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

游戏用户界面设计需要注意的常见问题

发布时间:2011-10-05 08:45:31 Tags:,,,,

作者:Eric Schwarz

用户界面并不是很被人看重。这很像音效设计,如果用户界面制作得当的话,玩家并不会注意到。但是如果处理不妥善,那么可能会逐渐累积并影响到游戏体验,直到某些玩家因此而离开游戏。虽然我们希望能够讨论优秀和劣质的界面设计想法,但是我很少看到许多人阐述构成优秀界面的具体细节。在这篇文章中,我将阐述自认为是优秀用户界面设计的关键部分。尽管我不认为这些是唯一可以采用的方法,但是通常情况下,拥有优秀的界面能够给所有的游戏加分,甚至是其成功之本,所以忽略这个部分可能导致悲惨的结局。

功能高于形式

尽管拥有美观界面的确是个不错的想法,但是界面的设计与其所向玩家提供的功能之间的冲突是游戏设计师会犯下的最大错误。尽管这个问题频繁地以多种形式出现,但是应当注意到的是,将视觉效果凌驾于功能之上会伤害到游戏。

fallout-3-pip-boy-3000(from firsthour.net)

fallout-3-pip-boy-3000(from firsthour.net)

以《辐射3》为例,虽然Pip-boy 3000给游戏提供了大量个性化的内容,有助于将小游戏的元素纳入整个游戏世界中,但是Pip-boy的布置很差,因为设计师更看重界面的外观和感觉而不是其基础功能。在整个游戏屏幕中,1/3的空间被Pip-boy所占据,而且许多菜单还会用剩余空间的半数来呈现图标而不是为玩家提供更多信息。联想系列游戏中其他款游戏的做法(游戏邦注:比如在《新维加斯》中菜单在各种功能间变换),很显然使用Pip-boy的强烈意图已经影响了游戏中最基本的功能和信息。这便是将外观置于信息和可用性之上的典型例子,如果事先进行考虑的话,完全可以避免此类情况。

将Pip-boy与《暗黑破坏神》中的生命和魔法球体相比,后者更独特,看起来也很有趣,但是它们并没有破坏到游戏,而且仍然易于理解和使用。撇开游戏的开发年限和开发标准不谈,《辐射》原作在界面上的做法也比《辐射3》更为精明。将所有的技术运用于菜单之上并不能改变其难以使用的事实。

界面是个框架

许多游戏将界面当成工具来使用,但是《辐射》和《暗黑破坏神》将其视为游戏的入口,能够加强故事性、基调和情绪。可以把用户界面比作相框,虽然照片本身很漂亮,但是优秀或劣质的相框会完全改变人们对相片的感觉,无论相片本身的质量如何。以上两款游戏确实利用界面形成某种游戏框架,正如《地下创世纪》将视图视为游戏可玩性体验的一部分,诸如《半条命》之类的其他游戏也产生了同样的效果。HEV Suit是《半条命》中最具标志性的元素,让我们沉浸在游戏世界中,尽管我们几乎无法看到它们。

尽管我经常听人说起平视显示其他游戏界面的其他方面会将玩家带出游戏,提醒他们注意自己与虚拟世界之间的障碍,但是我总觉得这种说法很不可靠,真实的体验与此完全不同。与这个观点相反的是,我发现多数情况下优秀的界面能够改善游戏的吸引力。通过将某些游戏功能添加到界面中,玩家会觉得他们正在操作游戏世界中的真正机器,而不是仅仅在按动游戏手柄上的按键。这样说或许有些过分,但是当美观和可用性发生冲突时,用户界面就不再只是工具,它可以用来在游戏世界中定义角色。

不要隐藏信息

这个方面的讨论也不多,至少在提及界面的时候。简单地说,设计师应当预计玩家在游戏过程中需要的信息,然后总是在屏幕上呈现最为关键点的内容。对于射击游戏而言,这部分很容易想到,设置生命值、弹药和护甲是种较为安全的做法,除非移植这些元素是游戏设计的部分内容。

但是那些更为复杂的游戏,或者那些需要玩家瞬间处理更多信息的游戏又该怎么做呢?我很经常看到许多游戏的界面与第一人称射击游戏相似,根本没有深入考虑玩家在游戏过程中需要看到的东西。但是,如果将玩家可能想要看到(游戏邦注:或者需要看到)的信息影藏在菜单和子菜单中,不仅会让玩家觉得很不方便,而且他们可能还会完全忽略这些信息。如果发生这种情况,那么就说明这是个失败的用户界面,用户界面的唯一目标是提供游戏玩法所必要的信息。

Sid Meier's Pirates!(from amazon.de)

Sid Meier's Pirates!(from amazon.de)

尽管2004年重新制作的《Sid Meier’s Pirates!》确属较为出色的游戏,但是在这方面也做得很不好。游戏玩法中的多个关键层面是计时的,但是关于玩家需要多少时间来完成任务却没有具体的信息。我最为关注的是船员的士气这个系统,虽然界面会呈现船员的情绪,而且玩家可以以此为基础来响应船员的需求,但是没有清晰地表明玩家还剩余多少时间来挽救自己的境地,或者玩家需要寻找到多少金币来提升士气。有时携带着满船将要叛变的船员我可以坚持数个月的时间,有时我的士气会在一天之内骤然下跌,而且坦诚地说,当你觉得自己无法控制和理解游戏中的机制时,确实感受不到任何乐趣。

提供更多细节

我们可以看到,现代游戏设计的趋势是将信息最少化或者分离出来。虽然这是为了呈现流线型的游戏玩法,但是多半情况下,这种方法的结果是让玩家感到困惑,并因此损害到游戏可玩性。简单地说,如果没有理由不将信息提供给玩家,那么就没有理由将这些信息隐藏起来。如果你希望游戏更加精确而不是模糊,那么精确提供细节总是正确的做法。

这方面的绝佳例证便是《使命召唤:现代战争2》。虽然游戏有着深层次且吸引人的多人成分,而且在装备进程中有强大的RPG习得机制,但是游戏并没有快捷地为玩家提供他们在游戏过程中可能需要的准确信息。

这些缺失的信息有简单的(游戏邦注:比如某件武器能够造成多少伤害?),也有更为重要的(游戏邦注:Frag手榴弹与C4相比的爆炸半径)。虽然游戏的确向玩家提供了某些可以查看的数据,但是有趣的是,这些数据并非以数字的形式呈现,而是以简单的条状物。虽然这会提升菜单的易用性,但是所提供的数据也甚为模糊,根据粉丝的反馈和测试,偶尔这些数据还不甚精确。确实,有时候你只想给玩家提供基本信息,但是同时,没有任何理由不让玩家获得细节信息,因为确实有许多玩家希望获得更多细节信息。

最小化所需的输入操作

同样,考虑玩家如何获得信息也是很有价值的做法。单次点击鼠标即可?设置热键?嵌入式的列表菜单?下拉卷轴盒?尤其是游戏主机,其输入功能十分有限,所以主机游戏需要特别注重这个方面。但是如果撇开平台不谈,那么所有的信息都应当能够迅速和简单地获取,在这个方面无需小题大做。尽管以下所述并非黄金定律,但是如果玩家需要执行超过2或3个指令才能获得他们想要得到的信息,那么有可能这种设计就过于复杂。你在其中堆叠的层数越多,玩家触及此类信息的可能性就越小。

但是,执行这个方面要比说说要难得多。有时,用户界面的凌乱、复杂或隐藏是必要的,这种情况在战略游戏中尤为普遍,因为玩家需要访问大量的信息,但是访问频率并不高。如果你知道玩家并非总是需要这类信息,那么将其隐藏较深并没有什么错,但是必须确保深度不可超过必要值。比如,《文明5》算是很卓越的游戏,但是在这个方面上有很严重的问题。比如,虽然可以在外交菜单中看到不同玩家需要贸易的资源信息,但是只有通过贸易界面进入某个完全独立的系列菜单,你才可以看到自己拥有哪些其他玩家想要的东西。而且,游戏中许多菜单的嵌套方式以及所使用的较大字体和图标产生了许多不必要的麻烦。尽管之前作品的界面并非完美,但是至少在合适的地方分类并组织起玩家需要的信息,但是与《文明4》相比,《文明5》通常都需要两倍左右的鼠标点击次数才能施展相同的任务。

