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.

Comments

I prefer instant blackout

[IndustrialComplex]

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.

Re:I prefer instant blackout

[orielbean]

Camper. Real snipers are trained to take the shot then move immediately to another position to avoid being detected.

Re:I prefer instant blackout

[IndustrialComplex]

Camper. Real snipers are trained to take the shot then move immediately to another position to avoid being detected.

I typically do, but 'Real snipers' aren't faced with an opponent who can resurrect themselves within 30 seconds and reach your old position in another 15.

My preference has less to do with playing the game as a sniper (my least favorite role actually) and more to do with playing the game as a commander and being able to hide my team's movements from the opposing team. Unfortunately that isn' really possible against an organized team unless you are at a LAN party and strictly enforce rules regarding 'speaking with the dead'.

Re:I prefer instant blackout

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding has been that they move after taking a shot, not because they seek to avoid being detected but because they seek to avoid being -located-. Taking a shot in and of itself will usually give away the presence of a sniper.

Re:I prefer instant blackout

[IndustrialComplex]

For me, death in a game is a chance to get a brief pause in the action, and reflect on my experience for that spawn period. I can joke with friends, curse, and plan what to do in my next 'life'.

In fact, I would say that death can be considered part of the game.

Re:I prefer instant blackout

[orielbean]

I can definitely sympathize with that! I think it would be fun to have just a C&C position, with no presence on the BF (like a spectator), and you could order the UAV scans, air strikes, helicopters, etc as your team earned different abilities. Also included would be the ability to listen in on enemy chatter and relate that info to your team. That way, both sides would keep the chatter low or use codephrases, etc to be more efficient. To be more real-world-based, you might add in the C&C as a position on the map, like the flag, that could be disabled, blinded, hindered, destroyed, etc in order to hamper the enemy.

Re:I prefer instant blackout

[Pojut]

I always find it hilarious if I am resurrected in the middle of a firefight in Battlefield 2. Just last night, the following happend to me:

There is a MEC manning the machine gunner position right next to the train wreck on Karkand. I manage to move around and get behind him, so I rush up on him and slice him with the knife. 1 kill. I then run around the other side of the concrete barrier and slice up a sniper who had been laying next to him on the other side of the fence (and somehow didn't see me.) 2 kills. I whip out my assault rifle and pop another MEC running down the bridge straight in the face with two three-shot bursts. 3 kills. Load up the grenade launcher attachment on the rifle, and take out a group of two MEC running next to each other across the bridge. 4 and 5 kills. By this time, four of my squad-mates have joined me in trying to cap the point...and I get sniped. Exhilarated, I sit back for a second...5 kills in a time span of ~30 seconds...I'm quite pleased with myself.

A medic revives me, only to have me instantly die from a grenade. Well crap, it happens. I spawn literally in the middle of a firefight near the large concrete ramp, in that little town square...end up getting teamkilled (i forgave the guy because his grenade got 2 MECs as well). I get rezzed, and get sniped. The same medic comes back and rezzes me. I take one step forward, and blow up a claymore. I respawn right next to the tracks this time, and before I can even move I get killed by an artillary strike.

I never took more than a step after respawning before I got taken out again. This went on for a total of 7 times. I had to disconnect from the game, I couldn't stop laughing:-)

Spawn camping bothers me...these kinds of things humour me.

Re:I prefer instant blackout

[Lumpy]

I prefer to be a suicide bomber. I love playing urbanTerror as you can bumrush a room with a grenade in hand. if they kill you when you enter the room they die as you drop the grenade and it bounces over, if you make it to them they die.

It's great. I love it when people get really pissed because I do it to them over and over because they cant pick a new spot to camp.

Re:I prefer instant blackout

[IndustrialComplex]

You should give Natural Selection www.unknownworlds.com/ns/ a try. When I played it was based on the HL engine and gave you two options, marines or aliens for a team.

One person on the marines was the 'commander' and had a top down C&C style view. He could give orders, set waypoints, hand out weapons, and progress through an upgrade tree. The rest of the marines were just plain old FPS style, but relied on the commander to keep them supplied as they fought.

The aliens on the other hand, had no leader, but information was shared between them (If one alien saw an enemy, the rest of the players could 'sense' that enemy, and you would receive notification that an area was under attack, etc. Just no central leadership mode)

It was a game that I greatly enjoyed. I remember it when it was fairly beta, had a few chats with Charlie Cleveland (he likely won't remember, but I did appreciate his discussions about building up Unknown Worlds). I sincerely hope that it grows since it got a lot of things 'right'.

Re:I prefer instant blackout

[meringuoid]

I prefer to be a suicide bomber. I love playing urbanTerror as you can bumrush a room with a grenade in hand. if they kill you when you enter the room they die as you drop the grenade and it bounces over, if you make it to them they die.

Suicide bombing can be a brilliant tactic, at least in fantasy worlds where death is survivable and you get to respawn immediately afterwards; a bit unrealistic unless you can imagine some fool convinced that that's the case in reality, so not one for those of us who like a simulation more than a fragfest. I remember a Quake map that had a big ol' moat around a central keep. A lot of warren-like tunnels dropped people into that moat, so there were generally quite a few in there. So, the plan: First, find the electric gun. Second, jump in the water. Third, ZZZZZAP!

Sure, I take a penalty for killing myself, but I took a half-dozen guys with me. Oh, how it pissed them off.

Re:I prefer instant blackout

[caramelcarrot]

I also recommend NS, though it's probably a bit dead these days - it's given me some of the deepest, most intense and most tactical FPS/RTS experiences. Proper team play, not just helping a team mate because you'll get extra points, I'm eagerly awaiting NS2.

Perhaps...

[Kagura]

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.

Maybe it's like gambling

[wattrlz]

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.

not with every game...

[Floritard]

Yea not if it's a fucking spy and my medic just got uber. Nothing zen-like tends to follow that.

death for a good cause is satisfying

[Kristoph]

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.

]{

Only when interesting...

[i.r.id10t]

Only when it is an interesting death, or a particularly cool suicide move - sorta like the teleporter "accidents" in classic Quake/QuakeWorld

tail end of a quake quad rocket

[Brigadier]

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.

Sometimes I like dying in an FPS

[halivar]

Like when someone sticks me with a plasma grenade, and I chase them down and take them with me. That's satisfying.

Zen state my ass...

[provigilman]

Obviously, this guy has never me at a Halo party... I don't go into "Zen" when I die, I just do a lot of cursing.

For example, spawning on a grendade that kills you about 0.5 seconds after you come back usually elicits the following response: "&%#! you mother #@%!$&, that was bull$&#!"

A different analysis

[digitalderbs]

The study found that "death of the player's own character...appear[s] to increase some aspects of positive emotion
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.

Re:A different analysis

[gsslay]

It sounds to me that the researchers here got way too involved with gameplay "dying", simply because it's called "dying". Would they be attempting draw the same conclusions if it was called "5 minute time-out", which is what it has more in common with real life?

"Dying" in an online game is nothing like dying. You are not faced with any finality. It is not the ultimate sacrifice and not the grim reaper that comes to us all, without option. It's just part of your participation in the game, a small set-back, a respite from the action.

So any comparison with the zen of after-life experience is the biggest load of hooey you're likely to encounter this week.

Re:A different analysis

[Mr. Sanity]

I agree with this sentiment. Really, in most FPS games, you need to divorce yourself from the thought of "dying." Very often, it is to your (and your team's) advantage to perform tactical self-sacrifice. Scout and a Soldier about to cap Point A? Hop onto the platform to pause the cap. Sure they're shooting at you. But if you can take one or both with you, great! If not, at least you paused the cap long enough for teammates to show up and stop the cap. Besides, if you "die", you have a few seconds of watching the action and seeing hotspots on the map before coming back good as new. Hell, sometimes dying in combat is more convenient that hunting down a medic or waiting for a med pack to spawn when on your last point of health.

Yeah I enjoy dying

[Cornflake917]

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.

007 Nightfire

[comm2k]

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.

Depends Call OF Duty 4 Example

[Buzz_Litebeer]

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.

Text of Journal Article (1 Table and Plot omitted)

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Dying means you're being challenged

[MooseMuffin]

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.

Re:Dying means you're being challenged

[aitikin]

I was seriously just about to post something similar to this. Dying means that there's still a reason to play. It's like when you played Super Mario and couldn't get past that blasted level. You died time and time again, but finally found a way through.

I know when I die in multiplayer games, my face kinda lights up like, "Aw, shit! How'd he get me!?" It's just kinda the nature of the beast, isn't it?

Re:You wouldn't enjoy it against this guy

[plague3106]

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!

Mr. Toad's Wild Ride: ends in hell

[dpbsmith]

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.

Re:Mr. Toad's Wild Ride: ends in hell

[geminidomino]

Hey, man! Fucking SPOILER warning, ok!?

Team Fortress 2 is a perfect example

[spyrochaete]

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

Re:not this gamer

[XanC]

Still a classic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8pR1rZZHEs

Re:You wouldn't enjoy it against this guy

[omeomi]

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?

No.

[CaptnMArk]

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).

Oh, there's just one problem here...

[FreelanceWizard]

...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.

A matter of "fair"

[ShinmaWa]

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.

Re:You wouldn't enjoy it against this guy

[Slashdot Suxxors]

Halo 3's camera system is phenomenal. It gives my victims a good view to watch me teabag them.

Re:You wouldn't enjoy it against this guy

[MrNemesis]

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!

;)

Re:I like it if I get pwned

[sm62704]

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!"