Certain participants were selected from the total of 32 for in-depth analysis of their actual game play responses regarding in-game threatening scenarios. These participants were selected because of specific data they recorded throughout the user study. Some of the participants reported themselves as having high levels of experience and competence. Others were observed to have high accuracy regarding their ability to identify between opponent types. Some were selected for demographic reasons (choice of games, gender, etc). The majority of these participants also displayed similar threat scores, being high across the board. However, one participant was selected for having an average threat score and employing an unusual play/aiming style. Overall, eight participants were selected resulting in a vast range of play-styles, perceived competency, experience and identification (human vs bot) accuracy ratings. The eight participants chosen consisted specifically of participants 2, 6, 7, 15, 20, 28, 30 and 32.
Video files that could be analysed in detail were created from the data captured from these eight participants. These videos were analysed slowly by two expert FPS players using a modified time and event sampling technique, taking special consideration for when participants were noticeably making changes in decisions. These decisions were then regarded next to the most prevalent behaviours identified in both the comments and the identification behaviour ratings, matching player decision changes to one or more of the behaviours. This helped to structure the observation of behaviours being performed by participants and it simplified categorising the actions of the participant and their opponent. The situations that participants were finding themselves in were also analysed from a threat level perspective, similar to that of the threat levels given to the scenario and condition examples in the questionnaire. Table 6.8 shows an example of a participant's recorded threat-based incidents. The entirety of this data can be found in section 12.5 of the appendices.
119
Table 6.8 - Participant 20 Game 4 Video Observations
Participant ID: 20 Game
Number:
4
Time: Situation
Description:
Participant encounters opponent with superior weapon (rocket launcher vs plasma gun) and advantageous proximity (close range).
0:58
Threat Description: Threat would likely be high, decreasing as greater distance is made between opponent and participant.
Primary Related Behaviours:
Fleeing (proximity based)
Time: 1:38
Situation Description:
Participant becomes low on health and breaks off
temporarily to make a jump to a health pickup. Opponent has machinegun, participant has rocket launcher. Close range.
Threat Description: Threat would likely be medium as participant has superior firepower (rocket launcher vs machinegun) and good proximity but a health disadvantage
Related Behaviours: Fleeing (hp low), Response to player (change of goal)
Time: 3:16
Situation Description:
Participant is high on HP, armor and has superior
firepower. Chases opponent down across map. Opponent is visibly fleeing.
Threat Description: Threat would likely be low to non-existent.
Related Behaviours: Pursuing (has clear advantage), Fleeing (opponent is legging it) Time: 3:50 Situation Description:
Participant becomes low on health and moves to avoid confrontation (drops to lower level).
Threat Description: Threat is likely to be medium to high as the close range and weapons of both participants (rocket launchers) is deadly for both involved
Related Behaviours: Fleeing (low hp), Response to player (change of direction)
Time: 3:58
Situation Description:
Participant reaches critically low health and directly retreats from an engagement, even with superior firepower. Approaches health and armor immediately. Threat Description: Threat is likely to be very high in this situation
Related Behaviours: Fleeing (very low hp, proximity), Response to player
Time: 4:05
Situation Description:
Participant reaches low health again and retreats from an engagement, even with superior firepower.
120
Threat Description: Threat is likely to be high in this situation.
Related Behaviours: Fleeing (low hp), Response to player
Time:
4:08
Situation Description:
Participant receives large health increase and re-engages opponent around next corner, despite them having a weapon advantage (rocket launcher vs gauntlet). Humiliation kill.
Threat Description: Threat is likely to be medium in this situation as it is likely they would come off worse than their opponent.
Related Behaviours: Pursuing (re-engaging opponent)
Time: 4:25
Situation Description:
Participant encountered opponent in close proximity in a tight corridor, both with rocket launchers. The reaction of both players was to back away.
Threat Description: Threat likely to be medium to high.
Related Behaviours: Response to Player, Fleeing (small distance to not hurt self)
During video analysis it was noted that certain player's reported competence (i.e. from demographic data), their actual observed competence, their reported threat score responses and their actual in-game threat response appeared to contrast and vary. The level of threat given to an in-game situation denoted by the video coders sometimes did not correspond to an appropriate action during certain participant's gameplay. This contradicts the threat score data from the hypothetical scenarios provided in the questionnaire, where the majority of participants assessed threatening situations collectively in a similar way. However, during actual game play, certain participants would often choose actions that would either be of little benefit or be even worse than their described response in their questionnaire. This behaviour was most prevalent in recorded data from participants 6, 15, 28 and 30. An example of this type of behaviour is observable in Figure 6.5. In this example a participant is on low health with only the basic starting weapon and moves around a corner (1.). They encounter an opponent who has a firepower and likely health advantage (2.) and proceed to engage them, getting their attention (3.). They are quickly killed by the opponent (4.).
121
Figure 6.5 - Illogical Behaviour Example
The scenario in Figure 6.5 can be described as having made a poor decision without realistic regard to how threatening the situation is. A more sensible decision would have been to retreat from the opponent or move away from them without getting their attention. An investigation as to why certain participants made bad decisions was performed. Although participant skill was not a requirement or measured aspect during the course of the study's undertaking, it is possible to observe a general level of skill that players possess in the selected game, Quake III: Arena. The eight participants whose video was analysed were rated at various levels of skill with an even balance between low to highly skilled participants. Skill was determined by several indicators, one being the player's individual score and death ratio, their opponents score and death ratios and easily observable factors such as movement speed, control finesse, reaction time and rate of decision making. Generally speaking, the more skilful players seemed to perform more logically in game, corresponding similarly to their respective threat data from the questionnaire and contrasting heavily against participants with less skill. Therefore, it was observed that player skill and experience seem to be the most contributing factors towards a participant making, performing and successfully executing a beneficial decision in threatening situations.
122