Measuring Engagement In Games

Gamasutra is running an article written by Tim Hong of EmSense in which he describes the research his company did into the physiological reactions various games engender in players. In addition to outward cues like breathing and movement, EmSense also scans brainwaves and heart activity to provide a more complete picture of how a gamer is responding to what he sees and does. They collected hundreds of hours worth of data and made comparisons among a variety of shooters, such as Gears of War 2, F.E.A.R, and Half-Life 2. They found some interesting information on how pacing, tutorials, and cutscenes can affect a player's level of engagement with the games.

Re:COD : Modern Warfare

[theredshoes]

I thought this article was worth reading. I am currently taking a senior level applied psychology course in which we read over the case study for Robber's Cave. If you are not familiar with it, here is a general finding from the study.

*When individuals having no established relationships are brought together to interact in group activities with common goals, they produce a group structure with hierarchical statuses and roles within it.*

What does this system or type of learning sound like to you? It sounds like the tried and true money/work system which everyone I know is so fond of. LOL :)

I don't think the findings are that surprising. It seems to me that younger age groups should probably start out with low level engagement or reward type games and then build up to the higher end engagement levels. Games with violence are obviously not for younger age groups, which is why there are age limits to certain violent or mature games.

As an adult, you have your own fail safes and mechanisms built in to determine your level of engagement in the game. I am more interested in the article and the findings, but I can't really give a coherent opinion on first person shooter games. I don't play them.

A little biased.

[mlheur]

With all the comments like "Predictably, Gears of War seems to get it right.", it seems to be more of a GoW praise article stating that this game has no flaws, but all the others do.

Also, the summary has a small error, article talks of games from 2007, namely GoW, not GoW2.

Re:COD : Modern Warfare

[Psychotria]

Thinking about it more, I think that CoD4 has great 'pace'. There are moments where things are very hectic which are followed by either more hectic moments or moments that are relatively quiet where you can collect your breath. I didn't find that so much in CoD4. Both CoD4 and 5 are linear, but the linearity seemed forced (to me) in CoD5 and it frustrated me a bit. CoD4 is linear as well, but it's not so rigid that it feels linear... there are always a few way to do things. In CoD5 I kept finding myself wanting to go places that I couldn't (this didn't really happen in CoD4... it was a good illusion). Also, the team members in CoD5 are extremely annoying... it seems that every time I go for cover so idiot AI comes and stands behind me so I can't move, or stands there shooting at something other than the enemy directly in front of us... I wanted to kill my AI team a lot in CoD5. CoD5 also has lots of bugs... 'triggers' not being triggered and you're standing there with nothing to do and nowhere to go unless you restart from the last checkpoint (from memory there are 2 bugs like this in the last 3 levels of the game... once when you're outside nazi headqaurters and you snipe 500 dudes and nothing ever happens and only 2 or 3 guys continue to spawn and run out of the building and until you try again and the trigger magically occurs and a column falls. Second, the last few seconds of the game... another trigger bug and you cannot finish (withouth restarting from the last checkpoint).. talk about a way to ruin a climax).

Re:That's just storytelling

[Keill]

Again, another article talking about the matter of game-play vs storytelling...

The fact is, is that if you get the basic game-play right for the game and audience your aiming for, then you'll do well - and if you tell the story well, then you'll do even better. This, though, shouldn't be news to ANYONE here...

The thing they seem to be aiming for here - (though I'm not quite sure how well they've hit this target) - is to try and find out just what sort of emotional impact both can have upon certain types of gamers.

The market has already shown, however, that if you get the basic game-play right for most types of game, regardless of the plot or story, then you'll do ok. If you get the story right and the basic game-play wrong, however, then you probably won't...

Someone in a post above talked about Oblivion - this to me is a game where, for the market it was aimed at, it got it's priorities right - (plot/story with particular game-play) which is why it was successful.

Unfortunately for me, I'm more interested in the game-play than I am in the story, which generally puts me at odds with most of the market, especially considering I like RPG's... (The reason I like RPG's however, is the opportunity they have for scope and depth of game-play and game-play DEVELOPMENT over most other types of game. Unfortunately for me, the games which use this feature well are very few and far between :( ).