《文明5》用户界面(from destructoid.com)

《文明5》用户界面(from destructoid.com)

保持控制的一致性

你可曾玩过觉得在控制中按某个按键很不寻常的游戏?通常而言,不采用标准按键和控制器布局是个很差劲的设置,这只会徒增游戏学习曲线的复杂性,尽管有人认为这可以视为对该题材惯例的挑战。除非你确实可以改善界面,否则就不应该去改变传统控制方式。在PC上,这个原则被进一步放大,因为有更多可用或必须使用的按键,所以让玩家为某款游戏重新学习热键是不宜采用的做法。除非你能够找到不在RPG游戏中使用J打开日志或者不在第一人称射击中使用鼠标滚轴切换武器的合理理由,否则就不要去更改。

也就是说,你不应当剥夺玩家自定义按键设置的权利,即便那些热键是你精心设计的。不存在不让玩家自定义按键的技术原因,尤其是在PC上。与游戏手柄不同的是,鼠标和键盘有着更为精巧的按键布局。即便如此,作为基本的可用性特征,没有理由不让玩家有自己的控制选择,即便是在主机上,除非你不介意告诉残疾的用户因为你的疏忽让他们无法体验游戏的乐趣。

便捷性

哇,新道具!真棒!我已经对自己的旧武器感到厌烦了,但是等等,这又是什么?又是一件新道具?我要怎么判断哪个更好呢?我的意思是,或许一个更适合猛击,另一个更适合劈砍,但是我要怎么分辨呢?它们各自能够造成多少伤害?哪个更适合我?我的角色类型是什么?真纠结,我还是卖了吧。

上述场景或许有些夸张,但是也经常会在游戏中面临想要做出动作(游戏邦注:比如比较两把武器的优劣)但游戏却使得这项动作无法轻易开展的情况。不管是无法同时查看两把武器的属性,还是无法清楚地了解哪把武器对任务能起到更大作用,抑或是不知武器售价多少,这种用户界面虽然称不上是完全的失败,但是也会很容易让玩家感到挫败。作为游戏设计师,重点不只是给予玩家他们想要的东西,还要预计他们在特定游戏玩法中可能需要的东西。界面存在的目标是为游戏可玩性提供服务,你所做的任何让游戏可玩性体验更为顺畅和更加可操控的措施都是有价值的。

地图

电子游戏的地图在行业中的名声并不好。有时候,它们会走“形式凌驾于功能之上”的路线,尽管最终看起来视觉效果很棒,但是却并不详细和有用(游戏邦注:《巫师2》总是碰上这样的问题,尤其是在户外区域中)。有些时候,开发者尝试整合某些3D技术,结果使得地图难以读懂和操控(游戏邦注:这是长久困扰《细胞分裂》系列游戏的难题)。有时,游戏中完全没有地图,或者地图被塞到某个小角落中。如果你想要在游戏中设置地图,那么它们最好能够容易进入、阅读和理解。如果做不到这些要求的话,那么就不要浪费你的时间了。

当然,创造地图也是种额外的投资,需要新的艺术工作、编程和关卡设计工作等。同时,优秀地图对游戏可用性的提升也是很大的。即便你角色自己的游戏简单、小型或者容易理解也没关系,你可以在其中加入地图。很有可能所有的玩家都将频繁使用地图,还有许多人会使用地图来规划自己的游戏方法,设计更有效的战略和计划。地图对于玩家的引导也非常有效,包括游戏内的目标和诸如游戏攻略之类的次级游戏信息。无论你多么相信在游戏中设置地图是毫无必要的举动,请相信我的说法,地图确实很有用。

结论

尽管这个列表可能没有涵盖用户界面设计的方方面面,但是我觉得这些都是优秀界面所需要关注的最为关键的几点。幸运的是,多数现代游戏都有着很棒的界面,而某些最为基础的问题只出现在过往的游戏中。

