Measuring Engagement In Games

Gamasutra is running an article written by Tim Hong of EmSense in which he describes the research his company did into the physiological reactions various games engender in players. In addition to outward cues like breathing and movement, EmSense also scans brainwaves and heart activity to provide a more complete picture of how a gamer is responding to what he sees and does. They collected hundreds of hours worth of data and made comparisons among a variety of shooters, such as Gears of War 2, F.E.A.R, and Half-Life 2. They found some interesting information on how pacing, tutorials, and cutscenes can affect a player's level of engagement with the games.

Comments

Just Shooters?

[Arainach]

While this could no doubt lead to some more interesting shooter games (a welcome change since it's been a while since an FPS not made by Valve has really struck me as top-grade), I'd personally be more curious to see the difference in engagement across genres - FPS, RTS, RPG, etc. I know that I personally get much more engaged into RPGs.

Re:Just Shooters?

[__aamnbm3774]

The best FPS I have ever played was Quake 1.
Mainly because internet-play was relatively new to gamers, the customizeability of every aspect of that game, and oh yea, because I was a Teenager!

I'm not trying to rip on you, but I don't think I've played a 'fantastic' FPS since then. I'm sure the same could be said by this current generation, who play Gears of War for the first time.

The games are still good, but you've just gotten used to them. (because you are old). Unfortunately, very few movies, even highly acclaimed ones, stir up my emotions as well. You can only do the same thing so many times before it becomes boring.

Re:Just Shooters?

[servognome]

Engagement Test Results:

85% - Half Life 2

Engagement test complete.
Congratulations, a party will be held in honor of your accomplishment. Please proceed to the end of the test chamber, lay face down on the floor, and await pickup.

Cake will be served.

COD : Modern Warfare

[nbharatvarma]

One of the most engaging games I have played this year. I don't play too many games, but the single player campaign in modern warfare was extremely appealing to me. [I played COD 1 and then COD4 was the next COD game I played]

NOTE: SPOILERS BELOW

SPOILERS BEGIN...............
The initial mission where you need to escape a ship which is drowning and make a desperate attempt to jump into the helicopter, being assassinated at close range and unable to do anything about it, the nuclear explosion thing, crawling in a field with just a sniper rifle and tens of troupes walking around you and the way the climax plays out with Price throwing you a gun, having to take headshots before finally killing the main antagonist.. Call of Duty 4 impressed me so much that I don't even want to buy COD 5 just in case it ruins the experience I had with COD 4.
END OF SPOILERS .............

Re:COD : Modern Warfare

[theredshoes]

I thought this article was worth reading. I am currently taking a senior level applied psychology course in which we read over the case study for Robber's Cave. If you are not familiar with it, here is a general finding from the study.

*When individuals having no established relationships are brought together to interact in group activities with common goals, they produce a group structure with hierarchical statuses and roles within it.*

What does this system or type of learning sound like to you? It sounds like the tried and true money/work system which everyone I know is so fond of. LOL :)

I don't think the findings are that surprising. It seems to me that younger age groups should probably start out with low level engagement or reward type games and then build up to the higher end engagement levels. Games with violence are obviously not for younger age groups, which is why there are age limits to certain violent or mature games.

As an adult, you have your own fail safes and mechanisms built in to determine your level of engagement in the game. I am more interested in the article and the findings, but I can't really give a coherent opinion on first person shooter games. I don't play them.

Re:COD : Modern Warfare

[Psychotria]

Thinking about it more, I think that CoD4 has great 'pace'. There are moments where things are very hectic which are followed by either more hectic moments or moments that are relatively quiet where you can collect your breath. I didn't find that so much in CoD4. Both CoD4 and 5 are linear, but the linearity seemed forced (to me) in CoD5 and it frustrated me a bit. CoD4 is linear as well, but it's not so rigid that it feels linear... there are always a few way to do things. In CoD5 I kept finding myself wanting to go places that I couldn't (this didn't really happen in CoD4... it was a good illusion). Also, the team members in CoD5 are extremely annoying... it seems that every time I go for cover so idiot AI comes and stands behind me so I can't move, or stands there shooting at something other than the enemy directly in front of us... I wanted to kill my AI team a lot in CoD5. CoD5 also has lots of bugs... 'triggers' not being triggered and you're standing there with nothing to do and nowhere to go unless you restart from the last checkpoint (from memory there are 2 bugs like this in the last 3 levels of the game... once when you're outside nazi headqaurters and you snipe 500 dudes and nothing ever happens and only 2 or 3 guys continue to spawn and run out of the building and until you try again and the trigger magically occurs and a column falls. Second, the last few seconds of the game... another trigger bug and you cannot finish (withouth restarting from the last checkpoint).. talk about a way to ruin a climax).

