游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

保留功能性应是游戏UI设计首要考虑因素

发布时间:2011-12-07 12:44:53 Tags:,,,,,

作者:Marcus Andrews

传统的HUD设置是尽量保持UI透明度,让玩家可以充分地沉浸到游戏中。EA DICE已经在该领域勇敢地迈出自己的步伐,但是这是种充满风险和艰难的尝试,几乎无法获得100%的成功。可见UI这个领域仍然存在较大改进空间。

如果要向他人描述“将界面放入游戏世界”的真正含义,最简单的说法即“就像《孤岛惊魂2》的做法一样”,但究竟什么才是真正的设计方法?如何利用这些方法?在下文中,你可以看到许多游戏的UI设计分析,以及我最后的总结。

术语

要理解这篇文章的内容,你需要熟悉几个术语。

terminology(from gamasutra)

terminology(from gamasutra)

叙事:包含在游戏世界中的界面,可以被游戏角色看到和听到。示例:《死亡空间》中的全息界面。

非叙事:游戏世界之外的界面,只能被现实世界的玩家看到和听到。示例:多数经典的仰视显示器(游戏邦注:下文简称“HUD”)元素。

立体空间:呈现在游戏3D空间中的UI元素,包括叙事和非叙事两类。《求生之路》中的角色轮廓便是非叙事立体空间UI的实例。

亚呈现:亚呈现指的是可以存在于游戏世界中,但不一定能引发玩家形象化空间感的呈现内容。最明显的例子是屏幕上的喷溅效果,比如用喷溅到镜头上的血液来呈现伤害。

游戏分析

孤岛惊魂2

《孤岛惊魂2》(游戏邦注:2008年由Ubisoft发行)是在界面叙事化取得极大进展的游戏实例,而且还是款FPS游戏。《孤岛惊魂2》中使用的主要叙事化方法是让游戏内置小器具与HUD界面产生联系,包括地图功能、时间和武器状况。

孤岛惊魂2(from gamasutra)

孤岛惊魂2(from gamasutra)

以上是叙事化界面元素的范例。它通过手表来呈现时间,游戏中的导航通过GPS和实体地图来完成。需注意的是,即便地图在游戏世界中实物化呈现,上面的图标和指示器的移动和行为却是以游戏玩法为基础。

优点

新颖的元素

从视觉效果上来看,看到英雄从自己的手臂中挖出子弹头和查看手中的指南针确实很酷。Ubisoft在预发布营销中展示叙事化界面的方法也是个新颖的因素。这就是卖点,就是该游戏能够与其他FPS游戏竞争的实例。

与其他角色互动

不过,与其他角色互动比你自己同游戏角色互动的效果更好,因为这可以让你看到其他角色正在做的事情。当你受伤的时候有个友好的角色前来相救,感觉就更棒了,这便是沉浸效果的实例。

缺点

在界面的时候上,《孤岛惊魂2》中似乎存在冲突,因为游戏中也有个传统的非叙事HUD来展示弹药、互动机会和生命值等内容,与其叙事界面相结合。这个HUD显得非常传统和非叙事化。

不受玩家控制的非叙事元素淡入和淡出使其干扰性达到最小化,当然,这样做的结果是玩家完全无法对其进行控制。以下屏幕截取自该游戏,展示了游戏过程中非叙事HUD元素的展示方式。

非叙事HUD(from gamasutra)

非叙事HUD(from gamasutra)

《孤岛惊魂2》所呈现的问题是,FPS游戏中极为缺乏用来承载界面的屏幕实用面积。镜头无法支持以叙事化方式呈现某些东西,尤其是在现实主义科幻题材游戏中。

最终分析

从《孤岛惊魂2》这个例子上来看,制作100%叙事化界面的可玩游戏似乎是毫无希望的,尤其是在FPS领域。因而采用某些折中方法似乎是必要之举。如果叙事化界面设计是游戏开发初期的目标而不是硬性的成品需求,那么这种折中方案会取得显著成效。如果你正在增添非叙事化UI以支持叙事化解决方案,或许得重新下考虑整个解决方案。

