|
2. Tutorials integrated into combat.
As games (and controllers) become more and more complex, teaching players the mechanics of the game has become one of the big challenges for developers in general.
All our research indicates that male game players in the 18 to 34 year-old demographic are not receptive to being told what to do -- and they learn most effectively by doing.
We've seen two side effects that reinforce the importance of having engaging tutorials. First, and most obviously, players who don't know how to play the game consistently have lower recorded engagement levels throughout their play session, as they continue to struggle to immerse themselves in gameplay, even after the introductory tutorials and levels have finished.
Second, long and boring tutorials delay the first moment of engagement, that critical moment when players realize they can indeed be immersed in this game. In some games we've tested, the first strongly engaging event does not occur until 20 minutes into the experience, a lifetime for a gamer who just wants to have fun.
The most important takeaway for developers regarding this finding is to not leave the creation of tutorials until the end of the production cycle. Tutorials can (and moving forward into future generations of hardware, will) be the first moment of true engagement in the game.
Two games that add new gameplay in this test sample were Gears of War and Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2. The former adds a cover mechanic. Ghost Recon has a cross-com remote camera heads-up display, squad-based combat, smoke grenades, unmanned aerial vehicles -- the list goes on and on.
These games engaged users quickly with a simple strategy. Players were thrown into action and were threatened, and were expected to learn. The player learns to throw grenades not by tossing one into a dummy box target, but by utilizing them against enemies with real consequences on the line.
Gears of War not only forces players to learn gameplay mechanics under fire, but it gives them the option of skipping the tutorial altogether and being thrown directly into battle. Forty percent of subjects in our study did in fact skip the tutorial, but regardless of whether they did this, they engaged with the game strongly and quickly. In fact, average engagement during the first level was comparable to that in subsequent levels.
The entire first level of Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 is a tutorial, a "simulation" that nonetheless has failure conditions and appears indistinguishable from standard combat. An emotional and adrenaline climax occurs when players utilize smoke grenades and explosive charges to take out a heavily outfitted, armored personnel carrier.
In fact, the alternation between the calm of instruction and the intensity of trying new tactics against powerful enemies created a big emotional roller coaster that registered as one of the top two most engaging events out of the eight titles we studied.
3. Bring players down to bring them back up.
The roller coaster analogy is an apt one to describe players' engagement and physiological responses. The fun lies in going up and down on the ride. Staying at the same elevation is about as much fun as riding a monorail. Creating emotional drama, of course, is easier said than done in video games.
It seems counterintuitive, but the most intense points of engagement in the titles in our study were often the result of calm moments. Downtime, a period of lower engagement, is not always bad. Periodic but brief lulls in action allow for more intense action sequences and stronger reactions to climactic final battles. The emphasis is on "brief"; take too long, and players are truly disengaged and want (to continue the analogy) to get off the ride.
The most important thing for developers to understand is that the two elements -- big intense events and brief lulls -- must both occur. One doesn't function without the other.
Examples of big, high-intensity moments included epic courtyard battles (Call of Duty 3, Resistance, Gears of War), powerful enemy bosses (Ghost Recon, Gears of War), and swarms of small ones (Half-Life 2, Resistance, and Gears of War).
Creating the calm before the storm is much trickier. We identified a few strategies. In Gears of War, there's a surprising amount of walking around, listening to the radio com -- and these moments explicitly calm players just before hordes of Locusts appear from their emergence holes.
Half-Life 2 used a different method. In between combat, puzzles provided an emotional break from action. As expected, these puzzles did not evoke adrenaline, but they did elicit engagement and more specifically, positive emotion in droves. Engagement was 17 percent higher than the benchmark, and the recorded level of positive emotion upon completion (the "reward" feeling of finishing) was additionally nearly 20 percent higher than the norm. It is Half-Life 2's back and forth between the adrenaline of combat and the reward of puzzles that creates its roller coaster.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
One thing I wondered about was the use throughout the article of the word "engagement." This term was used most of the time to refer to physical engagement, to grabbing a player's attention through on-screen action content that stimulates physical excitement responses. The one exception to this usage referred to Half-Life 2's puzzles as an "emotional break from action" that generated their own distinct form of positive response. (Actually, calling HL2's puzzles an "emotional" break seemed to me to be a rather odd description for puzzle play, which I see as being more about achieving intellectual satisfaction than as gameplay for generating and relieving emotional tension.)
Other than that usage, however, "engagement" usually seemed to mean just adrenaline production. For the shooters being studied, that makes sense. But what about other kinds of games? Do other kinds of games produce less engagement? Or can they produce equal levels of different kinds of engagement?
I'd enjoy seeing the results of research by EmSense into those questions. In addition to the physical engagement typical of the shooters studied here, aren't there computer games that elicit intellectual engagement (such as 4X games) or emotional engagement (such as Petz or Façade)? Given that "cognition" is already said to be measured in some way, I'd think EmSense might be able to evaluate intellectual engagement... but what's the proper sensory metric for detecting whether emotional engagement is high or low?
It would be interesting to see what makes one game that focuses on a particular style of play more engaging than another such game. For example, could EmSense's data-collection methodology explain why Master of Orion 2's gameplay was popular while that of MoO3 was not?
Perhaps even more interesting would be to see whether games that hit on all three cylinders are typically more engaging to more gamers than games that provide just one mode of fun but do it well.
Finally, what about the possibility that some gamers -- whether innately or through experience -- are wired to enjoy one form of play-stimulus more than other forms? Would EmSense's research provide support for the theory that there is a biological basis for different psychologies of play?
I hope we can look forward to reading more research results from EmSense.
Really though, interesting research.
Melee systems are clearly horrible when you're just two blokes running in circles, prodding each other with spoons, which is what happens when you nerf their damage. However, damage isn't the only affect you could have from the attacks. Add some juice some other way.
I'm wondering if you could use this technology to graph more subtle sensations such as confusion, delight, surprise, frustration against a timeline for a game without a core fighting mechanic.
My point lies in game mechanics such as Machine Gun Turrets and Sniper Rifles.
It's mentioned that Call of Duty 3 allows a player to distance themselves, and be protected, while using the sniper rifle. While this is true, I personally often find Sniper Rifles completely useless in most games because not enough cover is provided. The Sniper Rifle is one of my favorite weapons, because it's tactical and hands-off - I can take my enemy down without him even knowing I'm watching him.
Machine Gun Turrets can be equally frustrating. While it's more engaging to have a small turret in the open where the player can be hurt by using it, being unable to use these weapons because it's too likely to cause failure turns them into a tease. The problem is worse with turrets that have warm-up times before they'll fire.
My point is that, while some experiences may be more engaging, they can also be more frustrating. They cause the gamer to pay more attention, but sometimes piss them off. Special care must be taken to provide fun -and- engaging play.
Does all close combat cause an increase in engagement or is it simply melee? The way the article is written would first have you believe all close combat is engaging, even close combat where you fire your gun instead of melee. However the article then goes on to focus on close combat that is centered around melee. Since the article doesn't really provide a distinction between the two in terms of data it's left me wondering.
My 'instinct' (hardly a match for hard data I know) would be that any close combat, melee or with a gun, would cause an increase in engagement. When a player is engaged in close combat the perceived threat is likely to be more than when engaging a foe from afar. On top of that the player now has to actually be more focused to actually succeed. In close quarters combat the player is at risk of their target quickly getting out of their FoV or aim which adds to the danger and excitement of the encounter.
I'd really be curious to see what the Aggregate response of an encounter at close quarters without melee is compared to one where a player does have a strong melee option. My estimate would be that simply being in close quarters with a high level of perceived danger would be enough to cause a large amount of engagement and the presence of a rewarding melee option (like the lancer) simply builds on top of that engagement.
Absolutely you can. Psychology research has been studying these things for decades now. Further, research in Augmented Cognition is looking at the use of physiological measures to dynamically change simulation parameters (reduce/increase workload based on perceived stress, frustration, etc.)
There is still a lot of work to be done, in so far as identifying the unique physiological signs for a particular feeling. Does this increase in heart rate coupled with decreased breathing mean excitement or frustration? What pattern can be seen in brain alpha and beta waves? These are questions that are complicated and very likely context dependent. But researchers are looking into them.
In particular, you might be interested in what is known as a breaks in presence. Substitute presence for the "immersion" or "engagement" terms often used in gaming, as presence research encapsulates both. Basically, a break in presence is the point where the person realizes that they are no longer in the virtual world.
See the following paper if you want to learn more.
Dustin B. Chertoff, Sae Lynne Schatz, Rudy McDaniel, Clint A. Bowers: Improving Presence Theory Through Experiential Design. Presence 17(4): 405-413 (2008)
l
In the former, melee is actually pretty ineffective barring a sneak attack. However, it provides the very useful ability to push away zombies in a wide swath. The combat itself is, for the most part, heavily focused on very short ranges. In the latter, close combat is emphasized only as a way to avoid combat - disarm an opponent and then run.
Let's take a 2D shmup like Metal Slug. We can learn something from its design using this formula. Metal Slug (the whole series, but I'll be talking about the first game in particular) has high-powered weapons that increase engagement by giving the player considerably greater firepower (and sometimes, like the flame thrower, producing interesting effects when used). Everyone's favorite weapon, the Shotgun, is also a close-combat weapon and has VERY destructive firepower, but also slow rate of fire (Metal Slug also has the combat knife for close-range). Unsurprisingly, grenades are also fun to use (and therefore engaging) due to their high firepower, splash damage, and spammability. Additionally, simply getting a high-powered weapon or lots of grenades does not guarantee success, as the player may die in one hit at any time and lose the weapon.
However, there is also tactics involved with weapons use, something that can be whittled down to player choice. For instance, in Eternal Darkness (a 3d action game), I have a choice between chopping off the zombie's head or severing its limbs; I can also use projectile weapons or melee weapons. In Splinter Cell, I can choose which route to take through the level. This lets players develop a strategy that is most effective by giving them meaningful choices.
In Metal Slug, the player gets to choose which weapon to take down the enemy with - the flame thrower has limited range, but it can penetrate riot shields; the heavy machinegun fires rapidly and at a diagonal, but has comparatively lower damage. You can also destroy the tanks with spike shields by throwing a grenade onto the back or by taking out the shield with a lot of firepower. Finally, in Metal Slug 3, I can also choose which path to take through the levels, adding replay and engagement through meaningful choice.
Metal Slug also has turrets and vehicles. Turrets have high firepower, but they provide no protection and turn the player into a stationary target. Driving the tank gives the player an extra level of defense and greater firepower, but ultimately does not guarantee success, as the tank can only absorb three hits before it is destroyed, and enemy tanks and boss vehicles have tough armor. Finally, the player is rewarded for surviving a level without getting killed through prisoner bonuses and also keeping the tank until the end.
The use of death animations is also important for reward: you want to provide the player with something fun and interesting beyond the simple goal of killing something. Sprays of blood and debris (both present in Metal Slug - and in vast profusion) adds to this by creating spectacle. Death animations in Metal Slug also contain a unique blend of slapstick, and the variety of animations and how they are triggered means soldiers don't always die the same way - so I would add variety to engagement as well. Ragdoll physics tend to do this as well and can create humor when a large number of enemies is annihilated at once by an explosion.
Regarding pacing, the most obvious element is minibosses and end bosses. Bosses are inherently difficult and take many bullets to defeat, producing a more frenetic battle. Additionally, Metal Slug creates screens full of enemies (such as the dozens of soldiers coming out of the caves in the final level), each providing its own challenge. Metal Slug 3's final stage is one great roller coaster, taking the player from jetpacks and airplanes to rocket ships and an alien spaceship. It also provides nice breathers between sections. The unique thing to learn from here is that each screen tends to have something different inside it, creating clear progression and variety. While most FPS games don't have bosses, they do contain rushes of enemies or several tough enemies that help keep the outcome in doubt (a boss fight is inherently doubtful simply because the enemy is so big and powerful).
While a 2D shmup may not be as popular a genre as the FPS, they clearly have similarities and applicable designs. Doug Church says that for design to be a practice, we should be able to take something from a 2D shmup and apply it to the baseball game we're making. Shoot to Thrill provides just that kind of formal abstract design tool that we so desperately need.
http://www.acagamic.com/features/shoot-to-thrill-%E2%80%93-biofeedback-in-games-
and-player-experience/
Goods
• I think the only really good Close Combat mechaninc I had in Bioshock. In CS, UT and some other, Melee is about killing the hardest way, by being smart and creative.
• In UT playing agaist vehicles feels more nice, even its very hard to do win agaist some.
• In Bioshock and CS, melee and stealth are probably the best rewarding tasks and best adrenaline callers, more than in games about that gameplay, when its just easy to do all the time.
Bads
• For me, I don't wanna play a puzzle unless its a puzzle game. HL is more a puzzle than action game, thats like having your toy stolen by a bully kid, "you only have your game back after you solve (guess/acurately jump) this puzzle.
• The Tank level in COD2 works the same, "ok now you're not in COD anymore, play this or you can't go back to the game".
• Sometimes adrenaline ups and faster heartbeating can mean the player just fears failure, sometimes because controls are strugle or a sudden close combat is out of what he has been learning to use and to enjoy. Doesn't mean player liked that or felts engaged or felt it was good.
@Devin Monnens, Metal Slug series are one of the best and most complete games ever. No 3D next-gen titles goes even near to Metal Slug. Something about Metal Slug and some older 2D games, and I've seen used in RE4, is making the same enemy have various versions, using diferent equipment and behavior and adding new features by the game, like worms poping their heads out. It's what does not happens with the Seeders in GOW, thats the point, first time you have what to expect, but only first time.