但是,游戏世界中仍然存在许多界面问题,比如毫无理由地隐藏重要信息,制作拙劣且毫无用处的游戏内置地图,或者将美观凌驾于可用性之上。作为玩家与游戏之间的元数据层,用户界面是需要妥善处理的最为重要的东西。希望这篇文章能够让许多开发者避开那些用户界面方面的常见问题。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

Observations on User Interface Design

Eric Schwarz

The user interface is something that doesn’t get much attention. Much like good sound design, when a user interface is done well, the player doesn’t notice it – and when it’s done poorly, it can be aggravating and damaging to the play experience, to the point of turning some players away from a game. Although we tend to talk about good and bad interface considerations, it’s rare that I really see many people go into precise detail about just what makes a good interface. In this article, I’d like to take the time to go over what I consider to be the key tenets of good user interface design – while I don’t want to suggest that this is the only approach to take, in general, just about every game with a good interface I’ve seen has adhered to most or all of these points, and ignoring them usually leads to poor results in the end.

Function Over Form

Although it’s nice to have a good-looking interface, the absolute worst thing that a designer can do is build an interface that ends up encroaching on the functionality it’s supposed to be providing the player. While this problem can manifest in some very obvious ways from time to time, it’s worth considering the small ways in which placing visuals over functionality can hurt a game.

Take, for example, Fallout 3 – while the Pip-boy 3000 gives the game a significant dose of personality, helping to include what is usually a meta-game element within the game world, the Pip-boy is also generally poorly laid out precisely as a result of the designers prioritizing the look and feel of the interface over basic usability. Over a third of the entire game screen display is consumed by the Pip-boy, and many menus devote over half of the remaining screen space to large icons rather than providing more information to players.

Combine this all with menus nested within other menus (and, in New Vegas, menus that toggle between different functions) and it’s very clear that the desire to include the Pip-boy was so strong that it ended up sabotaging and hiding some of the game’s most fundamental information. It’s a classic case of prioritizing “cool stuff” over crucial information and usability, and it could have been completely avoided with a little forethought.

Compare the Pip-boy above to Diablo’s health and mana orbs – they’re distinct, and aesthetically interesting, even defining for the Diablo franchise, but they aren’t obtrusive and remain easy to read and understand. Even the original Fallout, age and different standards aside, was more successful interface-wise than Fallout 3. All the technology and shaders thrown onto a menu can’t change the fact that it’s still cumbersome to use.

Interface is a Frame

Where many games treat the interface as just that, a tool, Fallout and Diablo treated it as more: a portal into the game which serves to reinforce the fiction, the tone and mood. A good comparison to draw is a picture frame – while a picture in itself can be beautiful, a good (or bad) frame will completely change one’s perception of that picture, regardless of just how lovely it is on its own. This doesn’t have to be completely literal: while the two games above do actually form a sort of frame around the game, and others, such as Ultima:

Underworld literally treated the perspective view as only a single part of the gameplay experience, others, such as Half-Life, achieved the same effect by grounding the heads-up display in the narrative. The HEV Suit is one of the most iconic elements of Half-Life, and grounds us in the game’s world… despite the fact that we barely even see it.

While I often see it said that heads-up displays and other aspects of game interfaces can draw players out of the game, remind them of the barrier between them and the virtual world, I’ve always felt this is a poor argument that, if anything, is refuted by play experience.

Contrary to this opinion, I find that most often, a good interface will actually improve immersion, rather than detract from it, and by attaching certain game functions to in-universe objects, the player can feel as if he or she is operating an actual mechanism within that game world, rather than simply pressing buttons on a gamepad. Granted, this can be taken too far, as seen in Fallout 3, but when the balance between aesthetics and usability is struck, the user interface goes from being just a tool, to a legitimate and defining character within the game world itself.

Don’t Hide Information

This is another tenet that I feel doesn’t see much discussion, at least with regards to interface. Put simply, a designer should anticipate the information the player will need during gameplay, and put the most critical of it on-screen at all times. For a shooter, this is pretty easy to figure out – health, ammunition, armour, and so on are all safe bets, and unless removing these common HUD elements is part of the game’s design, there’s rarely a reason to consider much more as far as shooters go.