死亡空间

《死亡空间》(游戏邦注:2008年由EA发行)是最新的全叙事化界面实例。与多数游戏相比,《死亡空间》有个明确的方向:所有的界面元素都应当“位于游戏世界中”。

游戏界面使用的是经过大量变动修改的传统HUD系统:它像全息图一样被嵌入到游戏中,在这种文本式的叙事化解决方案中,界面存在于游戏世界中,在理论上可以为游戏角色所见。这里的UI可以解释为由角色的太空服产生的全息图。这种方式可以运用到几乎所有界面上,只要它是全息的。

死亡空间(from gamasutra)

死亡空间(from gamasutra)

除了全息界面外,《死亡空间》还将界面绘制在玩家虚拟形象的实体上,这种解决方案很适合叙事化第三人称游戏。

健康值显示在角色身体上(from gamasutra)

健康值显示在角色身体上(from gamasutra)

定位器(from gamasutra)

定位器(from gamasutra)

上图中的定位器可指向玩家需前行的路径,据该游戏执行制作人Glen Schofield所称,它可以在全息3D地图失效时,为玩家提供导航功能。

优点

场景

《死亡空间》利用其科幻场景来让界面显得叙事化。从原则上来说,它可以被解释为“以非典型的方式呈现典型UI”。

视角

使用玩家化身作为画布,在其上绘制UI元素,比如生命值和静止状态,这是种改善沉浸性的绝妙方法,但似乎这种方法对场景和第三人称镜头有很大的依赖性。

保留功能性

《死亡空间》清晰地显示出某些叙事化界面的好处,而且这种界面依然有传统界面的功能性特点。

缺点

需提供额外方案解决功能性故障

全息化3D地图在帮助玩家导航方面失败了。这个服务玩家需求方面上的失败迫使开发团队执行补充功能,“定位器”使用的并非是与其他内容相同的叙事化方法(游戏邦注:即全息图),而是叙事化空间立体方法(这个定位器需投射于地面)。

好处

我们很难发现此类UI除了它所能提供的功能性之外,还有什么特别的好处。毫无疑问,制作全息化界面需要耗费大量的资金,因而需要谨慎考虑这个选择。

最终分析

《死亡空间》引发了以下问题:执行叙事化用户界面可获得多少好处?我们很容易想到,其实《死亡空间》中所有的界面元素都可以被视为传统HUD元素。《死亡空间》也可能因为只是将传统界面解决方案从非叙事化转变为叙事化的方法而受到批判,因为它并没有真正推动传统设计方式的发展。

我将《死亡空间》视为叙事化界面能够为游戏带来好处的价值标杆。或许叙事化界面可以产生的好处要比在《死亡空间》中展现出来的更多,但是每个开发团队都需要认真权衡这种方法是否值得一试。确切地说,《死亡空间》可以说是将相当传统的界面融入到游戏故事中,并采用了叙事化的表现方式,至于这种做法的价值和取舍,这要取决于各人的看法。

军团要塞2

《军团要塞2》(游戏邦注:2007年由Valve发行)这款游戏之所以值得分析,是因为我认为它在界面这方面采用了非常直接的方式。开发者的想法似乎是“使用各种有效的方法来告知玩家信息”,因为他们的界面解决方案中采用了各种界面设计方法。

弹药、生命值和关键的游戏模式信息永久性地显示在HUD的固定位置上(游戏邦注:这属于非叙事化界面)。游戏中还有个第二层次静态“弹窗”非叙事化HUD元素会根据玩家的动作出现,比如当玩家站在控制点上或装备建造元件时。

除此之外,《军团要塞2》还使用了叙事化界面,尤其是可以在游戏中建造物体的职业——工程师。在这种情况下会显示蓝图3D全息图,以便玩家清晰地了解物体建造完工之后的模样。值得注意的是,非叙事化HUD元素会同期显示在屏幕上。

《军团要塞2》还大量地使用了“空间立体非叙事化”元素,比如玩家头上的图标和其他的标志。值得注意的是,姓名标签并非空间立体化的,而是固定显示在玩家镜头的十字准星下。

medi-gun及其随后的“uber charge”的呈现方式要更为特殊些。medi-gun中发出的彩色光束明显是叙事化,但同时也是医疗者和被医疗者间联系的空间标志。同样,“uber charge”颜色也可以被视为medi-gun发射出的叙事化效果,但也是让所有玩家知道谁正受到影响的空间标志。

