Study looks at why successful FPS games use a lot of close combat |
Ó
Emsense, a San Francisco-based technology company, recently conducted a study linking players' emotional response to specific gameplay elements on several popular FPS titles. Included in the list of test games were Battlefield 2142, Call of Duty 3, F.E.A.R., Gears of War, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2, and Resistance: Fall of Man, Halo 2 and Half-Life 2.
They gathered over 300 hours of data by hooking gamers up to biometric scanners and then recording brainwave activity, heart rate, respiration, eye movement, temperature and motor response over 90 minutes of gameplay.
After a thorough analysis of the data, they concluded that emotional response was generally highest and most positive during moments of frantic close combat. They said on the subject:
Close combat was the most reliable method of creating engagement, adrenaline, reward, and all the emotions that make shooters so much fun. Certainly, this is nothing new to the genre, but the next-gen games that excelled in this area were exceptionally strong at creating high-paced close combat frequently.
As a personal point of interest, the data shows that sword kills in Halo 2 reward 30% more positive emotional response over the genre benchmark.
You can view the full study and data in the source link below.
Related Articles:
34 Jumps PSP Homebrew - PSPDisp v0.4
Contact Us:
The QJ.net Network |
 |
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - December
User Favorites - December
Categories
Archives
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
Comments [refresh]
My internet connection will cancel and my dictionary will set it self on fire are I post this comment.
I just wanted to know what alot means.
Thank you.
Of course close combat gets you the most excited.
editing...
of course everyone knows that already. the point is that they got to sucker some poor shlob to pay them to play Halo, gears, et al.
Must be nice being a scientist...
Gears of was is NOT a FPS, it is a Third Person Shooter
I dunno if I could stand writing blogs for QJ, this article seems perfectly fine to me (minus the "alot" thing .. and GoW is a third person shooter =p) but people yell at you!! Pretty soon ISOHaven's gonna come down here with his WTF?!?!?!?! and .. well never mind. Kudos for posting this article =)
I personaly agree that FPS in order to be successful needs close combat. It needs to make you run faster, Think faster, Shoot faster. That's why Counter Strike still is a huge sucess. It has all these ingredients. Ok graphics are not eyecandy but who cares when you have good fun ?
I like to think that the close combat is more rewarding because the game focuses on ranged combat. Seriously, recall the last time you knifed a Sniper/Camper and had to restrain yourself (maybe) from yelling out, "Take that you *expletive* Sniper/Camper/Annoyance! Yes!"
Everyone likes the payback/ownage.
Successful console FPS. It's a brilliant method of pulling away from reliance on the precision aiming you get from a mouse (the traditional FPS tool until a few years ago) that doesn't really exist on a joystick.
Making up-close combat more effective was bred on the console. Look at PC gaming, where the melee weapon has traditionally been the "useless" weapon, to the point where Quake 2 abandoned it entirely.
Perfect Dark was probably the first major title to give melee attacking real usefulness (it would allow you to knock someone out without killing them) in game. Halo extended this by removing the need to "switch" to a melee weapon to use that style of attack. Halo 2 added the "lunge attack" with the sword, leveling the playing field between someone with good aim control and someone with good movement control.
Games like Gears of War (a TPS, sure, but the camera gets so close to your character it might as well be an FPS from a tactical standpoint) took the concept even further by increasing the capabilities of up-close combat with stuff like instant kills and the "meat shield" option in 2.
Generally speaking, but moving the focus away from pin-point aiming and instant turn-arounds to slower, button-dexterity-oriented close-quarters combat, the games become much better and deeper gameplay experiences on a console, where you've got 8 face buttons and two joysticks but eff all in mouse-like precision.
An ingenious compensatory direction.
Just my two cents.