Showing posts with label Sociology and Psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sociology and Psychology. Show all posts

Monday, June 23, 2008

Videogaming and Crime Victimisation


This graph seems like it's rooted more in propaganda and wishful thinking than hard data. It also makes a mockery of any number of theories of social deviance. But I've spent the best part of two hours trying to pull it apart and I've yet to find a significant chink in its armour.

The numbers come from a US Bureau of Justice survey of violent crime in the United States between 1973 and 2005. The survey targets a "nationally representative sample" of around 77,000 households and asks questions about the experiences of individuals with crime (so this is based on victim perception of crime, rather than police reports, prosecutions or convictions).

It's more or less corroborated by the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which gives numbers for reported crime.

The turning point in both sets of data appears to be 1993. It's possibly significant that the US Bureau of Justice made some major changes to their data collection in 1993 but if anything those changes should have raised the numbers rather than lowering them. Correctional data for the period is suggestive but doesn't seem to provide the answer.

Does anyone out there have any insight into what's really responsible for these dramatic statistics?

Thanks to Hibikiryouga for drawing my attention to the graph.

Friday, April 27, 2007

Women Persuaded By Direct Gaze

While I'm whipping up a little something-something for this month's Blogs of the Round Table, check out this hidden gem I found in Corvus' bloglines.

Cognitive Daily: If you want to persuade a woman, look straight at her

Some very interesting research in computer augmented negotiation environments, suggesting that women are more likely than men to be persuaded to a point of view by the use of direct gaze, even when the "gaze behaviour was often socially inappropriate". There's some corrollary findings about gender bias in substantive argument assimilation too but I'm not sure that really proves anything and there's probably more focused studies on that elsewhere.

I am, of course, playing the Half-Life 2 milieu at the moment, and direct gaze is something that's used very effectively there to add life to the NPC characters. It's also something that could be particularly powerful as we move further into virtual worlds. Stuff like this and Nick Yee's findings about avatar interrelationships really fascinate me. Anyone who comes across more of it should throw linkage my way. I'm clearly going to have to delve through Cognitive Daily's back catalogue, too.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

New Daedalus Project Findings

Nick Yee's Daedalus Project has some new results up:

Dealing With Dilemmas
Nick finds that (surprisingly?) players over 35 are more lenient, accepting and open minded when it comes to class builds, team roles and rule enforcement.

Horde v Alliance in Battlegrounds
Looking at a range of mechanical and sociological factors behind the widely held WoW belief that the Horde have an edge in player vs player gameplay.

Interview with Shavaun Scott
Discussing issues of online gaming addiction with a qualified therapist.

Not the most incisive stuff to come out of the Daedalus Project but still an interesting read. As usual these findings arrived in my inbox accompanied by an instruction to continue pimping the site to friends. It's a data collection and analysis program relating to issues around massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) play patterns, beliefs, and demographics, operated by Nick out of Stanford University. It's already turned out some fascinating stuff. If you are a current player of any MMOG (especially World of Warcraft) you should definitely go take the surveys. And if you've done them before - well, there's some new ones up.

Go here to take the surveys.

Friday, November 24, 2006

The Death of the Board Game, Part 2

My post The Death of the Board Game from last week has raised a fair bit of commentary and attention, so I thought I'd go back and flesh it out a little more.

The hypothesis I put was that:
  • (a) board games are already a highly marginalised area of the gaming world
  • (b) that a large part of the traditional market of board games has been taken over by video games
  • (c) that those who still play board games rather than video games do so because they are (i) social, (ii) tactile, (iii) less threatening than video games, and (iv) require no console or system buy-in
  • (d) that video games are likely to overcome all four of those obstacles within the next seven years.

To support point (d), I provided the following points:

  • (i) Many people currently do play video games in the physical proximity of others; this will only become more common as gaming devices become smaller, cheaper, and more portable. In any case, audio and videoconferencing hardware and software is becoming cheaper, more reliable and more effective.
  • (ii) A variety of innovations including the Nintendo DS, Nintendo Wii, and force-feedback touchscreens are continuing to make gaming a more tactile and physical experience.
  • (iii) As videogaming moves into the mainstream, you can expect that within 7 years over 90% of people will be engaged in a game-like digital space at least once a fortnight. Whether this be a traditional videogame, an avatar-enabled multi-user desktop, or a chess game via mobile phone, gaming will be something that a majority of people are familiar with. Also, design of both software and hardware will continue to improve and lower the entry barrier to game spaces for the casual user.
  • (iv) Convergence will likely mean that you will buy a gaming device in the next seven years without meaning to. This is likely to be either a mobile phone/gaming system, a media disc player/gaming system, a portable music player/gaming system, or a pocket PC/organiser/gaming system. It's likely that within seven years the number of people who own a gaming system will be comparable to mobile phone ownership.

All this seems fairly logical to me. It's touched nerves with a lot of people, though, who (rightly) feel that all this in some way threatens their beloved hobby. I'm one of them. I'm a board gamer. I don't want to stop. But I will.

The arguments put by the naysayers amount to the following:

  • (a) No matter what market share video games gain, there will always be some people still playing board games.
  • (b) No video gaming system can replace the social and tactile elements of board games, no matter how advanced.
  • (c) Video games are just inherently less flexible than board games.