A little biased.

[mlheur]

With all the comments like "Predictably, Gears of War seems to get it right.", it seems to be more of a GoW praise article stating that this game has no flaws, but all the others do.

Also, the summary has a small error, article talks of games from 2007, namely GoW, not GoW2.

That's just happy, happy, joy, joy.

[Ostracus]

"They were actually surprised to see that people did react strongly when a seemingly important NPC gets killed. I guess they didn't play the original Half Life were people didn't want to get barney killed, even though the character has no consistence at all."

Of course I wanted Barney killed. That purple dinosaur has been vexing me for years.

Re:COD4 Was Garbage

[dougisfunny]

I bet his problem was he played it on the Xbox360, and we know of course that has mediocre graphics.

I thought it was a good game, played on the PC at least. Admittedly, I only really played the single player mode as I was unimpressed with the multiplayer.

I wonder if this is a case of "I hate the game because I bought the competing game" or "I hate the game because it isn't shiny, and I just on the shininess not gameplay."

Subjective

[Thyamine]

I think there is too much in this that's subjective though. One person may find a game highly engaging and allow themselves to become immersed, while someone else just plays games and ignores/doesn't allow themselves to get into it.

A simple movie example would be Blair Witch Project. There's nothing actually gorey/freaky in it, but if you allow the atmosphere and story to pull you in, it's very scary. On the other hand, I know several teens that told me it was completely lame/unscary because of that lack of visual content.

From the TFA

[denzacar]

We measured players' responses to the first 90 minutes of those games, a time that we consider the most important for making a positive impression.

More than 300 hours of physiological and gameplay data were generated and analyzed to develop our findings.

We came in with no preconceptions, no prejudices, and let the response data demonstrate what worked and what didn't. The results are at times a confirmation of existing techniques that are timeless to good game design, and at other times, surprising and revealing about what gamers truly care about but often can't find a way to say.

So...
8 games for 90 minutes comes to 12 hours. 300 / 12= 25.

25-30 "male game players in the 18 to 34 year-old demographic" played 8 FPS games for 90 minutes while being monitored in following fashion:

Biometric Data Gathered

Games in study:

        * Battlefield 2142
        * Call of Duty 3
        * F.E.A.R.
        * Gears of War
        * Ghost Recon AW 2
        * Resistance: Fall of Man
        * Halo 2
        * Half-Life 2

Player responses measured:

        * Brainwaves (through dry EEG sensors)
        * Heart Activity
        * Breathing
        * Blinking
        * Temperature
        * Motion

Factors of analysis:

        * Engagement
        * Emotion
        * Adrenaline
        * Cognition

Methodology

EmSense utilizes a next-generation, bio-sensory headset to measure consumers' responses to media. The headset measures brainwaves (through dry EEG sensors), heart activity, breathing, blinking, temperature, motion, and other physiological signals as gamers play.

Proprietary algorithms built on decades of research literature and empirically verified with EmSense's testing of thousands of test participants, process physiological signals to develop models of engagement, emotion, adrenaline, and cognition. Each represents a different dimension of the game experience.

EmSense also utilizes analytic and data mining methods designed to be completely blind and objective. "Event tags" identify when and where events, like player deaths, occur. This is correlated with physiological data, then aggregated and benchmarked against other titles. The result is an objective, detailed view into what does and doesn't work to engage players.

Of course, you COULD HAVE set aside 15 minutes and read through those whole 5 pages of text.
Might have even picked up some insight from it, instead of just cold and dry numbers.