Gaming Research


#1

I am working on doing some research into the more psychological and economic aspects of gaming. Why do we game? What aspects of one game make it better than another game? Are social and online games truly manipulative? Can we objectively rate games? Are game companies truly creating efficient experiences that maximizes their resources without waste?

I have created a short survey. It is for the most part basic questions but it is the stepping stone for my larger project.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WY7PMLF

Also I have been working on organizing a set of experiments. I would like to test the different merits of various game activities to really delve into the mind of the gamer. If anyone is any good at programming and wants to help, send me a PM.


#2

What aspects of one game make it better than another? Do this. Play two games: one that you absolutely love and another that you’re meh with. Play each one for an hour in “your time”. What I mean by “your time” is how much a certain amount of time feels to you. It differs from person to person. Look at the time from when you start in another room. If you have one in your room, turn it off. After you feel that an hour is up, stop playing the game and go look at the time. If it’s longer than an hour, you played a good game or one that you really enjoy. If not, it’s not your style. An old saying: a good game isn’t measured by the content and graphics, but by how easily it can make hours feel like minutes.

tl;dr version. Play two games for what you feel is an hour each. If you end up going past an actual hour, you really enjoy that game.


#3

What’s this for?


#4

I play games to think and to win. My goal is to dominate everyone I come across and if I get fucked up then my goal becomes to figure out why exactly that happened and how to stop it next time.


#5

Your avatar made this all the more funny to read.

  • :bluu:

I’m at work and don’t want to do the survey now, I might look at it later, but…
No game companies are not efficient - and most aren’t smart. They are ruled by fear of not making money, so instead of doing things to ensure as much money can be made, they spend money and water down experience to try and make more money. For instance - DLC. For some franchise it makes perfect sense for them to charge for it - see CoD francxhise. But for most…that shot in the arm will keep people from trading it in to Gamestop, and then people buying used ones, or people just waiting for the price to drop or to buy a used one because they expect DLC. then on the flip side, you have a company doing yearly releases or moderate updates to games as a new packaging - when in reality - for instance - NAruto games, it would have been better off them investing in a flexible and upgradable engine - and the nreleasing ‘story packs’ as DLC. I’d much rather CoD series did something akin to that with a multi-player edition.

And thats another inefficieny, trying to cram everything into a single game. They make more upfront this way, but if they split CoD into a huge single player ‘every year’ at say 40-50 bux, then did a ‘flex’ multi-player for 40 bux that had DLC maps galore (for instance take MW3 engine and add in all the maps from MW1 & 2) - and had a duration of two years WITH UPDATES. Then ultimatly they could make more money.

I could go on an on…social is where it is at, but as someone who’s played MMOs in the past, solo heavy games, and tea heavy games, there is a balance that has to be made…that often isn’t, you cna’t treat either the social aspect or the solo aspect as a ‘add-on’ to a game. Don’t insult my intelligence.

  • :bluu:

#6

It is for my computer science course and it is also a bit personal. I have been looking into things like cow clicker and other more philosophical takes on gaming such as the industries distrust of facebook games. When presented with the argument it does seem like social games try to take advantage of people in order to create revenue. I would really like to hone in on the different elements of a game to really find out which elements are important. I think game companies just assume what elements are important and go from there.


#7

Most of the people who admit to playing video games come from a background of “deeper,” more involved style of games like those seen on consoles, handhelds, and PCs. These games generally demand a greater range of skillsets than “social games” typically do. The comparison of the two often leads to social games being viewed as shallow.

Another reason why “gamers” often dislike social games is the amount of investment involved, both on the player’s part and the creator’s part. Social games, from a business standpoint, are a ridiculous return for investment even if only moderately successful, because they cost so little compared to what people typically associate with the term “video games.”