All these are true to some extent. But I think the premise is faulty. The people making these arguments are suggesting that as long as they are correct to any extent, the board game will survive. And that's just not the case. There's an extinction threshold.

The board game, as you know it, in the form of an illustrated box containing a heavy card board, printed cards, and manufactured pieces, just cannot survive. To make a game on this level takes money. It takes money to print and manufacture, to advertise, and to stock in stores. It requires stores which are willing to stock it. All of this only turns a profit in a market where there is a certain threshold of consumer interest. And from everything I understand about the market, that threshold is only barely there at the moment.

If videogames continue to advance and capture even another 25% of the board game market, it's going to make it very hard on gaming companies to keep publishing their products. And believe me, that 25% will happen, and it's a conservatie estimate. It's not a 25% that's going to come out of the Settlers of Catan end of the market, it's a 25% that's going to come out from the market of Monopoly and Connect 4 and Guess Who?. It's a 25% that represents a new generation of parents who are comfortable playing video games with their children. It's a 25% that sees traditional family activities moving into digital spaces.

And these games are the bread and butter of boardgaming. They're the games that teach children to like board games; those children then grow up and become the purchasers of Settlers of Catan or Carcassonne. Digital gaming over the next seven years is going to erode that entry level platform, and that's really what's going to move the gamer threshold into the unprofitable area.

On the point of whether videogaming can replace the tactile elements of boardgaming, I honestly don't see why not, but let's revisit that point when everyone involved has had the chance to try out the Wii and maybe some force feedback technology.

There's no doubt that board gaming is a social activity. And I'm sure that everyone who board games can relate to the hassle of trying to round up four to six people for a decent game. It's hard. It's likely that in your mind you have a subset of your acquaintances marked "people who are up for a good board game". If you're lucky, you have a good six or seven people in that folder.

Within seven years, those six or seven people will become two or three.

It's another extinction-level phenomenon. One of those people you know is going to spend less time with board games as a personal choice. One of those people will be video gaming more because that's what their partner, child, or close friend is doing. After that point, you'll lose another two because they just start getting sick of how hard it is to get people together for a game.

Gaming is about stories. You can't spend time with a gamer of any persuasion without hearing them tell a game story. If they're a roleplayer, they'll tell you about that one time when their halfling cleric was fighting a grey ooze. If they're a boardgamer, they'll tell you about that game of Diplomacy where they did this amazing thing playing as Germany. And if they're a video gamer, they'll have a story about what their night elf was up to last night.

Trust me, you're going to be hearing a lot more about that night elf. And if you want to be able to meaningfully interact, you're going to want to have a night elf too.

I'm not talking just the hardcore gamers here. Within the next two years, you're going to have a conversation at work about video games. Within three years, a digital game-like space will be a regular topic of chat at your work environment. Within four years, if you're not gaming you'll be missing pop culture references in your favourite shows.

They're going to leave you behind.

Lastly, there's the issue of whether video games are inherently less flexible than board games. And we're talking here about the ability to use house rules, to cheat, to cut the new player a break, to take a handicap, and so forth. And - well, video games are less flexible. They can only do the things the programmers thought fit to include. But they don't have to be as flexible to squeeze board games out. They only have to be close enough.

Sure, there'll probably always be a couple of tiny niche markets for board games which are either (a) Cheapass Games affairs where you make most of the pieces yourself, or (b) luxury collector's pieces at insane prices. But for board games to continue being viable as well-produced, affordable, tactile, family experiences, there needs to be a certain number of people willing to buy them. And within seven years, that number just won't be there.

You can count on it.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

WoW and Median Gamer Theory

Kill Ten Rats, which has been a bit light & fluffy for the past couple of months, has apparently been saving up all its energies for two excellent articles about why World of Warcraft is so successful.

"After the first two hot dog stands are on the beach, the best place for the next one is…actually, still next to the other two. Now you get that ~49% of the beach, the guy on the far side gets ~50%, and the poor schmuck stuck between you gets virtually no one unless there is a line. This explains why, despite EQ and its many clones, WoW and EQ2 set up in a very similar space. Guess where Vanguard and Crusade are aiming for? Is City of Heroes essentially EQ in tights? We have also seen EQ in space, and let’s not even talk about the Korean MMO market."
The articles are called Median Gamer Theory and Network Effects, both by Zubon, and are worth five minutes of your time if you're remotely interested in MMOGs.

Friday, October 27, 2006

The Invisible Gamer

Via New Game Plus:

Strange Horizons are offering an intelligent and well written piece on being a girl who plays games. It's an article which rings as true as is possible considering I don't have breasts. It deals not just with the videogaming world but also with joining male-dominate roleplaying clubs. Definitely a must read, particularly for my female readers - both of you!
Sometimes girls are told that they can't or shouldn't play RPGs or video games. But more often, I think, they are told that they don't. The cultural message is sometimes wrapped in hand-wringing and good intentions, but the underlying assumption beneath "Why don't girls play video games?" is still "Girls don't play video games." Technology in general, but game technology in particular, is viewed as a masculine domain. Girls use computers to word process, send instant messages, make a MySpace profile—but they don't use them to slay dragons. They just don't. And it's a lot harder to see what's wrong with that argument than a straightforward claim that slaying dragons is not ladylike.
Real Girls Don't: The Invisible Minority of Female Video Game Players

One of these days I'll stop re-processing the best of other people's content, I swear.