Slashdot Mirror
Variety, Social Aspects More Important To Game Success Than Graphics, Plot
proslack writes "In a study presented at the Human-Computer Interaction conference in Cambridge, England, British researchers Beale and Bond found that plot and graphics are not critical to the success of video games; price and the inclusion of social aspects (e.g. multiplayer or chat) were found to be more important."
An unfinished version of the paper (PDF) is available from the researchers' web site. They said, "One of the most unexpected findings was that gameplay was not featured as one of the most important categories to fulfill," though they acknowledge that variety and cohesion were measured separately from gameplay, which past studies have not done.
In other news fun is more important to a games success than graphics, plot.
Bull, as far as I am concerned:
1) Plot
2) Price
3) Graphics
.
.
.
374) Social
The findings might be true for certain markets, but huge hits recently such as Bioshock and Mass Effect show pretty clearly that a good plot, solid setting, and good graphics are key to a blockbuster game. The study is based on reviews made by gamers, and thus tends to have a skewed sampling population. Certain segments of the market enjoy variety and social games. Other parts enjoy plot driven RPGs or gorgeous and engaging FPS games. Without doing an economic or financial analysis, judging what factors correlate most strongly to success is a rather large leap for this study.
Signatures are the new names.
This may be true for the teeny-boppers who've probably never played a game with a real plot and great game play. Most modern console games have pretty similar graphics and tend to have the same lack of plot or original thought - so yes, I'd believe that being able to chat with friends would be "important" to them because it allows them to be distracted from how boring the game is.
However, with older gamers, it is normally universal that plot and game play come before graphics and most of us couldn't give a rats ass if you can chat with your friends in-game. We already have a great way to chat with friends while playing if we need to - it's called a phone.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
In other words: "We didn't like the result we got, so we massaged the data until we got something we liked, and called that our method."
One of the first multiplayer games we played was 'grid' by Peter S. Langston - it came with a USENIX archive tape. The game itself was an ASCII rendering of 'grid war' in first person perspective, but it supported inter-player communication. Other mainframe multi-user-dungeon games were also popular as they also had the multi-player capability.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Look there are good movies with car chases, a rouge cop and one liners, and there are bad movies with such things. Any kind of list of 'qualities' is useless because it's not what it has it's /how it has them/. I think these researchers time would be better spent dusting books at the library of congress personally. I'm sure you could study a selection of successful literature, come up with a list of "whats most important in a work"
and not only realize it doesn't apply to 90% of the masterpieces out there but also is completely useless in predicting future successes. Honestly this is just a few steps better then voodoo predictions.
Games could always get away without having a decent plot, just as they can today, so I don't think much has changed there. I mean, you can't possibly say with a straight face that Doom, or Age of Empires, or Super Mario Bros had great plots, and those were all classic games.
I also wouldn't say that there's a lack of plot in games today. Lots of games are still about telling a great story (RPGs, Heavy Rain, the Halo series, Bioshock) just as much as they are about fun gameplay. There are still both games with and without great plot, just as there were in years gone by.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
You know the day I heard of Quantum Link on C64 was the day I started dreaming of MMORPGS. I found games less fun to play because I had in my mind the perfect MMORPG. I spent thousands of hours over a decade and a half trying to code MMORPGS. Now that MMORPGS are out and boring, my ultimate dreams for video games is sorta deflated.
I have a new dream though. It isn't as big as the old dream, but it could be potentially more fun. Game Master driven CRPGS. I know they have them already, but I'd want to do one well. Theoretically, you can get a better experience through a computer than Pencil and Paper. And with computer you can play with people who all aren't in the same physical location. This dream isn't big enough to pursue however. I have so many things on my plate that I want to do.
God spoke to me.
The best selling video game of 2009 is............... facebook?
Quake had no plot, at least not one that made any sense or was original in any way. It was the multiplayer which made it such an incredibly successful phenomenon. Folks these days might forget what the old days before the Intertubes were really like; being able to blow your friends up for the first time was just awesome.
Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
I feel like in an ideal world, this could certainly be correct. Everyone likes a fun, social game, right?
Except this isn't always the case.
As seen in another recent posting, you tend to get pushed to the 'indie' section of gaming if you don't have the visuals that people want. People like looking at pretty screen-candy, and game makers know to indulge people in this. You can certainly have good games without amazing visuals, but they won't ever be mainstream.
Most people love their graphics, even if they'll then claim 'gameplay' is important on some survey.
I'd like to see a more thorough investigation with this method. The paper says they used 33 reviews from Gamespot UK to collect the data, and while I don't disagree with its findings (Gotta have good controls, bad plot doesn't matter), I wouldn't turn Table 5 (categories by importance) into a Game Design Bible. Then again, the paper does say "This paper is primarily intended to inspire further work in the field."