军团要塞2(from gamasutra)

军团要塞2(from gamasutra)

优点

结合各个类型的UI元素(游戏邦注:包括叙事化、非叙事化和立体空间等)确实可以在不将所有内容放入HUD的情况下提供大量的信息。

缺点

正是出于上述原因,《军团要塞2》有时看起来显得“混乱”。

最终分析

就叙事化的质量来看,《军团要塞2》很难进入排行榜,但是可以算是个很成功的游戏。《军团要塞2》展示了混合界面的强大之处,其开发团队并没有把注意力全部放在叙事化的方向上。《军团要塞2》还表明玩家更能够忍受叙事化界面中的不当之处。

魔兽世界

《魔兽世界》(游戏邦注:2004年由暴雪发行)成为了发布UI代码供第三方使用的先驱者,该游戏不仅允许玩家可以在屏幕上移动各种UI实体,而且还允许创建新的UI元素,甚至是那些默认UI所无法获得的全新数据。这种大胆之举使得暴雪开创了庞大的“插件”系统,玩家可以根据具体的目标来创建独立的UI元素。

与《军团要塞2》相似的是,《魔兽世界》所采用的方法似乎是不顾美学或叙事化质量,向玩家提供所有其想要的信息。《魔兽世界》UI的所有层面似乎有个统一的做法,经典2D非叙事化HUD与空间立体非叙事化信息相配合,比如姓名标签和生命条等。

以下是《魔兽世界》的默认界面,相当传统的非叙事化2D解决方案,同时还有空间立体非叙事化和亚元素。

《魔兽世界》默认界面(from gamasutra)

《魔兽世界》默认界面(from gamasutra)

下图是《魔兽世界》中的自定义界面,许多插件提供了传统界面所无法获得的信息。

自定义UI(from gamasutra)

自定义UI(from gamasutra)

优点

自定义

可以自定义的界面似乎能够显著地提高玩家对传统2D HUD元素的容忍度,尽管这样可能会让屏幕显得凌乱。

帮助执行操作

从表面上看,这种看似先进的干扰性非叙事化界面如果能够帮助玩家开展任务的话,似乎也能够被玩家所接受甚至欣赏。

视角

第三人称视角使玩家可以360度旋转自己的角色,对玩家的方向感和导航有极大的帮助。

缺点

给玩家造成游戏表现的压力

玩家的沉浸感似乎并非其界面设置的重要考虑因素,它的可编辑化界面也总是被人滥用。如果你希望在游戏中更有竞争力,那么选择以默认界面来玩游戏便很难实现目标,这会让玩家产生渴求合适界面插件的压力。

最终分析

《魔兽世界》的案例值得那些高估沉浸感重要性或者沉浸形式的开发者深思。《魔兽世界》是款很棒的角色扮演游戏,它其实并不适合采用复杂或者数据量过于庞大的非叙事化界面元素,但玩家似乎仍然更喜欢这种界面,而不是更为简洁的默认界面。

我们很难理清其中的因果关系,但在《魔兽世界》中,如果可以做出选择,玩家总是想要获得更多的信息和UI来帮助自己在游戏中获得优势。

《魔兽世界》的成功发出了一个强烈的信号,那就是沉浸感不总是用户的最主要兴趣。或许他们只是想要在游戏中表现出自己的实力。

结论

正如我在《孤岛惊魂2》的分析中提到的那样,在今天充满竞争的市场中,为让游戏具有可玩性,融入非叙事化界面元素似乎仍然是必要之举。但是从我对《军团要塞2》的分析中可以看出,如果不采用这种做法似乎也并无不妥。

我的结论是,无论界面的外观和功能如何,所有游戏都必须满足的基本规则是:保留功能性以及信息传输。

玩家以两种形态存在于你的游戏中:化身和有机体。当然,化身存在于屏幕上。那么,有机体就是玩家在通过平面进入游戏世界后剩下的东西,也就是对游戏功能的感知,并将其转化成游戏 的能力。

