The Results of the 1999 Survey

Comments about the Hypotheses

Now, back to the hypotheses, but only shortly. The hypotheses were:

1.) It is not important if the opponents are human or not, the complexity of the mission is the major factor if the mission gets a high score. (So, i.e. Return to the Cathedral should get a pretty high score, because of its complexity and of its scaryness.)

Well, this hypotheses could not be proved. Contrary to this hypothesis, the human missions scored high, not the complex and non-linear missions. The most non-linear human mission, Sword, got even a lower score than the plain and simple normal missions.


2.) We have two groups of people: Those who like the human levels, and thosewho prefer the really scary missions.

This is a hypothesis that the not presented factor analysis seemed to prove. But, well, quoting analyses that are not published is not a very nice behaviour. So: The very often quite highly negative (and highly significantly) correlations between the Undead missions like RTC or THC with the normal Human missions indicates that this hypothesis could indeed be correct. Interesting is that the missions with the Trickster beasts seem to be prefered / disliked by another group. So, I would say that we should add a third group (people who have a extreme opinion about the last 3 missions) to the described 2 groups. Newbies who had not finished the game are members of this third group.


3.) The longer someone had played the game, the more differentiated are the comments about the maps.

Differentiated - this was meant to be tested with the variable 'rating for the best and the worst mission'. This hypothesis could not be proved. It was more a fact that younger people tended to give the 'worst' mission a low score, not the people who finished the game many times. Another way to test this 'differentiated' could be to analyse the quality of the comments about the missions. Such an analysis was not done.


4.) The ratings for the maps differ between the people who have played the game only one time, and between the people who have played the game more often (they shall be defined as the hardcore fans).

Yes, the ratings differed, but only in some points. The points were that the newbies gave significantly worser scores to the last few missions (the missions that they had not played yet). And the longtime players gave the more complex and weirder missions a higher score (not very significantly, but the sequence of the mean scores differed between the hardcore fans and the other players). And the hardcore fans gave RTC a very obviously higher score than the other players.