Video games are now mainstream, just another Hollywood, and what we can learn from movies and apply to our preferred entertainment is that unmitigated mediocrity is no obstacle to making money. How many cookie cutter romantic comedies come out each year? There's no innovation, no surprises, but they keep making them so the money's coming from somewhere. OMG, he travels through time, but he still loves her and she loves him back? Shit bitch, no way! How about generic action movies? Three Transporters, Two Cranked's and Death Race, and I'm sure they're making Death Race 2 right now... in case we forget Jason Statham is awesome. The examples go on. If these movies are making money somehow that means there's enough people out there who are buying, for who those movies offer enough. And yay, look out, the same is true for games. We're measuring different things here, and we even have a study for some reason, but it's no surprise that the average person's demands are for something that's "good enough" in a few basic areas.
Even as you read this, your pants are strangling your loins! Aaa!
I agree that there have always been games that do focus on game play and leave out plot. I also agree that there are some very good games out there that do have amazing stories and writing. What I am seeing is a general trend away from those things. The best games will have everything, but the way I see it, games like Mass Effect and Bioshock are a dying breed. I loved the plots and characters in those games but I feel if the stories had been so so, they still would have been successful. I can't predict the future, but I think these games are on the way out.
Nowhere in the paper could I find the various games they used in this study. Would be a nice addition. As someone said above, Multi-User Dungeons (MUD's) back in the late 80's/early 90's were highly addictive, and I would say that the social interaction definitely had a large part in the 'flow', and enjoyment. Many of us would just stay connected to the world, even when not at play, idle, and able to chat with the people we befriended within. The clan or gang structure, also a social aspect, also made for more fun. Interesting to see where price fell into this as well. It does make sense, social aspects and variety being the heaviest factors, seeing as MUD's, still based upon text, are to this day played. Also lok at how wildly popular MMORPG's are. Good job on the first draft there.
The PBS special, titled "The Brain's Big Bang", suggested gossip accounts for 2/3 of our speech activity. The episode went on to offer the now widely touted conjecture that social networking may have been one of the prime movers behind development of our comparatively big brains. Idle conjecture can take it to a simpler, more fundamental level. Apoptosis or programmed cell death is thought to be initiated by lack of inter cellular communication. Cells programme themselves to die when they no longer receive communications requiring them to live. It's easy to extrapolate from those findings to an individual's need to socially interact.
ideopath @ play
I never understood people who play games for the plot. I play games for entertaining gameplay. To me the very definition of a game is something almost entirely lacking in plot. Chess, checkers, cards games, monopoly, etc all have no plot.
I played WoW for the arenas and always laughed to myself at the nerds who cared about the backstory of Archimonde and blah blah blah. The plot in these games is just a device to move the game forward. A boss that respawns every week and exists in infinitely many instances does not make for an interesting plot. When I want good stories, I read books.
Game Master driven CRPGS. I know they have them already, but I'd want to do one well. Theoretically, you can get a better experience through a computer than Pencil and Paper. And with computer you can play with people who all aren't in the same physical location. This dream isn't big enough to pursue however. I have so many things on my plate that I want to do.
You don't have to do it.
http://www.rpgobjects.com/index.php?c=orpg
Authors of TFA defined "Variety" as "non-linearity, choice, dynamic combat, varied AI, emergent tactic". That is what's usually called "Gameplay". What they are calling "Gameplay" - "Engaging, fair, balanced, innovative..." is mostly a pile of marketspeak.
I got old MS-DOS formatted floppy disks that have my old DOS games on it. I am finding new use with them via DOSBox.
Modern games, mostly Windows based DirectX memory eating and bloated but full of 3D graphics and surround sound audio aren't as good to play as the old DOS games. The old DOS games had a limited memory system and most were written in assembly or C and had to fit in under 12M of RAM using XMS or EMS etc RAM that extended over the 640K of DOS. They didn't have gigabyte hard drives back then and had to fit games on 120M hard drives or lower. They only had 640x480 VGA graphics and Sound Blaster 16 Pro audio.
How many remember Syndicate, XCOM, Dune II, Master of Orion 1 and 2, Master of Magic, Bard's Tale (EGA graphics and no sound card support but the Bard's Tale Construction set fixed that with VGA and Sound Blaster support), and other classic DOS games?
I heard a rumor that the classic DOS games are coming back via online services for $5 each because modern games don't have that enjoyability that the old 1990's DOS games had, plus people are learning how to run old games via DOSBOX or emulators that run DOS operating systems. The online services allows a DOSBox type DOS emulator/environment to run the DOS video game in it.
Almost every gaming company is trying to get the best graphics and sound effects, and it seems like they followed the Doom first person shooter model too closely with variations and modifications to it and forgot to make it entertaining and mean something via those social aspects of it. Not just chatting with other players, but the social aspects of going up against a computer controlled AI opponent(s). One of the few modern games that does that is Civilization IV, but it is basically the same game since Civilization II (or the original Civilization for DOS and the SNES) with more graphics and sounds added to it with movies and animation and then some bonus features but still plays the same as the original pretty much. Send settlers to build cities, take your civilization from the stone age to modern times without an enemy civilization taking yours out and develop technology for stronger military units and improvements to cities and world wonders. But in order to bring it to video game console units they had to dumb it down to Civilization Revolutions.
