Slashdot Mirror
Do Gamers Enjoy Dying in First-Person-Shooters?
Ponca City, We Love You writes "Brandon Erickson has an interesting post about an experiment on players' emotional reactions to killing and being killed in a first-person shooters (FPS) with a group of students who played James Bond 007: Nightfire while their facial expressions and physiological activity were tracked and recorded moment-to-moment via electrodes and various other monitoring equipment. The study found that "death of the player's own character...appear[s] to increase some aspects of positive emotion." The authors believe this may result from the temporary "relief from engagement" brought about by character death. "Part of this has to do with the intriguing aesthetic question of precisely how the first-person-shooter represents the player after the moment of death," says Clive Thompson. "This sudden switch in camera angle — from first person to third person — is, in essence, a classic out-of-body experience, of exactly the sort people describe in near-death experiences. And much like real-life near-death experiences, it tends to suffuse me with a curiously zen-like feeling." An abstract of the original article, "The psychophysiology of James Bond: Phasic emotional responses to violent video game events" is available on the web." Obnoxiously this alleged scholarly research is not available for free, so we'll just have to speculate wildly what it says based on the abstract.
I've always preferred servers and games (DoD for example) that provided an instant 'blackout' effect on death.
It always annoyed me to spend a great deal of time moving my character into a unique hiding spot, only to have someone suicide rush me after my position was betrayed by the after-death features that pointed directly to my location.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Perhaps they enjoy the emotional transaction that takes place at time of death? I enjoy making small bets often and challenging other people to tiny competitions for no reason, simply because of the "Awwww, I lost and you won" transaction that takes place. I don't know if other people feel this, but I know that I do. For small things that don't matter, I am not terribly concerned with winning or losing.
When you loose it makes you the underdog, so your final victory will just be that much more glorius when fate smiles on you once again.
Yea not if it's a fucking spy and my medic just got uber. Nothing zen-like tends to follow that.
I don't know about first person shooters but I must say that in WoW I get a certain satisfaction from dying 'in the name of the cause', like causing an alliance wipe in AV on Galv with a last ditch fear or dropping from the cliff onto the GM to keep the flag from getting capped.
]{
Dying in the commision of my objective isn't so bad.
Spawn killing and Tking piss me off,M'kay?
Urban Terror Rules!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Only when it is an interesting death, or a particularly cool suicide move - sorta like the teleporter "accidents" in classic Quake/QuakeWorld
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
I recall the glory days of quake world. There was no feeling like camping in the dark and seeing a quad rocket launcher coming in your direction. You just knew it was over the only thing you could do was pay homage to whichever POS it was who sighted you hung on some rune in a dark corner.
Like when someone sticks me with a plasma grenade, and I chase them down and take them with me. That's satisfying.
For example, spawning on a grendade that kills you about 0.5 seconds after you come back usually elicits the following response: "&%#! you mother #@%!$&, that was bull$&#!"
"Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
I have a much more simple explanation. Players like it because it means that they're not being ignored. Having "friends" that pay attention to you is a huge plus for geeks.
Because there's an interesting study of psychology here, and finding out how the brain works is one of the most important things that we can do this next century. It's an interesting result because death is usually considered bad in these games, so why would gamers enjoy them? Is it to get a respite from the action? Is it because they feel they've achieved something by their death? Is it because that segment of action is done and they feel the fulfillment of everything that happened that life? There are applications beyond gaming and, honestly, even if it didn't, it's pretty damn interesting.
I enjoy dying so much that a few times in college, when dying in a Counter-Strike game, I picked up my monitor and threw it. I was smart enough to throw it on my bed, however. My roommate was kind of scared of me.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
I cuss like a sailor when I die in a game... typically followed by accusations everyone else is cheating.
Imagine that German kid from the youtube video (i'd link if I wasn't at work).. and that's basically me.. except I'm a bit older, not quite a pudgy, speak English.. and only rant for about 10 seconds.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
With a crappy game like 007 Nightfire of course I'd be relieved as well if could take a moment and not have to play this crap.
When I die in COD 4 while defending an objective, or simply beat out by someone more clever/luckier than I am when running the map, it is fine. Especially if the death is in a last ditch effort against a group of players while defending in Headquarters or Domination.
What gets me angry, cursing and fuming, is dieing pointlessly to helicopters, martyrdom and other elements which detract from skillful play. I also dislike dieing after spawning with my back to someone pointing a gun to my head, or dieing from a grenade that landed right where I was spawning.
So I think it really comes down to what kind of "death" it is.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
That's Nightfire. Of course, in a better multiplayer FPS, such as GoldenEye or Perfect Dark, you're stuck inside the character with 'blood' streaming down your screen. (Not forgetting the musical cue!)