在自然中不存在“化身”这种东西,人体是有机体的呈现方式。但是在游戏中,这二者之间存在内在差异,因为开发者具体地刻画出有机体的游戏化身。游戏可能会指定英雄是星际战士。于是,设计用户界面就变成了挑战。我们可以将其称为“有机体界面”,这种界面的目标是让玩家完全地感受到自己就是星际战士。

想象下相反的情况:“化身”脱离了玩家的感知,而你作为开发者需要面临的挑战是让玩家仅仅基于他们在玩游戏时的感觉,就能够把自己描述成为“星际战士”。这里可能出现一种风险,那就是玩家会将自己描述成为一个拿着机关枪的移动盒子。

shooter organism(from gamaustra)

shooter organism(from gamaustra)

进入游戏世界

当玩家穿过现实和游戏之间的平面时,他就成为了有机体。UI就是这个平面。以肢体修复手术为例,有个人失去了自己的右臂,医生给他装上了假肢。在这里例子中,假肢就是界面,界面越好,能够保留的右手功能就越多。你可以说,这个人让自己的右臂通过了平面。

现在想象下,假如假肢设计师决定保留功能的重要性不如覆盖在机械上的橡胶皮肤的真实性。那么,这名患者可能会得到看起来更逼真的手臂,但是其所得的功能性较少。因为UI可以被视为虚拟的假肢,因而保留功能性才是你的主要目标!

无论你的整体UI方向如何,只有在有机体能够在游戏世界中有效运转的前提下才能够去追求沉浸感。目前还没有哪个可行的策略能够不顾及这个重要层面。

设计有机体界面

1、看看你的主要化身,也就是游戏中的“英雄”,描述成为英雄会产生的感觉

范例:自信、无畏、有很好的意识

2、列举出你认为必须呈现在UI中的功能(游戏邦注:先不用考虑最终的执行方式)

范例:准星、生命值、弹药、小地图、武器库、目标定位器

3、开始设计初始界面

通过不同的界面方法来呈现上述列举的东西,比如叙事化和HUD等

4、检查你的初始设计,然后提出问题:“这个UI是否能够让我了解到所需的信息,我是否能够产生英雄的感觉?”

5、重复进行UI设计,直到上述问题的回答是肯定的。

记住,UI有多种形式,包括音频、动画、HUD和效果等,混合使用这些内容。

在最后的步骤中,你可以在设计界面解决方案时同时考虑化身和有机体这两个因素,让玩家感觉自己就是游戏中的一部分。

游戏邦注:本文发稿于2010年2月23日,所涉时间、事件和数据均以此为准。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,拒绝任何不保留版权的转载,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

Game UI Discoveries: What Players Want

Marcus Andrews

I was recently asked to investigate the merits of immersive UI for the potential inclusion in future DICE products. Traditional HUDs live under constant scrutiny in ongoing efforts to make the UI as transparent as possible, allowing the player to immerse themselves into the game.

DICE had already made bold moves into the territory but it’s a risky and difficult endeavor, and seldom 100 percent successful. UI is one of the areas where great progress can still be made.

My mission included understanding what “putting the interface in the game world” really meant. The easiest way to describe it to someone is to say “like they did in Far Cry 2″ — but what is it really and how can it be utilized? You can read the analysis of several games and my subsequent final conclusion in the article below.

Terminology

Before reading further in this article there is some terminology you need to be familiar with.

Diegetic: Interface that is included in the game world — i.e., it can be seen and heard by the game characters. Example: the holographic interface in Dead Space.

Non-diegetic: Interface that is rendered outside the game world, only visible and audible to the players in the real world. Example: most classic heads-up display (HUD) elements.

Spatial: UI elements presented in the game’s 3D space with or without being an entity of the actual game world (diegetic or non-diegetic). The character outlines in Left 4 Dead are an example of non-diegetic spatial UI.

Meta: Representations can exist in the game world, but aren’t necessarily visualized spatially for the player; these are meta representations. The most apparent example is effects rendered on the screen, such as blood spatter on the camera to indicate damage.

Game Analyses

Far Cry 2

Far Cry 2 (Ubisoft, 2008) is an example of a game that goes to great lengths in making the interface diegetic, especially for being an FPS. The primary diegetic method in Far Cry 2 is making in-game gadgets take on roles typically associated with HUD interface — map features, time of day, and the condition of your weapon.

Above are examples of interface elements that are diegetic. Time is presented with a watch, and navigation with a GPS and physical map. It’s worth noting that even though the map is physically represented in the world, the icons and indicators are moving and behaving based on game play.

What works?

The novelty factor

Visually it’s cool to see the hero dig bullets out of his arm, and to look at a compass in your hand. Further proof of the novelty factor is how Ubisoft showed off the diegetic interface in the pre-launch marketing. It was considered a selling point — a means to compete with other FPS games.

Interaction with other characters

Ironically, interacting with another character than yourself works great, since it allows you to see what that character is doing. This is particularly cool when a friendly character comes to save you when you are injured; that’s a good snapshot example of immersion.

What doesn’t work?

FC2 appears conflicted in its use of interface since it has a traditional non-diegetic HUD that indicates ammo, interaction opportunities, health etc, complimentary to the ambitious diegetic interface. This HUD is in its turn quite bluntly non-diegetic and very traditional.

In an effort to minimize the intrusiveness the non-diegetic elements fade in and out, out of the player’s control, which of course results in a complete lack of control for the player. The screen below is captured in game and shows how non-diegetic HUD elements may show up during play.

There is a profound lack of real estate in FPS games on which to render interface beside the HUD, which shows in Far Cry 2. The camera simply does not allow diegetic representation of some things, especially if you restrain yourself to a realistic fiction.

Final analysis

Judging from Far Cry 2 it seems nearly hopeless to make the game playable and 100 percent diegetic, particularly in an FPS. Some sort of compromise seems to be necessary. The benefit of such compromise is likely greatest if a diegetic interface design is the goal from the beginning, rather than being forced in the end. If you find yourself adding complimentary non-diegetic UI to support a diegetic solution, you might have to rethink the solution as a whole.

Dead Space

Dead Space (EA, 2008) is the most recent example of a fully diegetic interface. In contrast to most games, Dead Space has an explicit direction that all interface elements should be “in the game world”.

The interface uses a fairly traditional HUD system with a big twist: it’s rendered in the game as a hologram, a textbook example of a diegetic solution where the interface exists in the game world and can theoretically be seen by the game characters. The UI is explained as holograms created by the avatar’s space suit. This “excuse” opens up the possibility of using almost any interface, as long as it’s holographic.

Beside the holographic interface, Dead Space also draws interface on the actual player avatar, a very appropriate solution for diegetic third person games.

Above: A locator feature that plots the way where you are expected to go. This feature came about when the ambitious holographic 3D map failed to serve players, according to Glen Schofield, the game’s executive producer.

What works?

Setting

Dead Space takes advantage of its sci-fi setting to make the interface diegetic. It could in principle be explained as “a typical UI, rendered atypically”.

Perspective

Using the player avatar as a canvas to actually draw UI elements on, such as health and stasis, is a great way to promote immersion — but seems largely dependent on setting, and a third person camera.

Preserving functionality

Dead Space clearly shows some the style benefits of a diegetic interface, and that such an interface can preserve the functionality of a traditional interface.

What doesn’t work?

Functionality breakdown leading to complementary solutions

The holographic 3D map largely failed to aid player navigation. The failure to serve player needs likely forced the development team to implement a complementary feature, “the locator”, that was not using the same diegetic method (hologram) but rather a diegetic spatial method (projected on the ground) — once again “excused” by the sci-fi fiction.

Benefit?

It is hard to see an absolute benefit from the UI other than the functionality it provides. Given there has no doubt been a lot of cost involved in making the holographic interface, this needs to be considered.

Final analysis

Dead Space raises the question “How much is gained by implementing a diegetic user interface?” One could easily imagine all Dead Space’s interface elements as traditional HUD elements. Dead Space could also be criticized for only translating traditional interface solutions from non-diegetic to diegetic, without making any real improvements to the traditional designs.

I consider Dead Space a valuable measurement of the actual benefits of going diegetic. There might be a greater benefit than that realized in Dead Space — but deciding if the pursuit is worthwhile is a decision each development team has to make. Conclusively it can be said that Dead Space uses a fairly traditional interface rendered in a novel, diegetic fashion, and that the benefits were fairly subjective.

Team Fortress 2

Team Fortress 2 (Valve, 2007) is a game I chose to analyze because I think of it as a game with a very straightforward approach to interface. “Use whatever means to inform the player” seems to be the developers’ modus operandi, as their interface solution is spread across all methods of interface design.

Information such as ammo, health, and critical game mode information is permanently displayed on static positions in the HUD (non-diegetic). There is a complementary second layer of static “pop-up” non-diegetic HUD elements that appear based on player actions, such as when the player stands on a control point or equips a construction kit.

On top of that, TF2 also uses a diegetic interface, particularly for the engineer class, who can build objects in the world. In this case a blueprint hologram appears in 3D that allows the player to know exactly how the object will appear when completed. It’s worth noting that non-diegetic HUD elements co-exist on the screen at the same time.

TF2 also makes heavy use of “spatial non-diegetic” elements, like icons over players’ heads, and other markers. It’s worth noting that the name tag is not spatial but rather fixed to the observer’s camera, just below the crosshair.

A little more unusual is the way which the medi-gun and its subsequent “uber charge” is portrayed. The colored ray that comes from the medi-gun is clearly diegetic, but at the same time a spatial marker for the bond between the healer and the one being healed. Likewise the “uber charge” coloring can be seen as a diegetic effect of being radiated with the medi-gun, but it’s also a spatial marker for all players to be aware of who is uber charged.

What works?

Mixing UI elements from various categories (diegetic, non-diegetic, spatial, etc) can really allow for providing loads of information without having to put all of it in the HUD.

UI components do not have to follow an immediately obvious theme or be immersive to work.

What doesn’t work?

For all the above reasons, Team Fortress 2 can sometimes look and be perceived as a little “messy”. The “awesome factor” and novelty value suffers.

Final Analysis

Team Fortress 2 hardly makes the charts for diegetic qualities, but manages to be a hugely successful title and very playable nonetheless. Team Fortress 2 shows the strengths of a mixed interface where little or no regard is paid to a diegetic direction. Team Fortress 2 can also be considered an example of player tolerance for mixed interfaces taking away some of the validity of arguing that diegetic interface are better tolerated.

World of Warcraft

World of Warcraft (Blizzard, 2004) is a pioneer in the UI scene for releasing the UI code for third party development — not only allowing players to move the various UI entities around the screen, but also allowing the creation if new UI elements. These can even show completely new data that isn’t obtainable with the default UI. This bold move by Blizzard gave birth to a huge “add-on” scene, where players create stand alone UI elements that serve very specific purposes.

Not unlike Team Fortress 2, the World of Warcraft approach seems especially keen on giving players the information they might want with very little regard to esthetics or diegetic qualities. One thing that unifies almost all aspects of the World of Warcraft UI is that it is, with few exceptions, a non-diegetic classical 2D HUD complemented with spatial non-diegetic info — nametags, health bars, etc.

Below is an image of the default WoW interface, a fairly traditional non-diegetic 2D solution complemented by spatial non-diegetic and meta elements.

Below is one of countless examples of customized interface in WoW with several add-ons providing information not otherwise obtainable.

What worked?

Customization

Having a freely customizable interface seems to greatly increase the tolerability of traditional 2D HUD elements even when the screen gets cluttered.

Aid to perform

Seemingly advanced and intrusive non-diegetic interfaces seem to be tolerated and even appreciated if they aid the player to perform his task, especially in the presence of other players.

Perspective

The third person perspective allows a 360 degree awareness that vastly helps player orientation and navigation.

What didn’t work?

Stress to perform

Immersion isn’t a big factor from an interface standpoint, and the scriptable interface is always subjects to exploits. It is hardly an option to play the game with the default interface if you wish to be competitive — adding stress to players about getting the right stuff for their interface.

