[...] A sho&#114t &#100esc&#114&#105pt&#105on an&#100 some &#100&#105scuss&#105on on Raph Koste&#114’s s&#105te:http://www.r&#97phk&#111&#115ter.c&#111m/2008/02/20/&#103dc2008-&#103&#97me-&#115tudie&#115-d&#111wn... [...]

[...] [...]

[...] of the year. The main question is what do we know about games and game players in 2008 that [...] Read More… Published Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:44 PM by Raph’s Website Filed under: Game [...]

Answer: not have them be killed or griefed in the first frame. That’s what makes people, especially women, give up.

Watching how people use space in virtual worlds, I’ve noticed that the men and the TVs always march in and go all around the space, the periphery, flying or walking rapidly, territorializing it, seeing what it is. That’s how I can tell the TVs are real-life men as they do all that rapid walking to and fro.

Women tend to come in and sit. Do they like the camera angles? Are the ceilings too low? Is there a kitchen? (Yes, people want them, even if they can’t cook real stuff in them; they just “like” them because they have fun decorating and standing in them). So they don’t familiarize themselves with the whole space rapidly such as to have a kind of mind map; they have more a content inventory and an emotional report.

That’s how I explain these findings about the ability to win these FPS games quickly or not.

I think these behaviors are somehow hard-wired, as politically incorrect as some may find it. Perhaps you can compensate against them by training as this study suggests.

I think to understand better the next step, you’d have to study why women give up in those first frames, because they are being killed, ganked, griefed, not understanding the controls fast enough, not seeing what shoots where, etc. etc.

[...] short description and some discussion on Raph Koster’s site:http://www.raphkoster.com/2008/02/20/gdc2008-game-studies-download-30/And the paper:http://julian.togelius.com/Togelius2007TowardsQuite surprising to see that I’m doing [...]

[...] session I wish I hadn’t missed: Game Studies Download 3.0, liveblogged by Raph Koster and revealing “the ten most interesting research findings of the [...]

Man, I’d love to do a game about J.P. Sarte’s No Exit, be pretty fit for this concept.

I’m too much of a contrarian to play Slyfiend’s game. I’d make it a point to keep my Social Points at 0.

That could be part of the game too. Keep your social at 0 for long enough, and you get a long black coat and emo haircut!

Then the player will game that iteration process, too, and so on indefinitely.

If players realise that content is being produced for them, then they have to think: OK, so the challenge of this game has been removed, so is there anything else that’s keeping me playing? Now with a car game, the thrill of the ride could well be enough – after all, rollercoasters are fun and there’s no gameplay involved in those at all. A rollercoaster that modified itself to optimise the rider’s experience would be great! Likewise, a car race with an exciting ride could be just what you want. Faced with a choice of putting your foot down and going off like a rocket up a straight or steering yourself through a corner, which do you do?

Some people like Oblivion’s level-adjustment system, so when you come across bandits to start with they’re armed with weapons made of wool and then 20 levels later they’re armed with plasma beams (well, Oblivion’s equivalent). This makes levelling up fairly pointless, but if there are other reasons to play (eg. you like the game world) then that can be enough – and indeed it is for many people. As a game, though, it sucks.

Richard