But what of more complex games, or those which require the player to juggle more information at once? Too often, I see games which simply model their interfaces after first-person shooters, without much of an attempt to actually consider just what things the player might want to see during gameplay. Instead, information that the player might well want (or need) at a glance ends up buried in menus and sub-menus, meaning that not only is the player inconvenienced, but he or she may completely ignore that information entirely. To be blunt, if this happens, then the user interface has failed: its one goal is to give the player the information necessary to gameplay.

Although otherwise a fantastic game, the 2004 remake of Sid Meier’s Pirates! has one annoying flaw of this nature – though several critical aspects of gameplay are linked to the game’s timer, often there is no precise information given on how much time the player might have to accomplish a task. The one that stands out the most for me is crew morale: although the interface displays a general indication of the crew’s mood, and the player is able to respond to the crew’s needs based on this, there’s never a clear indication of just how much time the player has left to salvage his or her situation, or how much gold the player needs to find to improve their spirits. Where sometimes I’d be able to survive for months on end with a near-mutinous crew, other times my morale would plummet radically over the course of a single day, and suffice is to say, it really is no fun when you feel you have little control or understanding of why something in a game.

Give Me Details!

On a related note, it’s a fairly common trend in gaming nowadays for the information available to players to be minimized or abstracted. Although generally considered an attempt to streamline gameplay, more often than not, this sort of approach ends up being confusing and detrimental to gameplay. Put simply, if there’s no reason as to why information shouldn’t be provided to the player, then there is no reason why that information should be withheld… and if you have the opportunity to be precise rather than vague, then precision should almost always win out.

A great example of this can be seen in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Although it features a deep and engaging multiplayer component, with strong RPG leanings in its equipment progression, perks and so on, the game hesitates to provide players with some of the precise information that they might want when playing the game. This ranges from the simple (how much damage, exactly, does a weapon do?), to a bit more crucial (what is the radius of a Frag Grenade versus C4?). Although the game does provide some statistics for players to review, interestingly, these aren’t expressed as numbers, but rather, as simple bars… while this makes for a more approachable menu (no need to include a character sheet in your shooter), the data provided is vague at best and, according to fan feedback and testing, occasionally quite inaccurate as well. Yes, sometimes you want to just give the player the basics… but at the same time, there’s no reason why players shouldn’t be given the details either, because you can bet that there are plenty out there who want those details, no matter what the game is.

Minimize Required Input

Along the same lines, it’s worth considering just how the player is going to get to that information. A mouse click? A hotkey? A nested list menu? A drop-down scroll box? A check box? A grid navigated with the thumbsticks? Pages flipped through with shoulder buttons? Game consoles especially have limited input functionality, and so additional prioritizing is necessary for console games, but regardless of the platform, all information should be quick and easy to get to, without fuss. Although I hesitate to provide a golden rule, if the player needs to perform more than two or three commands to find the information he or she is looking for, then chances are, it’s harder to get to than it should be, and the more layers you have, the less likely the player is to ever refer to that information.Of course, this can be easier said than done. Sometimes, user interface can become necessarily cluttered, complex, or hidden – this is especially common in strategy games, where the player needs access to huge amounts of information, but only on occasion. There’s nothing wrong with nesting information that you know players won’t always need, but never put it deeper than it absolutely needs to be. Civilization V, for instance, despite being an excellent game, has major problems with this. While information on the resources different players have to trade can be easily seen in the diplomacy menu, for instance, there’s no way to know if you have anything that player wants until you go into a completely separate series of menus via the trade screen. Additionally, the nested nature of many menus in the game and the use of large fonts and icons requires more scrolling than what would otherwise be necessary. While its predecessor’s interface was hardly perfect, at the very least it was organized and grouped information together where it would logically be wanted – compared to Civ IV, Civ V can often require twice as many mouse clicks just to perform the same tasks.

