• On MovieTome: Megan Fox on TRANSFORMERS 2!
March 3, 2008 9:42 AM PST

Gamers actually like to die in games?

Ever since I played my first video game, the thought of losing or dying was awful. After all, who really wants to spend a half-hour making their way through a dangerous dungeon only to die at the end and be forced to retrace their steps to get to the boss battle?

In fact, I disliked dying in games so much, I would often find it easier to walk away and do something else rather than risk the health of my controller after losing such an important battle. And while I would venture to say many would agree with my assertion, one study claims it's actually quite the opposite.

According to a study performed by a number of researchers in Helsinki, Finland, gamers actually like to die in games and actually prefer that over killing other enemies.

Dubbed "The Psychophysiology of James Bond: Phasic Emotional Responses to Violent Video Game Events," the study examined the psychological responses of 36 young adults while they played James Bond 007: NightFire. In order to compare the results, the researchers also used Super Monkey Ball 2 as the control game to decipher the psychological differences between those who preferred dying over killing.

According to the researchers, they were surprised to find that their subjects displayed a negative response to the death of an enemy. They noted that "the fact that wounding or killing the opponent elicited negative, not positive, emotional responses might be reassuring".

"Given that the player knows that it is only a game, events that, in the real world, are perceived as threatening may be perceived as positively challenging," they continued.

Finally, the researchers reported that "there was no evidence for desensitization of emotional responses as a function of repeated exposures to violent game events."

So what does this all really mean to gamers and those that view gaming as means to violence and uncontrollable violence? Maybe there's hope after all.

That said, the researchers didn't quite do a convincing enough job of ensuring that their results could be projected to the entire population of video game players. Let's face it--if researchers surveyed only 36 people, how can we be sure that the sample was in fact representative of all gamers?

Regardless, the study shows something that no one expected and might lend some credence to the idea that gaming has nothing to do with violence and everything to do with the enjoyment of achieving a stated goal. In fact, this study does a fine job of displaying one simple truth: most people don't really think of killing as the main point of a game, but do believe that it's a means to an end that isn't necessarily required.

In the end, I can't say that I truly believe people want to die in video games rather than kill virtual characters. After all, wouldn't it take more than 36 people and a variety of games to truly prove the point?

Nonetheless, the study should act as the backbone to a variety of new studies that examine this phenomenon in the hope that eventually we will find out if people really want to kill or be killed in virtual environments.

I think I'll choose the former if that means I'll win.

Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.

Recent posts from The Digital Home
The Digital Home Video: Do 10 million iPhones matter?
Dear Sega: We want a console, not handhelds
The Digital Home Video: Hands-on with Warioland Shake It!
Heart attack or not, Apple needs an heir
The Digital Home Video: Artists should start blaming the labels
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 4 comments
by Leria March 3, 2008 1:46 PM PST
Well, I think that what they meant was that people like to die in a game, because that means that they are actually being CHALLENGED by the person on the other end who is killing them.
Reply to this comment
by iamreallypicky March 3, 2008 2:18 PM PST
I appreciate your skepticism of the sampling methods used by the researchers in this study. However, I find it somewhat offensive that you claim "it would take more than 36 people and a variety of games to truly prove the point". The aim of any research conducted by a social scientist is never PROVE or DISPROVE a hypothesis. The causal link is shown to be plausible through a story that explains why any alternative hypothesis does not better explain the observed data.
There are countless articles conducted on samples smaller that 36 and are still considered to be conducted reliable and valid; this study is neither an example of reliable nor valid research, however though.
Reply to this comment
by brass2themax March 3, 2008 5:06 PM PST
Why would you play a game just to die? Either you mean something else and I just don't understand, or your article's title implies that "people like to play games just to die in the game." The point of the game is to win, and most people get more enjoyment from that than losing.

I don't play a game to die, I play in hopes of winning. Dying is boring, and therefore counter-productive to the idea the game itself is based around.

Oh yeah, and studying the results of 36 people is not accurate enough. Try 300 people from diverse locations from around the globe in differentiating environments and I'll consider such results more seriously.
Reply to this comment
by alexpetrovich March 3, 2008 5:36 PM PST
I think another aspect that the study seems to overlook was the in-game & out-of-game consequences of death in these virtual worlds. Within your typical deathmatch mode gameplay, you'll find that dying can be a relief from the fast-passed adrenaline frenzy as the article mentioned. However, I find that games such as Battlefield 2 and Counterstrike that require you to wait after death for the next round or for a non-instant period of time (15 - 30 seconds), usually provide more frustration to gamers because of the "penalty" of having to wait to play. It's kind of like elementary school dodgeball, where its fun when you're in the game but getting nailed and having to sit out and obverse really really sucks. In other words, these types of games are penalizing death with a long "time out" rather than a short relief.

Also, I think that this was a reason why World of Warcraft did so well as an MMORPG. Considering that games like Everquest heavily penalized gamers for dying by taking away hard-earned experience points, WOW's penalties were far less severe and much more relaxed; death did not equal hours of gameplay taken away.
Reply to this comment
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement

About The Digital Home

Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has covered everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Besides his work with CNET, Don's work has been featured in a variety of other publications including PC World and a host of Ziff-Davis publications.

Don writes product reviews for InformationWeek and is a regular contributor to Processor Magazine. You can visit his personal site at DonReisinger.com or if you would like to email Don with questions or comments, drop him a line at CNETDigitalHome@gmail.com. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.

Add this feed to your online news reader

The Digital Home topics

Subscribe to the Digital Home podcast

Have you ever wanted a no-nonsense discussion on what is really going with all the tech topics related to your Digital Home? If so, join Don Reisinger as he brings you the same biting commentary you've come to expect from his Digital Home blog in all its audio glory.

Subscribe to this podcast using an RSS reader other than iTunes

Subscribe to this podcast using iTunes

Don's links
Don's Facebook account
Don's Twitter feed
Don's Friendfeed account
Don's Google Reader account
Don's Last.FM account
Don's Pownce account
Don's Flickr account

Featured blogs

advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right