People want a game that is challenging, but they can set the level of difficulty. Sometimes the turns based game is better than the first person shooter realtime game that eats up lots of RAM and hard drive space for all of the animation and sound. Think of Tetris and other innovative games that did something different from all of the rest, and didn't need the animation graphics and sound effects to win over gamers. Just have an easy to use interface that doesn't require a user manual to be read in order to play it. Some of the best video games the player just clicked the start button and then just joined in the game learning as they went along. Which is what saved games are for, if you mess up, load a saved game before you messed up so you can avoid it.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Is McDonald's the most successful restaurant?
Perhaps fiscally.
But not in my book.
"Bull, as far as I am concerned:
... 374) Social"
1) Plot
2) Price
3) Graphics
Just give us a heads up if you intend to buy a van and a whole bunch of fertilizer.
Gamers often don't know what they want. Customers in general often don't know what they want. Just because someone says "This is what I want," doesn't mean you can take it at face value. They will claim to value something highly, and then put little to no value on that in actual purchasing. Basing your study on reviews is thus not a good idea.
You can witness this in terms of people who continually cry about wanting more "quality" electronics, yest consistently purchasing the cheapest crap they can get their hands on. When you talk to them, they claim that quality and reliability are things they value highly. However their consumption habits show that isn't the case, what they value is low cost an features.
Also it is likely that what people value depends on the kind of game. In some kinds of games, plot is unimportant. A good example would be an online shooter. Even if there was a fairly good plot, people would skip it to get to the game. The point is to get in with other people and play in a simple, non-persistent environment. However in RPGs, plot is often much more important. People play the game to experience the story. Likewise, in some RPGs multi-player might actually be a drawback. You don't want other people ruining your experience of the story.
So I agree it is silly to look at reviews and say "This is what is important to gamers." No, that may be what they claim is important, may not be what they actually buy on. Likewise it may be important only for certain types of games.
Social aspects are very important to my in TF2. The ability to play with others is what makes the game fun, and the ability to have lists of friends and to talk in game is very important to me enjoying it. Plot is not. I'm fine with the fact that there is no plot to speak of, I'd not bother with it if there were. I want to get in and shoot people.
Socials aspects are not important to Mass Effect. Frankly, I want to be left alone when I play that, it is like a good book where I wish to get enveloped in the story. Plot is highly important. The biggest reason I like that game is its amazing story. I find myself very drawn to it and, like a book, wanting to finish the "good parts" when I get to them.
Both games are good in different ways, both have received my money. Neither would be improved by trying to take what makes the other good.
"before multiplayer"? Weren't both Space War and Pong multiplayer-only?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
While game makers might like the idea, I don't. Give me just games which I can play whenever I want without needing Internet connection. And don't worry, in the rare cases when I want to play online I'll do it, just don't try killing the offline gaming.
Interesting - so you're posting on a social website about the fact that you don't like social games?
Seems odd, maybe it's just me but anyone who really didn't like to interact probably wouldn't be posting on slashdot.. I mean if slashdot isn't a social site what is? Isn't 99% of the content user generated, the vast bulk of it effectively a giant chat room? As in almost 100% social?
I suspect that the issue you have with games isn't the social side, although you're decided it is, I suspect there's something else you don't like about it - maybe you don't react very fast, maybe you don't come across well when speaking to other players. I've met many people who if they're not good at something they 'hate' it, but something they're good at they like - and it's so rare to have them convert that hate to motivation, to try harder... If I'd never seen this post by you, I might believe you, but since you posted, socially, about your hate of social games I just can't believe that's the case - if you hated social interaction that much then you wouldn't be on slashdot.
But regardless of that paradox (and looking at how many items you've posted it appears to be one heck of a paradox) I don't quite understand the point of the post...
Are you suggesting that games developers spend a disproportionately large amount of time writing code to simulate a lot of NPCs to the level you desire for total immersion with the self confessed issue that price is certainly always a consideration and that you're amongst a non-interacting minority that would have to be pretty much directly advertised to? Or are you saying that your ultimate game is tetris? Or what exactly?
If you truly are as you describe (and I'm pretty sure that whilst you might think you are, the truth is likely different - most people seem to get answers before they even know what the question is) then why would any game developer really care? I mean you're not social so there's not going to be any word of mouth to boost sales of the game, you're going to play the same game a lot and find bugs that others don't see, and you're not that interested in paying a premium to get at that content.
Designing and creating a game for such a minority just isn't really a paying prospect, what I really don't understand is why you think it should be?
Why do you feel you're more evolved than the rest of us "Do they think evolution just stopped with the invention of language?" "some of us aren't hardwired the same as those monkeys you studied"? Isn't being different enough? Or does it have to be 'better' different?
I'm not meaning to have a go, or be mean (although I'm sure it'll look that way) but I always find it to be a very odd attitude people hold, regardless of how you define yourself - that your time (and therefore money) is valuable, but other peoples' time (and therefore money) isn't. You want the game, but you don't want to pay for it, you want a very specific and small niche but again aren't willing to pay for it. I don't know where people get this 'entitlement' attitude from but it seems very out of whack.
Odd.
Z.
But not in my book.
You good sir have obviously not been going to the one with the play zone.