Keep Controls Consistent

Have you ever played a game where pressing a certain button or hitting a certain key just didn’t do what you expected? Although there’s something to be said for challenging genre conventions, usually, deviating from standard key and controller layouts is a poor idea which only artificially increases the learning curve of a game. Unless you’re genuinely able to improve on the interface, there should be absolutely no reason why your new game, Medal of Duty, maps the firing of weapons to the A button, reloading to the right trigger, crouching to the D-pad, throwing grenades to the analogue stick, and so forth. On the PC, this need only grows greater – with more buttons than ever available, and often necessary, it can be confusing for the player to have to re-learn all their familiar hotkeys again just for one game. Unless you can genuinely provide a good reason to not map J to the journal in your RPG, or the mouse wheel to switching weapons in your first-person shooter, then simply don’t do it.

That said, that’s no excuse to deny the player the option to customize and remap keys – even those hotkeys you tried so hard to make consistent. There is no technical reason why players should not be able to do so, especially on the PC, as unlike gamepads, mice and keyboards have far more equally valid button layout. Even so, as a basic usability feature, there is really no excuse not to allow players the option, even on consoles… that is, unless you don’t mind telling disabled customers that they can’t play your game because of your own oversight.

Convenience, Schmenience

Ah, a new item! Wonderful! I was getting sick and tired of my old Bodkin of the Weakling anyway, but… wait, what’s this? The Scepter of Ill Tidings? Well, just how am I supposed to know which one’s better? I mean, maybe one’s good for bashing, and the other is good for stabbing, but how do I know how, why, and where? What about the damage they deal? Which one is better for me? What about my character class? Ah, screw it, I’ll just sell it.

Alright, perhaps the scenario above is a bit of an exaggeration, but it’s common to play a game and end up with a situation where you might want to perform a task, such as comparing two weapons, and the game does not make it particularly easy to do so. Whether that’s something as simple as not being able to see the stats of both weapons at the same time, or not having a clear indication of which one is useful for what task, or what their requirements are, or how much money is valued at, there are times where the user interface, while not exactly failing, can still easily let the player down. As a designer, it’s important not just to give the player what he or she needs, but anticipate what he or she might actually want given the nature of the gameplay. The interface is something that exists to service gameplay, and anything you can do to make that gameplay experience smoother and more manageable is a worthy addition.

Maps

Videogame maps do not have a very good reputation. Sometimes, they take the “form over function” route, and end up looking cool without being particularly detailed or useful (The Witcher 2 has this problem from time to time, especially in outdoor areas). Other times, developers end up trying to incorporate some sort of 3D gimmick, resulting in a map that has the rare distinction of being both hard to read and hard to manipulate (for a long time the Splinter Cell games were haunted by this). And sometimes, well, there’s just no map at all, or it’s stuffed into a tiny corner somewhere. Suffice is to say, if you’re going to include maps in your game, they had better be easy to read, access and understand – if they aren’t, then you’ve wasted your time.

Of course, creating maps is an additional investment, requiring new artwork, programming, level design work, etc. At the same time, the incredible improvement to a game’s usability that a good map can provide cannot be overstated. Even if you feel your game is simple, or small, or easy to understand, it doesn’t matter: put a map in it, unless, of course, the player’s perspective is such that the playing field might as well be a map to begin with (Supreme Commander and its strategic camera zoom feature). Chances are all players are going to use the map at one point or another, and there are plenty more who will use it to plan their approaches, devise more efficient strategies and plans, compare play-style with others.

Maps are also extremely useful for guiding the player, both for in-game purposes and for secondary game information sources like walkthroughs, as well. No matter how much you might insist it’s not necessary – trust me, it is.

Conclusion

Although this list is by no means completely exhaustive, I feel that these are the absolute most key points which an interface needs to hit in order for it to be considered good.

Thankfully, most modern games have great interfaces, and some of the most basics problems are, in many cases, things of the past. That said, there are still many interface problems that continue to be prominent in the world of gaming, whether that’s the withholding of important information from the player for no good reason, poorly-made and useless in-game maps, or the prioritizing of aesthetics over usability. As the metadata layer between the player and the game, the user interface is one of the most important things to get right… and one of the worst you can possibly mess up. Hopefully, this list has provided some food for thought on how to avoid falling into what are still in many cases common issues. Thanks for reading! (Source: Gamasutra)


上一篇:

下一篇: