Posted Dec 05, 2008 at 01:39AM by Jon G. Listed in: Games, Opinions & Analysis
Ó

Gears of War 2 - Image 1


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:


[Via Gamasutra] Permalink  |   Email this  |   Linking Blogs   |   Digg It!

Bookmark / Find this article on:


9 Comments


Sort by:
   by Advertising -
   by GTO_VR4 - 2008-12-05
 » alot?

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.


   Re: Jon G. (QJ. NET Staff) - 2008-12-05
 » ah. my bad...

editing...
   by akadewboy - 2008-12-05
 » duh

Of course close combat gets you the most excited.


   Re: Jon G. (QJ. NET Staff) - 2008-12-05
 » that's not the point

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...
   by z0m13ie - 2008-12-05
 » You might wanna fix this too:

Gears of was is NOT a FPS, it is a Third Person Shooter

   by Navani - 2008-12-05
 » Poor Jon

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 =)

   by Edemir - 2008-12-05
 » well...

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 ?

   by dogan - 2008-12-05
 » Hrmm.

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.

   by MukiEX - 2008-12-06
 » Successful FPS?

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.



The QJ.net Network RSS Feeds
QJ Forums
PC Gaming
Sony PSP
PlayStation 3
Xbox 360
Nintendo DS
Nintendo Wii
Blog of Blogs Feed / PDA
QJ.NET RSS / PDA
Gaming Consoles Feed / PDA
Nintendo DS RSS / PDA
PlayStation 3 RSS / PDA
PSP Updates RSS / PDA
Wii RSS / PDA
Xbox 360 RSS / PDA
PC Gaming Feed / PDA
MMORPG RSS / PDA
Personal Computer Games RSS / PDA
World of Warcraft RSS / PDA
Technology Feed / PDA
Apple RSS / PDA
iPhone - iPod Touch RSS / PDA
Add QJ.NET
Add to My Yahoo!
Google Reader Subscribe with Bloglines
Add  to your Kinja digest Subscribe in NewsGator Online
Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader Add 'www.qj.net' to Newsburst from CNET News.com
Subscribe with SearchFox RSS del.icio.us www.qj.net
Add to Technorati Favorite! Add to My AOL
furl! it Stumble for Treehugger!

 Username: 
 Password:
Forgot password
New user registration



Categories
Emulators
Titles
Archives