In an effort to better understand what drives player interaction and engagement, EmSense – a company that designs brain-monitoring and bio-sensing technology – conducted a study that measures physiological responses to games.
The study, which centers around first- and third-person console shooters, is comprised of over 300 hours of data, centered around the first 90 minutes of a number of titles. The study's aim was to determine which design elements spark a compelling experience, and which fall flat.
EmSense has developed a headset that measures physiological responses to media, including brainwaves, heart activity, breathing and temperature – variables which are used to calculate adrenaline levels, levels of engagement or interest, and emotional responses. For a blind, objective approach to the research, "event tags" are used to mark recurring instances between games (cutscenes, player deaths, etc), with the resulting data compared between titles.
While the titles included in the study are relatively old – Gears of War, Call of Duty 3, and Halo 2
, among others – the aim of the study is to examine game design, and not rate particular titles. The results aren't really surprising, but provide an interesting look at how successful titles are as entertaining as many players perceive them to be.
The study notes that a successful, engaging formula establishes frequent, intense action sequences, interspersed with brief periods of calm. Gears of War accomplished this "roller coaster" effect by tossing in radio conversations as you walked between firefights, which have the added bonus of filling players in on the narrative while they take a breather. Half-Life 2 takes a different approach by including the occasional puzzle, challenging a completely different skill set and adding a "reward feeling" between combat zones. In both cases, the calm complements the action sequences, tapering off the adrenaline rush so that next hit is so much sweeter.
Another successful tactic: close combat. Gears and Halo 2 excel here, with chainsaws and energy swords respectively, and the visceral nature of being in the proverbial trenches does wonders for adrenaline rushes. Gratuitous gore and the energized chatter of NPC allies doesn't hurt, either.
Designing the right weaponry plays a huge factor in how engaged players are. Extremely powerful weapons with predictable results generate a lull in excitement – take Gears' Hammer of Dawn, or the nearly indestructible tank segments in Resistance: Fall of Man. But toss in a powerful, fragile vehicle like Halo's iconic Warthog, offering ludicrous amounts of speed coupled with player-recklessness, and you've got an instant recipe for a successful action sequence.
But what we don't like is lots of dialogue, or instances where the action dies down for extended periods of time. Once again, Gears takes top marks for doing away with all of the bothersome exposition, keeping most of the information limited to radio chatter, and seamlessly incorporating it's tutorial into the games first action sequences. Resistance and Halo 2, on the other hand, disengaged gamers by devoting a comparatively lengthy amount of time to filling us in on current events, usually by way of non-interactive cutscenes.
The data amassed will likely be invaluable to game developers, as knowing what makes us tick is a surefire way to keep our wallets at the ready. But I'd really be interested in knowing more about the sample group, and seeing how other genres, like fighters or platformers, would compare.
The cynic inside me in on full alert, however: if we do get closer to having an established formula for getting gamers all hot and bothered, what's to stop big-budget game developers from following the same assembly-line, designed-by-committee pit that defines the pop music industry?
Image courtesy Activision
Shoot to Thrill: Bio-Sensory Reactions to 3D Shooting Games [Gamasutra]
See Also:
