Survey for Gamers

[sirsimon77]

Attention Gamers,

I’m a graduate student at Full Sail University. I have a survey questionnaire for a research project that I am conducting regarding the use of a usability (user interface design) lifecycle when developing RPGs. It should take less than 5 minutes of your time. Your response and your identity will be kept confidential and we will not share the information we obtained with anybody else. It will be used for academic purpose only and is not for profit. Your response to this survey is very valuable and will be appreciated. It can be found here. Thanks!

[MooseTail]

I'm under the age of the research study, Should I still continue?

[sirsimon77]

I'm under the age of the research study, Should I still continue?

 

no

[hoofhearted4]

on note of the "test" i really think that games are too easy, esp RPGs. games hold your hand too much today, and now, it takes away from the sense of pride and accomplishment it takes to get good and understand the game, when games hold your hand so much. not just in RPGs but across all genres. give me a mini map. thats all i need

[Vagrant0]

Ease of learning does not equate to a good game, or even a good UI. Rather you should probably be more focused on making things as intuitive as possible while still maintaining a good amount of depth and mastery at later game. If the game is too easy it usually loses interest after a month or so. If the UI has too many confirmation dialogues and tool tips, it becomes annoying for experienced players. Unless you're designing the game for 6-10 year olds, you're usually best off aiming for a middle ground between complexity and ease of use and just having one time, optional, tutorials for training on some of the parts that have to be complicated.

[everybodysop]

I agree with Vagrant0. A great example of this is a game called Starcraft. Ease of learning? There are professionals that I have spoken to personally that have practiced this single game for years and still admit that they don't know absolutely every thing about it, which would be one of the best examples for that in gaming. They still continue to play and learn, despite the ease of learning being that difficult.

[Povuholo]

If ease of learning was important for making a good game, Dwarf Fortress would be the worst game in the world.

[Vagrant0]

In retrospect, I get the impression that this sort of question is framed mostly from the standpoint where longevity isn't a concern since a bought game is a bought game. I can understand the intentions behind this, and it appeals to most of the point of making a game... to sell for profit. In this light, good controls and an intuitive interface are probably a main concern since people who can't make way with the controls are likely to just return the game (console). But here's the thing... You're asking gamers. We expect to get more than 8-12 hours from a game (usually somewhere around 40) because the money for us is often hard to come by so we want to get the most entertainment we can get for our buck. Sure, some may buy into a franchise because the previous games were good, but if it is lacking content, gamers are often vocal about this and tell most of the people planning to get the game to give it a pass. As a company does this sort of thing more and more, basically just repackaging old games with less content with slightly better graphics and changed values, people start to ignore that company and harbor negative sentiments toward it because they see the company as just looking to make a quick buck and no longer caring about the products they make... For example, EA, a company which has been slowly killing off most of their following for the past decade with bad re-packaging, DRM, licensing, holding back features for DLC, or just lacking content. Most of their games are easy to learn, but have almost 0 replay value, bad support, and rely on either online features or bought extras to keep what users they have satisfied.

 

The longevity of a game IS important to profit. Not only are games which have enough content still played by a community which springs up around it, but these people also tend to hook others into buying that game months or years after release. From a console standpoint, it makes the game continually marketable beyond the initial 3 months and remain an item in demand, for example, Zelda games. You may not be advertising for it, but people will still buy new copies more often than sell them because it's a game that people tend to go back and play through again and again rather than shelf or sell right away. From a community standpoint, having a following for a game that has good content means having future marketability for sequels and offshoots provided that the quality remains high and the main elements are still present. It may cost more up front, but since the lifespan of the game is longer, the profits overall are higher. Evidence for this trend can be found in countless places... Even if the game is a flop initially, having a good deal of enjoyable content can turn it around.

[Beriallord]

I know there are scams online to try to get other people to take surveys to fish for information, and are compensated for information they gather. Before I take this survey, I need to know if anyone is being compensated in any way for the time I take to give them information.

[dazzerfong]

@ Beriallord:

 

Read the terms of conditions: it explicitly tells you everything.