I came across this interesting article on Gamasutra. They published some analysis different studies on emotions, and peoples reactions to games and what occurs during them.
They compare games like FEAR, Gears, COD, etc.
I found the pieces on cutscenes and how jarring they can be if they aren't inserted properly or executed.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3868/shoot_to_thrill_biosensory_.php
It's a little long, but worth the read.
They compare games like FEAR, Gears, COD, etc.
I found the pieces on cutscenes and how jarring they can be if they aren't inserted properly or executed.
As part of our research activities at EmSense, a San Francisco-based company that uses proprietary brain monitoring EEG and bio-sensing technology to measure engagement and emotional and cognitive responses to content, we set out to understand exactly what defined the successful modern, next-gen shooter title.
Where does it engage, and where doesn't it? How do players actually respond to new innovative gameplay (minus the hype)? We were also determined to identify broad trends that have occurred across all next-gen titles.
We measured players' responses to the first 90 minutes of those games, a time that we consider the most important for making a positive impression.
More than 300 hours of physiological and gameplay data were generated and analyzed to develop our findings.
We came in with no preconceptions, no prejudices, and let the response data demonstrate what worked and what didn't. The results are at times a confirmation of existing techniques that are timeless to good game design, and at other times, surprising and revealing about what gamers truly care about but often can't find a way to say.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3868/shoot_to_thrill_biosensory_.php
It's a little long, but worth the read.
Last edited by a moderator: