition changes.

Sources: Overviewing Gaming Motivation and Its Associated Psychological and Sociodemographic Variables

What does mastery, winning, or social enjoyment look like in play?

Mastery, winning, and social enjoyment describe different parts of what can make play satisfying. Mastery is the pleasure of understanding a system, learning a move, or executing a skill more effectively. Winning is satisfaction tied to the result, rank, or comparison with an opponent. Social enjoyment comes from interaction: talking, cooperating, coordinating, sharing a competition, or simply being with other players. These are distinctions for reflection, not mutually exclusive categories. One match can reward challenge, result, and company at once. To notice mastery, ask what you remember after a difficult session. Perhaps you lost, but recognized an opponent’s setup sooner and found a better counter-move than before. If that improvement made the session worthwhile, learning or execution may have been part of its reward. The loss did not erase every satisfying part. Doing something better differs from accumulating progress the game registers. A new tactic understood in play is different from repeating an action to earn currency, finish a collection, or reach a level cap, even when both feel like advancement. Winning points more directly to the outcome. Consider a routine match in which little felt surprising or skillful, yet seeing a higher rank, a victory screen, or a favorable comparison with rivals still felt important. That reaction suggests the result itself mattered. A win can also confirm coordination or give a group a shared celebration. Ask whether a changed result would remove much of what made the session satisfying. An easy win may feel good for the result while offering little of the learning that makes a close loss engaging. Social enjoyment is easier to notice by comparing company and interaction. Imagine enjoying a familiar group’s conversation, teamwork, or shared jokes even when the match is ordinary. Then imagine playing the same mode alone: if the activity loses much of its appeal, other people may be an important part of the reward. Someone may enjoy a quiet solo session and still value team communication when competition becomes close. Social reward can mean cooperation, but it can also mean friendly rivalry, recognition, or having someone to discuss a decision with. Notice what changes when company changes, rather than labeling yourself outgoing or reserved. These comparisons are deliberately narrower than a complete map of gaming motivation. In “Individual differences in motives, preferences, and pathology in video games: the gaming attitudes, motives, and experiences scales (GAMES),” the researchers developed a measure with nine factors, including social interaction, grinding, loss sensitivity, and autonomy. Its categories show why skill learning should not automatically be equated with repetitive progress or completion. The study recruited 1,689 volunteers from gaming forums and 300 university undergraduates, so its instrument and sample do not define every player or prove what any one person values. A 2023 systematic review, “Overviewing Gaming Motivation and Its Associated Psychological and Sociodemographic Variables,” included 53 studies; all were cross-sectional, and the review describes varied instruments and heterogeneous findings. That evidence supports using motive labels as prompts rather than a definitive taxonomy. For your own game, name the concrete reward first, then see whether the same distinction appears in sessions with different outcomes, challenge, or company.

Sources: Individual differences in motives, preferences, and pathology in video games: the gaming attitudes, motives, and experiences scales (GAMES); Overviewing Gaming Motivation and Its Associated Psychological and Sociodemographic Variables

Why do gaming-motivation models use different categories?

Different models classify different things: some organize reasons players report, while need-based theories describe experiences that can support more than one reason. Their categories can help you ask what feels rewarding, but they are not interchangeable player types. A label such as achievement summarizes preferences in one framework; it does not establish that everyone who values skill, progress, or victory shares one motive.

The distinction appears in the 2013 paper “Individual differences in motives, preferences, and pathology in video games: the gaming attitudes, motives, and experiences scales (GAMES).” It discusses earlier frameworks grouping preferences into achievement, social interaction, and immersion, then describes a broader instrument developed by its authors. In two samples, 1,689 online gaming-forum volunteers and 300 University of Missouri undergraduates, exploratory factor analysis identified nine factors: story, violent catharsis, violent reward, social interaction, escapism, loss-sensitivity, customization, grinding, and autonomy. GAMES was therefore not a three-category mastery, winning, and social model. Its factors reflect questions and item groupings in that particular measure. Forum recruitment was self-selected and skewed toward frequent male players; undergraduates came from one university. The results offer one organization of reported preferences, not a final player map or an individual classification method.

A different question is what makes play satisfying. Self-determination theory (SDT) describes three psychological needs: autonomy, a sense of choice or control; competence, a sense of effectiveness; and relatedness, feeling connected with others. In “The Motivational Pull of Video Games: A Self-Determination Theory Approach,” four studies examined need experiences across game settings. The authors report that autonomy and competence related to enjoyment and future-play preference in experimental studies. In an online survey of 730 MMO players, all three needs independently contributed to future play. This framework describes experiences that may make play appealing rather than sorting players into three motive groups. The 2006 study cannot identify the main reward in a reader’s session.

The approaches can overlap without contradicting one another. A player might pursue a match because improving a tactic feels competent, the result matters, and teammates share the effort. This is an interpretation of how the frameworks could fit, not a finding that the studies tracked this exact combination. The 2023 systematic review, “Overviewing Gaming Motivation and Its Associated Psychological and Sociodemographic Variables,” included 53 studies; all were cross-sectional and used validated measures. It describes varied instruments and samples, limiting any one category system’s claim to universality. A validated scale can serve its intended measurement purpose without being a complete account of enjoyment.

For reflection, treat categories as prompts. Ask what a term means in its model, what was measured, and whether it names a reported reason or an experience that may support several reasons. Then return to a session: did learning a move, the result, or playing with others make it worthwhile? If more than one answer fits, keep both. The aim is not to select a universal player type, but to find language for comparing experiences without mistaking a framework’s categories for your personality.

Sources: Individual differences in motives, preferences, and pathology in video games: the gaming attitudes, motives, and experiences scales (GAMES); Overviewing Gaming Motivation and Its Associated Psychological and Sociodemographic Variables; The Motivational Pull of Video Games: A Self-Determination Theory Approach

How can one session reward skill, results, and company at once?

A single match can offer a chance to improve, a meaningful outcome, and time with other people. The reward is shaped by the game and its social setting, so these motives are better treated as overlapping experiences than as mutually exclusive identities. A close team match, for example, might feel satisfying because a difficult move finally worked, because the team won, and because friends shared the moment. That is an illustrative possibility, not a finding about how players generally feel. The useful question is not which single motive owns the session, but which parts of it mattered and what changed their value.

One way to understand the overlap is to distinguish a stated motive from the experience that may support it. Self-determination theory describes autonomy, competence, and relatedness: broadly, feeling that one has meaningful choice, can act effectively, and is connected with others. In a game, competence may accompany learning a technique or coordinating a successful play. Relatedness may accompany communication, cooperation, or simply sharing an event. A player could therefore care about a result partly because it reflects effective play and partly because it gives a group something to celebrate. These are possible interpretations of an experience, not proof of a hidden motive. The categories help ask better questions; they do not sort each session into a single box.

The qualitative study “Animal Crossing and COVID-19: A Qualitative Study Examining How Video Games Satisfy Basic Psychological Needs During the Pandemic” offers a concrete, bounded example of needs appearing together. Researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 players aged 18 to 34, primarily in Singapore, during the pandemic. Their analysis described experiences related to autonomy, competence, and relatedness in Animal Crossing: New Horizons. The study illustrates how a player’s goals and the presence of visitors might make a designed island feel rewarding in more than one way. It does not establish how common these experiences are, show that all games work similarly, or tell us what any particular reader values. Its small, self-selected interview sample and unusual pandemic setting matter when applying it beyond that game and context.

To examine your own session, separate the ingredients briefly. What did the outcome add: relief, pride, rank, or a shared celebration? What did other people add through conversation, coordination, feedback, or their attention? Then imagine one condition changing. If the same play had ended in a loss, would the learning still have felt good? If you had won alone, would the result still matter as much? If the group had been quiet, would you have wanted another round? These are reflection prompts, not controlled tests, and answers may depend on fatigue, mood, challenge, stakes, familiarity, and game mode.

A player who enjoys a team win need not choose between “I like mastery” and “I like people.” The win may bring both a sense of effective play and connection, while a different match could make one aspect more noticeable. Look for what you would miss if one part disappeared, then compare that impression with another session under different conditions. It need not mean your personality changed; it may show that the game offered a different mix of rewards.

Sources: Animal Crossing and COVID-19: A Qualitative Study Examining How Video Games Satisfy Basic Psychological Needs During the Pandemic

What can personality research actually tell an individual player?

Personality research can suggest questions about recurring preferences, but it cannot read an individual’s gaming motive from a trait label. Findings about engagement, genre, or play frequency answer different questions from why one session felt rewarding. A personality trait is a broad tendency; a motive is a reason that makes a specific activity worth doing. Someone may often seek stimulation or company, yet enjoy a quiet solo game for its puzzles. A trait can generate a question, but actual play is needed to examine the answer.

The Big Five is a framework of five broad dimensions commonly called openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, sometimes framed by its other pole, emotional stability. These are dimensions, not fixed player categories. Even when a study finds an association between personality and a gaming outcome, that outcome must be read precisely. Genre preference, time spent playing, self-reported reason for playing, and engagement with a game product are not interchangeable. Each captures a different part of the experience; none alone establishes which reward matters most to one player.

The systematic review “Overviewing Gaming Motivation and Its Associated Psychological and Sociodemographic Variables” included 53 studies. All were cross-sectional, meaning they measured variables at one period, and used a validated motivation measure. The review describes varied instruments and a heterogeneous literature, including disagreement about which motives to define and how to measure them. Cross-sectional associations cannot show that a trait caused a motive, and group findings cannot settle what one player values in a match. The review also inherits the limits of its included studies and measures.

“Impact of HEXACO Personality Factors on Consumer Video Game Engagement: A Study on eSports” surveyed 250 eSports users and related HEXACO factors to consumer engagement. The authors define engagement through cognitive, affective, and behavioral interaction with the game product. It does not directly ask whether players most enjoy mastery, winning, or other people. The study is specific to eSports users and uses a cross-sectional survey, so its associations should not become explanations of every player’s enjoyment.

For reflection, treat a trait as a tentative prompt. If stimulation or interaction often appeals to you, ask whether it also appears across different games and sessions. Then check the closer evidence: did you value figuring out a mechanic, seeing a result or rank, or sharing the experience? Keep the answer open when conditions change. If enjoyment shifts with the game, challenge, or company, that variation may describe the situation as much as a recurring tendency. Your observed pattern should guide the interpretation; a broad personality label should not override it.

Sources: Overviewing Gaming Motivation and Its Associated Psychological and Sociodemographic Variables; Impact of HEXACO Personality Factors on Consumer Video Game Engagement: A Study on eSports

Does competitive play mean winning matters more than mastery?

No. Choosing ranked play shows competition is part of the experience; it does not reveal why that setting is rewarding. A player might want the result, enjoy testing a skill under pressure, value teammates, or find several worthwhile at once. The distinction is between an observable choice, such as entering ranked play, and an interpretation of motive, such as saying that winning matters most. The choice is observable; the motive remains a question.

A useful test is to notice what remains satisfying when the outcome changes. Suppose a player loses a close match but leaves thinking about a better decision or a move they finally executed well. That could point toward learning or challenge as part of the reward, even though the result was disappointing. This does not prove mastery is the main motive; close matches may be exciting or that mode may simply be preferred. Conversely, someone who cares about rank but dislikes practice might be more drawn to recognition or the result than to refining a skill. That remains a hypothesis. Ask what the player would choose if progress were private and no rank changed; the answer may clarify what matters, though it cannot settle the question.

Company adds another plausible explanation. If someone queues mainly with familiar teammates, communication or shared competition may be part of the appeal. They might also care about winning or effective cooperation. A comparison with solo sessions could help: does the activity feel thinner without the group, or does the player still enjoy working through the same challenge? Session differences may reflect conditions rather than a change in personality. Mode, stakes, familiarity, and company affect what a game offers.

The measurement choices in *Individual differences in motives, preferences, and pathology in video games: the gaming attitudes, motives, and experiences scales (GAMES)* reinforce why rank or genre should not stand in for a motive. This 2013 scale-development study surveyed 1,689 volunteers recruited through gaming forums and 300 University of Missouri undergraduates. Its final measure separated nine factors, including social interaction, grinding, autonomy, and loss-sensitivity; it was not a simple mastery-versus-winning classification. Forum volunteers were self-selected and mostly male daily players; undergraduates came from one university. The categories describe that instrument and its samples, not every player. The study supports keeping reported motives distinct. It does not show that a competitive player is mainly motivated by winning.

Try describing the evidence narrowly: “I often enjoy close matches when I can see what I learned,” or “A higher rank matters to me even when the session feels routine.” Then look for a contrasting session that could complicate the explanation. If the same reward recurs across different outcomes, that makes it a more plausible tendency in this game. If it appears chiefly with particular teammates, stakes, or modes, include those conditions in the description. Neither pattern identifies a fixed personality. Genre, intensity, and competitive behavior are clues to explore, not shortcuts to a verdict about why someone plays.

Sources: Individual differences in motives, preferences, and pathology in video games: the gaming attitudes, motives, and experiences scales (GAMES)

What observations distinguish a recurring tendency from a situational reward?

A recurring tendency is more plausible when a reward appears across sessions or conditions. A situational explanation becomes more plausible when enjoyment shifts with challenge, stakes, mode, mood, or company. One match cannot settle the question. Ask: what changed, and which part of play felt rewarding before and after? This is reflection, not a controlled experiment; sessions differ in several ways at once, so they suggest explanations without proving them. Start with the outcome contrast. After a close loss, did the session feel worthwhile because you understood a mechanic or executed a move better? After an easy win, did the result satisfy you even if little felt new? The first pattern is consistent with process reward; the second may point toward outcome reward. They can coexist. A close loss may frustrate you because the result mattered, yet interest you because your play improved. An easy win may feel empty because the challenge was too low, not because winning is unimportant. Notice what you wanted to repeat, rather than treating the final screen as a complete account of enjoyment. Compare solo play with a session among teammates. Company can change coordination, conversation, pressure, and the chance to share a result. If the group makes routine play more enjoyable, social connection may be part of the reward. If it makes concentration harder, that does not establish a general dislike of people; communication demands or pressure may be the relevant condition. “Animal Crossing and COVID-19: A Qualitative Study Examining How Video Games Satisfy Basic Psychological Needs During the Pandemic” reports interviews with 17 players aged 18–34, primarily in Singapore. Their accounts described autonomy, relatedness, and competence in play. Because the study concerned one open-ended game during the pandemic, its themes illustrate how rewards can interweave; they do not show how common a motive is across games or players. To distinguish learning from accumulated progress, compare practice with a new mechanic against routine play with a familiar one. Did experimenting hold your attention when no rank or visible reward changed? Or did repetition feel worthwhile mainly when it advanced a level or improved standing? Such outcomes need not mean the skill itself is the reward. Unfamiliar controls can make practice frustrating; consider whether enjoyment changes once the mechanic becomes familiar. Public ranking offers a contrast with private play. A leaderboard can make relative standing salient. If ranking matters, ask whether the appeal is the result, recognition, tracking improvement, or some combination. High stakes may make a challenge tense. “Overviewing Gaming Motivation and Its Associated Psychological and Sociodemographic Variables,” a systematic review of 53 studies, reported that all were cross-sectional, with varied measures and findings. It supports caution about turning an association into a stable personal rule; it cannot explain why one session felt good. Before settling on an explanation, check rival conditions: fatigue, unfamiliar controls, an uneven match, unusual stakes, or an uncomfortable group. State what you would expect if your interpretation were right and what might change your mind. “I often enjoy learning a system when the stakes are low” is conditional and testable across future sessions. “I am a mastery player” turns limited experience into an identity and hides conditions that may matter. Comparing notes across sessions can make the first description more useful without turning it into a score or verdict.

Sources: Animal Crossing and COVID-19: A Qualitative Study Examining How Video Games Satisfy Basic Psychological Needs During the Pandemic; Overviewing Gaming Motivation and Its Associated Psychological and Sociodemographic Variables

How can you check your pattern without turning one match into a label?

After several ordinary sessions, record the moment that felt rewarding, the result, the challenge, and who was present. Compare those notes before describing a tendency. One match is too entangled with its particular rules, stakes, mood, and company to stand in for a stable preference. A short record does not remove those influences; it makes them easier to see beside your interpretation. Keep the task modest: notice what mattered in play, then ask whether a similar reward appears when one condition changes. You are collecting examples for reflection, not producing a score or proving that a trait caused your enjoyment. Start with an event you could describe without a personality label. For instance, you might note that you finally timed a difficult move correctly, that your team won after a close round, or that conversation with a familiar group made an otherwise ordinary session enjoyable. These are illustrative possibilities, not research findings. The event matters because it gives you something specific to examine. “I am competitive” already blends behavior and explanation; “I cared about the final rank even though the match felt routine” keeps the observation visible and leaves its meaning open. Next, name the reward as precisely as you can. Was it learning a mechanic, executing a skill, solving a problem, reaching a result, receiving recognition, sharing conversation, coordinating with others, or some combination? Do not assume that one answer excludes the rest. A win can involve skill and company; practice can also bring progress or recognition. If none of those descriptions fits, write what did feel worthwhile in your own words. The categories are prompts drawn from the article’s comparison, not an exhaustive checklist or a classification of players. Then record the conditions that could have shaped that experience: game or mode, level of challenge, stakes, whether the session was public or private, how familiar the other players were, and anything relevant about your state that day. Keep this factual and brief. You do not need to infer a personality dimension from each detail. A session with familiar teammates differs from solo play in more than company if the rules, difficulty, or pressure also changed. Recording the setting helps prevent an easy but unsupported conclusion, such as assuming that a social session was enjoyable only because of the people present. Compare it with a contrasting session rather than asking whether you are always the same. Put a close loss beside an easy win; or compare a new challenge with routine play; or consider a similar game played alone and with familiar others. Choose a contrast that actually occurred in your ordinary play, and note what changed along with what stayed similar. These comparisons are not controlled experiments: other conditions may differ, and memory may be selective. They are useful as prompts for a more careful question, not as proof of a cause. This caution fits the review’s account of the field. “Overviewing Gaming Motivation and Its Associated Psychological and Sociodemographic Variables: A PRISMA Systematic Review” included 53 cross-sectional studies and describes varied measures and definitions. That evidence supports careful interpretation of categories across studies; it does not validate this reflection exercise or tell you which reward matters most to you.

Sources: Overviewing Gaming Motivation and Its Associated Psychological and Sociodemographic Variables

Next step: describe the reward and keep the explanation open

Choose two recent sessions that differed in one useful way: perhaps one involved a close loss and the other an easy win, or one was played alone and the other with familiar company. For each, note the moment that made it worthwhile. Was it understanding a mechanic, executing a move more cleanly, seeing a result or rank, or sharing play with someone? More than one answer can fit. Record the conditions too: game mode, challenge, stakes, mood, and who was present. This comparison is for reflection, not a test or score.

Describe the pattern provisionally. Learning may feel rewarding across both outcomes; a win may matter most when the contest is close; the same game may feel different with different company. Such variation does not automatically contradict a personality tendency. The opportunity to improve, meaning of the result, or social setting may have changed. The systematic review of 53 gaming-motivation studies reports heterogeneous measures, cross-sectional designs, and findings that vary across studies. It supports caution about turning broad trait associations into personal explanations, but cannot settle what mattered in your sessions.

The practical verdict is modest: personality gives you language for recurring preferences, while what you enjoy in a particular game is closer to the question. Revise your explanation if challenge, stakes, game design, or other players change. To consider how this pattern sits alongside your wider tendencies, explore the personality profiles in the learning library. Treat that wider view as another reflection prompt, not a prediction of how you must play. Start with the two sessions and keep your description open to evidence that could change it.

Sources: Overviewing Gaming Motivation and Its Associated Psychological and Sociodemographic Variables