Variety, Social Aspects More Important To Game Success Than Graphics, Plot 236
proslack writes "In a study presented at the Human-Computer Interaction conference in Cambridge, England, British researchers Beale and Bond found that plot and graphics are not critical to the success of video games; price and the inclusion of social aspects (e.g. multiplayer or chat) were found to be more important."
An unfinished version of the paper (PDF) is available from the researchers' web site. They said, "One of the most unexpected findings was that gameplay was not featured as one of the most important categories to fulfill," though they acknowledge that variety and cohesion were measured separately from gameplay, which past studies have not done.
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news fun is more important to a games success than graphics, plot.
Doubt it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Bull, as far as I am concerned:
1) Plot
2) Price
3) Graphics
.
.
.
374) Social
For certain markets... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe true for the teeny-boppers (Score:4, Insightful)
This may be true for the teeny-boppers who've probably never played a game with a real plot and great game play. Most modern console games have pretty similar graphics and tend to have the same lack of plot or original thought - so yes, I'd believe that being able to chat with friends would be "important" to them because it allows them to be distracted from how boring the game is.
However, with older gamers, it is normally universal that plot and game play come before graphics and most of us couldn't give a rats ass if you can chat with your friends in-game. We already have a great way to chat with friends while playing if we need to - it's called a phone.
Methodology is everything (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words: "We didn't like the result we got, so we massaged the data until we got something we liked, and called that our method."
Re:Doubt it... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's about right. If the core game sucks, it sucks more with a friend present and online-play can't fix it.
Re:Doubt it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wasn't the Half-Life mod Counter-Strike (which requires other players) pretty freaking awesome? IMO, it kind of sucked to play against bots.
Quake, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
In practice, theory and practice are different... (Score:3, Insightful)
Except this isn't always the case.
As seen in another recent posting, you tend to get pushed to the 'indie' section of gaming if you don't have the visuals that people want. People like looking at pretty screen-candy, and game makers know to indulge people in this. You can certainly have good games without amazing visuals, but they won't ever be mainstream.
Most people love their graphics, even if they'll then claim 'gameplay' is important on some survey.
An interesting but not thorough study (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Methodology is everything (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words: "We didn't like the result we got, so we massaged the data until we got something we liked, and called that our method."
You said just about all there is to be said. They changed their method to make the results match their hypothesis. They acknowledge poor methodology in their data collection, so even the original results are suspect. The only place this paper ought've been published is in a landfill. Beale and Bond should go back to 101-level courses, and the headline of this story should be "Don't Publish Research With Obvious Flaws".
don't forget (Score:4, Insightful)
Video games are now mainstream, just another Hollywood, and what we can learn from movies and apply to our preferred entertainment is that unmitigated mediocrity is no obstacle to making money. How many cookie cutter romantic comedies come out each year? There's no innovation, no surprises, but they keep making them so the money's coming from somewhere. OMG, he travels through time, but he still loves her and she loves him back? Shit bitch, no way! How about generic action movies? Three Transporters, Two Cranked's and Death Race, and I'm sure they're making Death Race 2 right now... in case we forget Jason Statham is awesome. The examples go on. If these movies are making money somehow that means there's enough people out there who are buying, for who those movies offer enough. And yay, look out, the same is true for games. We're measuring different things here, and we even have a study for some reason, but it's no surprise that the average person's demands are for something that's "good enough" in a few basic areas.
Re:Conclusion (Score:2, Insightful)
Poor terminology (Score:5, Insightful)
Define success. (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps fiscally.
But not in my book.
Also (Score:5, Insightful)
Gamers often don't know what they want. Customers in general often don't know what they want. Just because someone says "This is what I want," doesn't mean you can take it at face value. They will claim to value something highly, and then put little to no value on that in actual purchasing. Basing your study on reviews is thus not a good idea.
You can witness this in terms of people who continually cry about wanting more "quality" electronics, yest consistently purchasing the cheapest crap they can get their hands on. When you talk to them, they claim that quality and reliability are things they value highly. However their consumption habits show that isn't the case, what they value is low cost an features.
Also it is likely that what people value depends on the kind of game. In some kinds of games, plot is unimportant. A good example would be an online shooter. Even if there was a fairly good plot, people would skip it to get to the game. The point is to get in with other people and play in a simple, non-persistent environment. However in RPGs, plot is often much more important. People play the game to experience the story. Likewise, in some RPGs multi-player might actually be a drawback. You don't want other people ruining your experience of the story.
So I agree it is silly to look at reviews and say "This is what is important to gamers." No, that may be what they claim is important, may not be what they actually buy on. Likewise it may be important only for certain types of games.
Social aspects are very important to my in TF2. The ability to play with others is what makes the game fun, and the ability to have lists of friends and to talk in game is very important to me enjoying it. Plot is not. I'm fine with the fact that there is no plot to speak of, I'd not bother with it if there were. I want to get in and shoot people.
Socials aspects are not important to Mass Effect. Frankly, I want to be left alone when I play that, it is like a good book where I wish to get enveloped in the story. Plot is highly important. The biggest reason I like that game is its amazing story. I find myself very drawn to it and, like a book, wanting to finish the "good parts" when I get to them.
Both games are good in different ways, both have received my money. Neither would be improved by trying to take what makes the other good.
Re:Nahh (Score:5, Insightful)
"before multiplayer"? Weren't both Space War and Pong multiplayer-only?
Re:For certain markets... (Score:2, Insightful)
huge hits recently such as Bioshock and Mass Effect show pretty clearly that a good plot, solid setting, and good graphics are key to a blockbuster game.
And Wii Fit shows quite the opposite...
Re:Who cares about a neurotypical average HERE? (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting - so you're posting on a social website about the fact that you don't like social games?
Seems odd, maybe it's just me but anyone who really didn't like to interact probably wouldn't be posting on slashdot.. I mean if slashdot isn't a social site what is? Isn't 99% of the content user generated, the vast bulk of it effectively a giant chat room? As in almost 100% social?
I suspect that the issue you have with games isn't the social side, although you're decided it is, I suspect there's something else you don't like about it - maybe you don't react very fast, maybe you don't come across well when speaking to other players. I've met many people who if they're not good at something they 'hate' it, but something they're good at they like - and it's so rare to have them convert that hate to motivation, to try harder... If I'd never seen this post by you, I might believe you, but since you posted, socially, about your hate of social games I just can't believe that's the case - if you hated social interaction that much then you wouldn't be on slashdot.
But regardless of that paradox (and looking at how many items you've posted it appears to be one heck of a paradox) I don't quite understand the point of the post...
Are you suggesting that games developers spend a disproportionately large amount of time writing code to simulate a lot of NPCs to the level you desire for total immersion with the self confessed issue that price is certainly always a consideration and that you're amongst a non-interacting minority that would have to be pretty much directly advertised to? Or are you saying that your ultimate game is tetris? Or what exactly?
If you truly are as you describe (and I'm pretty sure that whilst you might think you are, the truth is likely different - most people seem to get answers before they even know what the question is) then why would any game developer really care? I mean you're not social so there's not going to be any word of mouth to boost sales of the game, you're going to play the same game a lot and find bugs that others don't see, and you're not that interested in paying a premium to get at that content.
Designing and creating a game for such a minority just isn't really a paying prospect, what I really don't understand is why you think it should be?
Why do you feel you're more evolved than the rest of us "Do they think evolution just stopped with the invention of language?" "some of us aren't hardwired the same as those monkeys you studied"? Isn't being different enough? Or does it have to be 'better' different?
I'm not meaning to have a go, or be mean (although I'm sure it'll look that way) but I always find it to be a very odd attitude people hold, regardless of how you define yourself - that your time (and therefore money) is valuable, but other peoples' time (and therefore money) isn't. You want the game, but you don't want to pay for it, you want a very specific and small niche but again aren't willing to pay for it. I don't know where people get this 'entitlement' attitude from but it seems very out of whack.
Odd.
Z.
Re:Makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
I think they simply don't know that there are different types of people who like different types of games.
Some people play for the shiny.
Some people play to collect.
Some people play to show off.
Some people play to talk.
Some people play to explore.
Some people play for the plot.
Lumping them all together will, by necessity, leave you with only the cross demographic factors like price, and some of the larger factors that cut across several groups. The show-offs, collectors and talkers all like multiplayer games because they require an audience, hence that shows up as a net positive as long as the other groups aren't actively opposed to multiplayer.
In short: Most people like pie. Therefore all games should be made of pie.