What Went Wrong
1. Cutscenes that inform, rather than entertain.
Cutscenes open up a big opportunity for creating a cinematic experience. Games like Call of Duty 3, F.E.A.R., and Gears of War leverage them successfully to stimulate emotion in players.
However, other titles in this study struggled with maintaining engagement during cutscenes more than any other element. Players say they want them, but cutscenes in general are not as engaging as combat or other interactive gameplay. All too often, cutscenes simply served as the cursory bridge between two levels.
Underperforming cutscenes showed a distinct pattern. Most were highly informational and involved "talking heads" or narration. Briefing-style cutscenes often fall into this category. For instance, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 evoked an incoherent response during cutscenes across players. Its scripted briefings did not consistently engage players. Players did not even strongly think about the information in the briefings, a clear sign that these cutscenes were not grabbing players' attentions.
In Resistance, engagement dropped significantly in 57 percent of cases during cinematics. Cutscenes here recount the Chimeran attack and Nathan Hale's journey, leading to long sections of emotional disengagement. Dynamic scenes of action and conversation between characters, on the other hand, demonstrated a stronger ability to engage and influence emotions.
Even extremely high-performing games suffer from disengaging cut scenes. Halo 2's cutscenes disengaged players 64 percent of the time, in stark contrast to its extremely engaging core gameplay. Results like this confirm that Halo 2 single player is fun more for the joy of combat than any cut scene or storyline element. It also suggests that, given the tight timeframes inherent in every production schedule, knowing how to allocate production efforts is as important as game design itself.
The proper use of cutscenes is certainly one area we feel has broad applicability across genres, particularly as next-gen, triple-A titles are increasingly expected to deliver big cinematic experiences. Indeed, it raises questions about the role of cutscenes: to inform or entertain.
Predictably, Gears of War seems to get it right. Its cutscenes are filled with action, while information is largely communicated via radio and conversations during lulls in gameplay, in between firefights. Our data demonstrates that entertaining cutscenes engage and connect with players at the emotional level.
2. Boot camps and training areas.
We've all seen the classic boot camp in war movies, televisions shows, and video games. Pushed on by staff sergeants, recruits are put through the paces and come out stronger and ready to fight.
There's only one problem: The act of learning to shoot a gun, throw grenades, and perform hand-to-hand combat against dummy targets isn't very engaging. In the critical first minutes of the game, when players' first impressions are made, tutorials isolated from the action and storyline leave players emotionally disengaged.
Nowhere was this more apparent than in Call of Duty 3. Its training area, where players are taught how to fight without danger or penalty for failure, led to below-average emotional engagement for the first seven minutes of gameplay -- that's seven long minutes when players are not immersed and not entertained. Only when players were thrust into battle did engagement rise again.
Through our years of testing and analyzing video games, we've found very few absolute rules in game design, but this one seems to come close. Titles that do not make its tutorials a "game," with their own sets of rewards and failure conditions, are not as engaging as those that do.
3. Broken roller coasters.
There's only so much intensity players can handle. Games that try to keep intensity continuously high created (counter-intuitively) an experience that was actually less intense, less cinematic, and less "epic."
This problem occurred in two ways. First, games that do not vary the intensity of events ultimately began to lose players. Over time, we measured what amounted to attenuation. These games actually led to smaller and smaller responses to each repetitive event. Halo 2 excelled in fast-paced action, but one side effect was a single player experience that was less intense. In the first level of Halo 2, players only faced a mix of smaller threats. As a result, the intensity of that level was up to 40 percent lower than in other games.
Second, level designs that begin with an intense firefight may have captured players' attention, but often they overshadow subsequent events. Players' engagement across the rest of the level, by comparison, was significantly lower in these circumstances. It amounts to an emotional letdown.
For example, the second level of Call of Duty 3 starts with an extremely intense battle, but players' emotional engagement for the rest of the level was comparably lower. This was not the climactic finish that we've heard so many developers want to try to shoot for.
4. Repetition and assured outcomes.
We also discovered how important novelty and its close cousin, the unknown, are to engaging players. The Seeder in Gears of War provides a nice case study of this phenomenon. In the first 90 minutes of gameplay, players encounter three Seeders, one at a time. Killing them can only be done with the Hammer of Dawn weapon, and taking them down is crucial to restoring radio communications.
The result is that the novelty of the first encounter with this enemy makes the gameplay intensely engaging. However, the second and third encounters with Seeders do not engage players at nearly the same level of intensity. In some sense, emotion data demonstrated that players only went through the motions with the second and third Seeders.
Do exceptions exist? Sure they do, even in the same game. The wretches in Gears of War, fast-moving, crawling, and with swarms of Locust enemies, consistently engaged players in part because players were often pinned to the only thing that could save them, a Troika machine gun turret.
We think the important distinction here is not repetition, but the unknown outcome. Once players locked onto the Seeder with the Hammer of Dawn, it was fairly clear that it was going down pretty quickly. However, for each wave of Wretches, the player had no idea if he would be able to fight them off in time.
|
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.