The Psychophysiology of James Bond : Phasic Emotional Responses to Violent Video Game Events
By: Niklas Ravaja
Center for Knowledge and Innovation Research, Helsinki School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland
Marko Turpeinen
Helsinki Institute for Information Technology, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland
Timo Saari
Center for Knowledge and Innovation Research, Helsinki School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland
Sampsa Puttonen
Department of Psychology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Liisa Keltikangas-Järvinen
Department of Psychology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Acknowledgement: This study was supported by the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation and European Community NEST project 28765: "The Fun of Gaming: Measuring the Human Experience of Media Enjoyment."
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Niklas Ravaja, Center for Knowledge and Innovation Research, Helsinki School of Economics, P.O. Box 1210, FIN-00101, Helsinki, Finland Electronic Mail may be sent to: ravaja@hse.fi.
We know very little about phasic emotional responses elicited by violent video game events, although they might mediate the potential harmful effects of violent games (Ravaja, Saari, Salminen, Laarni, & Kallinen, 2006). Several (although not all) authors have concluded that there is a causal relationship between violent video game play and aggressive behavior, cognitions, and affect (for meta-analyses, see Anderson, 2004; Anderson & Bushman, 2001; for an alternative meta-analysis, see Sherry, 2001). Violent games may elicit not only self-reported aggressive affect (i.e., feelings of anger or hostility) but also anxiety (fear; Anderson & Ford, 1986). An apparent limitation of the studies using self-report to measure emotional responses is that they neglect the fact that different game events may elicit different, even opposing, emotional responses (Ravaja, Saari, Salminen, et al., 2006). Prior studies have also shown that exposure to violent video games increases physiological arousal (e.g., Ballard & Weist, 1996; for a meta-analysis, see Anderson & Bushman, 2001). However, these studies have used tonic measures (e.g., 1-min mean physiological values) that give no information on responses elicited by specific, instantaneous game events.
The present study was designed to examine phasic psychophysiological responses indexing emotional valence and arousal elicited by violent events in the first-person shooter video game "James Bond 007: NightFire." Facial electromyographic (EMG) activity over zygomaticus major and corrugator supercilii was used to index positive and negative emotions, respectively (e.g., Lang, Greenwald, Bradley, & Hamm, 1993; Ravaja, 2004a), and orbicularis oculi activity was used to index positively valenced high-arousal emotions (Ravaja, Saari, Kallinen, & Laarni, 2006; Witvliet & Vrana, 1995). Electrodermal activity (EDA) was used as an index of arousal (Ravaja, 2004a). Obviously, violent video games (e.g., first-person shooters) involve at least two different types of events that might elicit differential emotional responses: (a) The player (or player's character) wounds or kills an opponent and (b) the opponent wounds or kills the player's character. Given that wounding or killing an opponent represents a victory and a success in the game (and in a real gun fight), these events might elicit positively valenced arousal as indexed by facial EMG activity and EDA (Hypothesis 1a). However, the deeply ingrained moral code says that injuring or killing another human being is wrong, and symbolic aggression enacted by the player may elicit anxiety (see Anderson & Ford, 1986). Therefore, an alternative hypothesis would be that wounding or killing an opponent would elicit negatively valenced arousal (i.e., anxiety) as indexed by increased EDA and corrugator EMG activity and decreased zygomatic and orbicularis oculi activity (Hypothesis 1b).
Individuals scoring high on the Psychotici
I hope they didn't spend a huge amount of money on this research. Unless you're the rankest amateur, your character will probably survive until you get into a fairly impossible situation. So basically, you're 100% focussed, concentrating, fingers going crazy on whatever control mechanism you're using. I almost guarantee the last thing you did as that final bad guy popped up and you couldn't get your sights on him in time was pound on the fire button in a futile attempt to do the impossible. Then, all of a sudden, you're done. You take a deep breath, blink a few times, roll your shoulders, relax all those cramped muscles and maybe reach for your beer.
Wouldn't that pretty much account for whatever readings they're getting? Or, to put it a little less elegantly, "I got your 'intriguing aesthetic question' right here".
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Have you ever played a FPS where you're on the clearly better team and you just clobber the other guys for several rounds? For me it gets old real fast and I'll go find a more balanced server. If you're dying, you're at least being challenged. Its motivating and sometimes it gives you a particular opponent to gun for.
stop the presses!
Monstar L
When I take out 20 guys before I finally die :)
:p
That way I can use the voice chat to rub it in their faces after the fact
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
You know who wouldn't do that?
Why, the Flying Spagetti Monster of course! He'll never leave you room for desert, always quite satisifying!
If you run the same test on roller coaster passengers, I suspect that many might show a similar response at the end of the ride. At that point, you might reflect on your total experience. If you had a good time, you might smile desire to go again. If you're disappointed, your face might sag into a "What? That's it?" expression.
When I played Counter-Strike, I'd be very pleased upon my death if I managed to take down more than two opponents per round. Death is just the end of the ride and getting upset by it every time seems rather childish to me.
I can understand the disappointment from a poor death, though. Fsking AWPs. ^_^
The former Walt Disney World attraction, "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride," ended with the car breaking through railroad crossing gates and heading down the railroad tracks, apparently directly toward an oncoming train. In reality, all that is there besides the sound effects is a dazzlingly bright headlight, making it almost impossible to see that you are heading toward a doorway in the black-painted room.
As you emerge after your "collision," the final scene in the ride show numerous devils with tridents.
If Walt Disney, always a good judge of such things, thought that kids would enjoy the virtual experience, not merely of dying, but of being consigned to eternal damnation, it does not seems a far stretch to assume that gamers may enjoy it as well.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Sure, everyone prefers winning a game over losing, but as Hunter S. Thompson said, "Learn to enjoy losing." The best example of this in recent memory is Team Fortress 2. I haven't enjoyed a multiplayer FPS since the original Quake, mainly for the reason that everyone is better than me and I didn't enjoy consistently placing third-to-last. I'm really not any better in TF2 but the game is so well balanced, so stylish, and fast-paced that I smile or laugh every single time I'm defeated. It's a pleasure that keeps me playing.
A good game is one that acknowledges that the task you're given is too big for just one guy, but that's all you are. Play in the world and try unconventional tactics. If you fail, fail spectacularly. It's less fun to do so in the real world.
@ -- your liver
So on some games, after you give up the ghost, it's kind of a letdown. The other player gets to keep running around, and your teammates essentially desert you.
You, um, want your teammates to gather around your rag-doll body or pile of giblets mourning you until you press the space bar and come back to life?
You know who wouldn't do that?
Um...the Marines, I guess?
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
I have ruined at least one mouse in Q3A because you have to click for respawn only after one second delay
(clicks before are ignored).
...which is that the authors are basing their conclusions on the premise that physiological responses are purely indicative of specific emotional states. This is a position people like Ekman take as well, and it's easily falsified. Russell reviewed the literature around 2000 or so and found that, in fact, emotional displays are at least somewhat socially motivated and don't always equate to specific emotions in a one-to-one fashion (especially in speech). To put it more simply, you may smile because you're happy, but you might also smile because you're being sarcastic, because you're covering up frustration, etc. However, this study rests on the assumption that people only smile because they're happy -- period. (In all fairness, they're not exactly talking about smiling here, but the principle is the same.)
So, sure, if you're willing to accept that premise, then this study is great. If not, it's just another in a long line of studies that suggest, but do not convincingly prove, what emotions can be generated by particular events. Really, this study just again points out how insanely difficult it is to get to a "ground truth" of what emotions people experience.
And yes, I've read the article -- I happen to have electronic access to the journal.
The Freelance Wizard
I think you hit the nail on the head. The gameplay geniuses over at Valve touched on this very concept on their commentary track for Portal.
According to the commentary track, they closely watched the reaction of play testers when they died or otherwise failed. If they laughed as they died, they know they did the right thing. If they swore like a drunk sailor, something may need to be tweaked.
It all boiled down to a matter of perceived fairness. In your case, even though you were bested, you had fun because you knew that, fundamentally, you lost fair and square. However, if you discovered that kid with the unbelievable aim was cheating, I'm guessing you'd find that a lot less fun simply because it wasn't fair.
Same thing goes for puzzle games, single-player games, and MMO's. If the game is fair, you can have fun even if you fail. If the game isn't fair (i.e. the player has almost no chance of succeeding or the difficulty is far far too high), then no amount of playing will make it fun.
The
Hitler.
Halo 3's camera system is phenomenal. It gives my victims a good view to watch me teabag them.
it seems to me that the psyche knows the difference between phases of a video game and actually facing mortality. I find it hard to believe that "video game death" can in any way be related to real world psychological patterns surrounding death - for one, there are actually no consequences in the video game world, thus no real fear nor moral struggle.
Dessert is the anti-spaghetti, to believe in it is Pastafarian heresy. Honestly, I'm surprised bigoted religious tripe like your post is allowed past the /. lameness filter! There are NO false idols before, or after, the divine Flying Spaghetti Monster. So you're going to leave your bolognese to make room for dessert? I'm amazed you're allowed to live. One Nation, Al Dente!
;)
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
I think my youngest was 12 when I did those, I recorded her singing "Grandpa got dismembered by a shambler" and "I saw Mommie Fragging Santa Claus" and posted MP3s.
The ex freaked out over the second one; it had someone in a Kenny skin getting fragged with a sample from South Park saying "you bastard!" The future Evil-X was not amused. "That better not be one of MY kids!"
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
but then you lost me somewhere after alliance wipe and before cliff.