Final analysis

World of Warcraft could be an example where other developers might overestimate the importance of immersion or at least the forms immersion takes. WoW is a fantasy role playing game and is as such by no means extra suitable for complex or data heavy non-diegetic interface elements; still players seem to prefer them over the lighter default interface.

The cause and effect here are difficult to fully untangle, but it seems in the case of World of Warcraft, when given the choice, players want more information and more UI to aid them reach optimal play performance. However, how much of a choice it actually is can be debated given the competitive nature of World of Warcraft.

The success of World of Warcraft sends a strong signal that immersion might not, or at least not always, be in the consumer’s best interest. Maybe they just want to perform at the peak of their ability in harmony with the game.

Conclusion

As I mentioned in the Far Cry 2 analysis, inclusion of non-diegetic interface elements seems almost required to reach the level of playability required in today’s competitive market. The opposite does not seem to be true, judging from my analysis of Team Fortress 2.

My conclusion is that there is a fundamental rule for all games that must always be met regardless of the looks and functions of any given interface: The rule of functionality preservation and translation must be met.

The discovery is that the players exist in your game in two instances, the “avatar” and the “organism”. The avatar is, of course, what is rendered on screen; the organism is what is left of the player after passing through the plane into the game world — the preservation the game’s functionality and its translation into in-game abilities.

In nature, there is no “avatar”, since a creature’s body is an exact representation of the organism’s capabilities. In games, however, there is an inherent discrepancy between the two — since the developer dictates in detail the embodiment of the organism. The game might dictate that the hero is a space marine; the challenge, however, is to design a user interface — or let’s call it “organism interface” — that makes the player feel adequately that he or she is a space marine.

Imagine the opposite — that the “avatar” is withheld from the player’s perception, and that you as a developer are challenged to make the player describe themselves as “space marines” based only on how they feel when they play. The risk is that they describe themselves as hovering box with a mounted machine gun.

Passing through planes

The player becomes the organism when he passes through the plane between reality and your game. The UI is that plane. Take a prosthesis as an example — a human is robbed of his right arm, a doctor fits a prosthetic arm to take its place. The prosthesis is the interface in this example, and the better the interface, the more right arm functions will be preserved. You could say that this person has crossed his right arm through the plane.

Now imagine the prosthesis designer had decided that preserved functionality was not as important as the authenticity of the rubber skin covering the mechanics. The person with the prosthesis would have a more authentic looking arm, with less preserved functionality. Since UI could be considered a virtual prosthesis, always make preserved functionality your main goal!

Regardless of your overall UI direction, be it immersion or a HUD your first priority has to be to enable the organism to operate in your game world, otherwise all else will fail. There is simply no viable strategy that allow for neglect of this vital aspect.

Designing Your Organism Interface

Look at your main avatar – “the hero”. Describe how it feels to be the hero

Example: Badass, Confident, Fearless, Aware

Is your hero “aware” of being an elite soldier? You have to make sure the player feels aware! How do you handle enemies outside the screen, enemies behind the player, enemies behind trees, etc.?

List the functions you know must be present in the UI (without regard to how it will eventually be implemented)

Example: Crosshair, Health, Ammo, Mini-map, Weapons inventory, Objective locator

Start designing a preliminary interface

Map your “must haves” to different interface methods, diegetic, HUD, etc.

Review your preliminary design by asking: “Will this UI allow me to be aware of 1, 2, 3 and will I feel A, B, C when I do it?”

Iterate on your UI design until you can answer the above question “yes!”

Remember that UI comes in many forms, Audio, Animation, HUD, effects – mix it up!

(Where 1, 2, and 3 are your must have functions and A, B, and C are how it should feel to be the hero.)

In the last step you are bringing the avatar and the organism together by designing interface solutions that will make the player actually feel and behave the part assigned by the game.

It could be argued that “feeling badass” is not mainly achieved with UI but that depend mostly on the interpretation of UI. It might not be achieved with a 1999 HUD, but with a skillful implementation of various UI components from various categories tailored to fit the experience I would argue UI has everything to do with feeling badass! (Source: Gamasutra)


上一篇:

下一篇: