Gamasutra has written an article about a study that measured how much various action games engaged players. Multiple factors drive people to keep playing certain games. What is it about games like Half-Life and Halo that distinguish it and make it so much more compelling to play than say COD 3.

Despite there being many factors that take part in the success of these games there is one recurring theme that seems to have the most weight. That is close combat and the ability to put players in situations where high risk is rewarded.

Here is the full article

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3868/shoot_to_thrill_biosensory_.php

And here is a summary of the article

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=21323

It seems to me that games that try to encompass too big a world in a poorly structured manner end up making the player feel disengaged from the experience (resistance is used as an example) where as games that focus on pockets of tight knit heavy recurring action like GoW allow the player to truely engage themselves and have fun.

Any thoughts?

That is very interesting. I find is especially interesting that cutscenes were actually harmful, and disengaged the players (suck on that one for a while, Kojima). But I can completely relate to that, because games like Half life or COD4 that keep you in the action at all times I feel are far more intense, immersive and engaging than games that have frequent cut scenes.

Also fascinating is how important pacing is. I've felt for a long time that pacing in a game is a far overlooked aspect to a game's quality. It takes alot of level design and fore thought to create an effective experience. Slower down times followed by big battles or intense fights. Lure you into security, give you a minute to come down off your high and then throw you right back up there into something crazy. Or gradually build up the pace into a climactic crescendo, and have the expected reward system of it coming down into something of a breather after the high is hit. Pacing is incredibly important to a satisfying experience.

The difference between AAA and AA?

Hype.

Thank you for that incredibly insightful comment, now go read the damn article and say something relevant.

 100% true

A

Alot of people keep saying hype is the difference but if Halo was all about hype then we wouldn't see it constantly in the most played games on xbox live. COD 4 didn't even open to big numbers or hype but the game was paced so incredibly well both in single and multiplayer that word of mouth made the games sales explode.

Please read the article before commenting. This was a true scientific study that monitored bio-sensory output such as brain waves, heart activity, breathing, blinking temperature and motion.

Every Kojima game is AAA.  CoD4 has cutscenes and is also a great game.

Beat me to it. lol

This makes a lot of sense. Engaging game play makes for a good game. Keep the players excited, but change things up once in awhile. Very cool that someone is using science to determine what makes a good game.

Very interesting article, thanks for posting it.