Not Everyone Is Born to Be a Carry
Why do some players choose the jungle, others prefer sniper rifles, and still others gravitate toward strategy games? And why do some people have no interest in video games at all? Do games really improve our thinking skills?
In esports, players are typically evaluated by their rankings, reaction times, win rates, and individual skills. But behind these numbers lie motivation, attitudes toward risk, decision-making habits, and the ability to cope with uncertainty.
One player wants to lead, another enjoys executing tasks precisely, while a third prefers to operate independently. This does not mean that someone's favorite game can be accurately determined by their personality. There is no scientifically validated chart matching personality types to ideal in-game roles. Psychological tendencies can help formulate hypotheses, but they cannot replace observation and practical experience.
Shooters (Counter-Strike 2, Valorant, PUBG) require visual attention, spatial awareness, and decision-making under time pressure. They may appeal to people who enjoy intense competition, but successful snipers often rely on patience and self-control rather than impulsiveness.
MOBAs (Mobile Legends, League of Legends, Dota 2, Honor of Kings) combine individual skill with resource allocation, prediction, and coordination. Five mechanically skilled players can still lose because of poor communication.
Strategy games (StarCraft II, Age of Empires, Civilization) involve planning, evaluating alternatives, and reconsidering decisions. A good strategist is not someone who never makes mistakes, but someone who knows when to abandon a plan that is not working.
Sandbox games, simulators, and puzzles (Minecraft, The Sims, Portal) provide enjoyment through exploration, creativity, and playing at one's own pace. A lack of interest in competition does not indicate a lack of ambition.
| Role | Helpful Traits | Main Challenge |
|---|---|---|
| Jungler | Initiative, adaptability, prioritization | Handling responsibility for the game's pace |
| Gold Lane | Patience, discipline, concentration | Maintaining confidence during weaker stages |
| EXP Lane | Independence, resilience | Operating without constant support |
| Mid Lane | Attention switching, communication | Monitoring multiple areas of the map |
| Roam | Awareness, cooperation | Contributing to success without personal recognition |
This table describes the demands of different roles rather than diagnosing players. Someone who is accustomed to controlling everything may benefit from trying a support role; a player who avoids making decisions might gain valuable experience in a role requiring greater initiative. However, transferring skills and experiences from games into everyday life should not be considered automatic.
Some people find team-based games energizing, while others become exhausted by constant coordination. Preferring single-player experiences is not a sign of poor social skills. A person may enjoy one-on-one competition, solving puzzles without opponents, or may have no interest in video games whatsoever.
Music, sports, reading, language learning, construction, and many other activities also provide cognitive stimulation. Video games can serve as a form of entertainment and a way to practice certain skills, but they are not a prerequisite for intellectual development.
Studies examining the relationship between personality traits and gaming preferences have identified statistical differences between groups. However, their findings depend on sample characteristics, measurement methods, and how game genres are classified. Correlation does not allow researchers to determine someone's personality based on their favorite game, nor does it establish causation.
In a study by Basak and colleagues (2008), older adults who trained using a real-time strategy game demonstrated improvements in certain cognitive measures. Other studies involving action video games have also reported improvements in specific tasks related to attention and spatial perception. However, a meta-analysis by Sala, Tatlidil, and Gobet (2018) questioned the strength of the evidence supporting the broad transfer of video game training to general cognitive abilities.
It is essential to distinguish between near transfer — improvements in tasks similar to those practiced during training — and far transfer, when improvements extend to different areas, such as education, professional performance, or everyday activities. Near transfer is observed more frequently, while far transfer is considerably more difficult to demonstrate.
| Game Format | Cognitive Functions Involved |
|---|---|
| Shooters | Visual attention, spatial awareness, processing speed |
| MOBAs | Working memory, prediction, attention switching, coordination |
| Real-Time Strategy (RTS) | Planning, resource management, cognitive flexibility |
| Turn-Based Strategy | Evaluating alternatives, logical analysis |
| Puzzle Games | Pattern recognition, problem-solving |
| Simulators | Sequencing actions, managing complex systems |
The fact that a particular cognitive function is required during gameplay does not mean that playing the game has been proven to improve that function outside the gaming environment.
Sometimes the loudest player is the first to demand the jungle role or the position of team captain. However, being loud is not the same as being a leader, and a desire for control does not necessarily indicate narcissism. Toxic behavior cannot be reliably predicted based on a player's preferred role.
It is more useful to observe specific behaviors: Can the player acknowledge mistakes, delegate decisions, listen to teammates, and remain respectful after a defeat? A confident leader provides clarity and encourages responsibility; an aggressive, controlling player may replace genuine leadership with blame and intimidation. Applying psychological labels without proper assessment only makes teamwork more difficult.
If someone regularly experiences intense anger after matches, loses sleep, abandons other activities, and continues playing despite significant negative consequences, it may be time to evaluate the balance between benefits and harm. In the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11), the World Health Organization describes gaming disorder in terms of impaired control over gaming, increasing priority given to gaming over other activities, and continued gaming despite negative consequences. Ordinary enthusiasm for video games does not, by itself, constitute a disorder.
For some people, changing their gaming routine may be enough. Others may benefit from time limits or taking a break. The appropriate decision should depend on personal well-being and the actual impact gaming has on everyday life, rather than an arbitrary number of hours.
Psychological questionnaires can provide a starting point for discussion, but they should not be treated as a final verdict. A more reasonable approach is to let players experiment with different roles while observing their communication, decision-making quality, ability to learn, and reactions to mistakes. The important question is not only “Where does this player perform best today?” but also “What could this player learn to do tomorrow?”
Esports is an environment where abilities, fears, ambitions, and different approaches to interaction come together. However, dividing people into “natural-born junglers,” “perfect snipers,” and those who supposedly do not belong in gaming would be a mistake. Some people need a team, others prefer individual victories, some enjoy relaxing puzzles, while others find fulfillment in entirely different activities.
The maturity of the gaming industry should be measured not only by the number of people it attracts, but also by its willingness to acknowledge that there is no universal gaming experience that suits everyone.
As a reminder, Is esports growing up or dying out?
