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

更适合跨平台游戏的UI设计方式:Secretly Console First

发布时间:2019-01-14 09:03:38 Tags:,

更适合跨平台游戏的UI设计方式:Secretly Console First

原作者:David Sinclair 译者:Willow Wu

(David Sinclair是一位资深的用户体验设计师,曾在Carbine、Bungie、Crytek、以及Sony Online Entertainment任职。)

在寻找新工作期间,我想利用一点时间从跨平台开发角度谈谈在当下游戏行业百花齐放背景下的用户界面以及信息系统的设计问题。我第一次开始思考这个问题是在《命运》系列的开发期间,当时我是《命运2》PC移植计划的初始团队成员。之后是在Carbine Studios参与制作一款现在已经被砍掉的游戏,当时我们打算将它同时移植到多个平台。

在本文中,我所说的“跨平台”是指主机和PC,因为过去多年我一直在密切关注这两个平台,尽管我知道现在有不少公司开始将PC、主机游戏移植到移动平台上——比如PUBG的《绝地求生》和Epic的《堡垒之夜》。

本文旨在帮助那些参与3A/2A游戏项目的UI设计人员避免制造不必要的麻烦,创造出良好的用户体验。

好的开端

如果你知道你将制作一款在主机、PC登陆的跨平台游戏,那么明智的做法是你要在一开始就考虑到不同用户群体的界面和信息设计问题。因为二次设计以及重建是一个非常耗时耗力的过程,而且也可以说是一个很笨的做法。

浪费是困扰游戏行业的第一大问题——我就不花时间在这里论证了。如果我无业游民的状态还会继续持续一段时间的话,那我可能会详细写一写。但如果我找到工作了,那我应该会全身心投入其中,连续好几个月都不会去做别的事情了。

overwatch(from venturebeat)

overwatch(from venturebeat)

言归正传……

如果你只关注其中一个平台的用户界面和信息系统设计,你要面临的是两个设计方案、两个执行方案,再糟糕的话,你得要两个UI团队。其实这充其量也不过是把做完的游戏移植到另外一个目标平台,解决这过程中各种问题。而如果你一开始就想着设计两个完全不一样的系统,那事情真的会变得棘手很多(尽管我从没有听过有哪个PC、主机跨平台游戏开发团队是这样做的……),这样你就有可能要分两个UI团队了。

此外,我想说的是即使最初的计划是只在一个平台上发行,但你设计的时候还是要考虑到它最终会移植到其它平台的可能性。如果你使用的是跨平台引擎,比如Unreal或者Unity,那我劝你牢记上面的话。可能发生的最糟糕情况就是你为所有用户群体做了N个设计方案,“面面俱到”。

很多游戏在设计时都把注意力放在一个平台,然后非常成功,开发团队认为可以在另外一个平台试试——有不同的用户体验需求,如输入选项、屏幕观看距离、设备特定设置等。有过平台移植工作经历的人都会告诉你这是一个非常痛苦的过程,你很难保证新平台的用户体验能够达到和之前一样的效果。

不管你现在的平台计划是什么,在项目开始时思考一下个这个问题并不会耗费太多精力。我相信无论如何,你的设计都会因此变得更好,到后期你可能就会明白了。

核心问题

关于跨平台游戏的界面以及信息系统设计问题,我认为有一个核心问题是需要团队思考的:

我们要怎样才能设计、制作出适合这个平台、适合玩家输入设备的UI、信息系统,同时也不能忽略开发资源的耗费情况?

需要考虑的变量很多,但大多数可以归于PC和主机平台之间的两个关键不同:

1.对大部分手柄玩家来说,主机的输入选项是有限的。而PC玩家已经习惯了鼠标+键盘的多用途、灵活的操作。
2.大部分主机玩家会用电视机来玩游戏,他们会坐得相对较远,而PC玩家一般都会离显示器比较近。首先要考虑的就是内容的易读性——比如说9点字号的彩色文本,对于一个视力尚佳的人来说,就算他只离屏幕几英寸,这些文字还是如苍蝇一般大小,更不用说看着40英寸的电视,坐在房间另一头的主机玩家了。

有意思的是,我们很快就不需要为这些问题所困扰了,因为:

1.8/16位风格独立游戏的复苏让很多手柄玩家都获得了契合度非常好的游戏体验,有的游戏甚至可以说是为手柄玩家量身打造的
2.HDMI接口成为显示器和电视机的标准配置
3.投屏技术的应用促使Steam Link这样的设备诞生
4.越来越多人注意到游戏的辅助操作需求

实际上,这些因素可以促使玩家行为发生巨大改变。很多拥有手柄的PC玩家希望开发者能够允许让他们切换输入设备,同样,PlayStation和Xbox游戏机上针对对鼠标/键盘的支持功能也越来越多,满足不同操作需求的游戏体验成为人们值得关注的一件事。

而对于游戏开发者来说,PC游戏和主机游戏之间的界线已经变的不那么明显了,上面所提到的问题其实就是取决于操作偏好和距离远近。

目前主机和PC之间唯一不变的区别是PC玩家需要调整更多设置来促使硬件效果最大化,比如游戏画面的呈现。但是我今天不会往这个话题深入。

在本篇文章中(已经比我原先预想的还要长了)我将会推荐一种“主机优先”改良版设计方式。我觉得用“主机优先”这个词人们会比较容易理解,但是我所推荐的这种设计方式是聚焦于最难攻克的问题上——远距离操作和有限的输入方式(手柄)。

我认为对难点的提炼能够促使我们在设计时更具有针对性。

主机优先(Console First)

我觉得大部分读了这篇文章的人,尤其是那些游戏UX设计师,可能会觉得“这个作者真是很傲慢啊,还告诉人们应该把主机放在优先位置,这种事还用你说。”没关系,我可以接受。

对于其他人,这就是为什么我会推荐这个业内广泛应用的UI&信息系统设计方式:

1.如果我们在相距10英尺(约3米)的位置看某个东西很清楚,那么我们走越近应该就看得越清楚,除非我们说的是莫奈的作品。但反过来就不一样了。
2.同样的道理,如果你的游戏能用手柄操作,那么这个游戏肯定能移植到PC上。反过来,你原先有几十个按键可以选择,还外加一个鼠标,但是现在手柄上只有那么几个键,这就难得多了。这就是为什么传统的MMO游戏系统在演化过程中越来越倚重键盘操作和窗口管理。
真实案例分析

我觉得解释我这个设计方式的最好办法是通过列举一些真实世界的例子,看看其他人是怎么处理跨平台设计的。在下文,我会分析某些游戏的具体设计问题。我要重点强调一下,我对这些游戏还有开发团队没有任何贬低之意。我不会做那样的事情,任何游戏能顺利发行都是一件了不起的事。这些游戏也是非常成功的游戏。

现在我们就开始吧。

1.提示符更换(Simple Prompt Switch)
据我个人的观察,这就是最常用的设计方式,我称它为Simple Prompt Switch,也就是单纯地更换操作提示图标。我就选《耻辱2》这部佳作来分析吧,这是游戏主机版和PC版的菜单对比:
一般人第一眼很难看出到底有哪里不同。因为这是非常单一的设计,唯一的区别在于右下角的按钮提示图标和标签,这是由平台决定的。但是这个特别例子的设计问题在于由字号和字体应用不当,降低了内容的易读性。这种菜单设计适用于一般的主机游戏环境下,也就是远距离视角。如何看出这种设计是主机优先的?答案是交互方式,两个平台上都有特定的操作按键,但如果是PC优先的设计方式,他们会着重使用鼠标操作,让玩家只需把注意力放在两个鼠标按键上。

我觉得这种设计方式是行得通的。这种设计方式之所以会得到广泛应用大概是因为它成本最低。除此之外,我觉得这也是一种比较偷懒的设计方式:它为手柄玩家提供了便利,但是PC玩家在交互体验上就有点复杂,他们需要阅读一大堆键位信息。顺便说一句,有不少游戏其实都支持direct input(direct input是DirectX的组件之一,用于游戏中直接读取键盘等游戏设备的输入),但是直接告诉玩家这些按键功能会对玩家的探索体验造成消极影响,对于技能水平更高的玩家或是更偏好于键盘而不是鼠标操作的玩家来说,“热键”确实能让他们玩得更加得心应手。网络也是如此。在PC环境下,网页浏览的操作绝大部分都是由鼠标主导的,而索引切换系统(tab-indexing)则是高级用户和有辅助需求用户的常用工具。

2.PC设计倾向
在过去一年中,Epic Games的《堡垒之夜》成为了大家乐此不彼讨论的话题,正是由于他们用了跨平台开发套件Unreal Engine,玩家能够在所有主流游戏主机、PC和触屏设备上玩这个游戏。

我把《堡垒之夜》的这种设计方式称为PC设计倾向,跟上面的主机优先相反。这是《堡垒之夜》PC版和主机版的菜单对比图:

在我看来,游戏菜单系统显然是以鼠标操作为优先级来设计的,我甚至可以大胆假设菜单体验的设计者可能是从网页设计行业转过来的——游戏中还出现了过去备受争议的侧边抽屉式菜单栏(hamburger menu)。尽管如此,我不会说这是100%的PC优先设计,原因如下:

1.Epic Games是多平台游戏引擎Unreal 4的开发公司,如果要说谁一开始就对跨平台有远见的话,那一定就是他们了
2.早在2014年,Epic Games就确定要让游戏上架主机平台了
3.游戏的整体UI以及玩法信息在远距离也能看的很清楚,但我怀疑这并不在他们的原计划之内
手柄操作的解决方案是增加屏幕周围的按钮提示符。这种方法当然行得通,而且可能效果不错,但我觉得还是会有不少《堡垒之夜》主机玩家涌入Epic论坛,抱怨这种操作方式。我觉得它与《耻辱2》的Simple Prompt Switch相比实在是累赘,部分原因是不同画面的控件位置不一致,到另一个界面上玩家还需再仔细阅读操作说明才能继续。还有其它一些细节设计会破坏主机玩家的游戏体验,比如行动对应的按键不符合大众习惯:PS4玩家要按下三角形键才能开始游戏,然而这种确认操作一般都是按X键。在某些主机界面的选择、提交交互上也缺乏清晰的操作格局。

说实话,游戏的实际界面并没有我记忆中的那么糟糕。保险起见,我用两种输入设备再玩了一次,虽然我依然坚持之前的评价,但是总体来说操作说明还是挺清晰易懂的。

总的来说,我认为《堡垒之夜》的PC设计倾向以及《耻辱2》“主机优先”设计方式对对应平台玩家的偏向程度是差不多的。它们都是有效、可靠的设计方式,但是我想我们可以再看一个更好的例子。

我们现在就要来看这2000字文章最精彩的部分了。

3.主机优先的隐秘设计(Secretly Console First)
我在Carbine Studios工作时,在一次会议上我用了Secretly Console First(主机优先的隐秘设计)这个词,当时我们正在讨论公司的下一个里程碑项目。有人问我说“为什么要隐秘?”我的目的是让PC玩家察觉不到游戏开发时是以主机平台为优先的。如果他们玩到一个“垃圾主机移植游戏”,开发团队无疑会受到大规模的谴责。《无主之地》(Borderlands)移植的所带来的痛苦体验令他们变得十分敏感。《耻辱2》绝对不是一个糟糕的移植游戏,但很明显它的菜单信息布局是偏向于主机/手柄玩家的习惯,精明的PC玩家一定能够看得出来。

《守望先锋》这个游戏就能很好地说明什么是以主机优先的隐秘设计,也是上面所说到的核心问题(我们要怎样才能设计、制作出适合这个平台、适合玩家输入设备的UI、信息系统,同时也不能忽略开发资源的耗费情况?)的优秀回答之一。

以下是英雄选择界面主机版和PC版的对比:

游戏的界面布局,包括子元素就算就在远距离情况下也清晰可见。两个版本的场景、角色模型、界面布局应该都是一次性完成的,没有为平台做出二次改动,但是交互设计就明显不同了:主机版本将选择和提交按键提示一起放在屏幕底部,方便对照。PC版本使用的是鼠标悬停和点击的方式,对于绝大多数PC玩家来说,这就是最适合的交互方式了。

《守望先锋》的方法是构建两组元素,根据当前使用的输入设备而切换。也就是说,《耻辱2》只是简单地替换了标签和图标,而《守望先锋》则是在切换整个交互设计系统。结合了具有一定灵活空间的高层布局,交互层可以适应用户的不同输入需求。注意下在PC版本中,角色名字下方会出现一个类似“!”的小图标,玩家可以从这里获取英雄的细节信息。这显然更适合鼠标玩家操作,而且图标放置的位置也很符合格式塔心理学中的接近性原则:距离上相近的物体容易被知觉组织在一起。有人或许会说这不是《堡垒之夜》的优点吗?这就让我想到了这张图:

(《守望先锋》PC版本的排位图)

在《堡垒之夜》的菜单中,你也能看到类似于《守望先锋》这样应用接近性原则排列按钮提示符的设计,但关键的区别在于《守望先锋》的这种设计只适用于次级或第三级的交互行为。就比如上面的这张图,相关的操作——查看详细信息以及主要导航都在画面底部。提供编辑玩家个人资料的选项是出于便利性考虑,它并不是这个界面的主要功能选项之一,所以它在上边。我觉得这种方法虽然使用得很少,但却能有效保持游戏底部选项区的精简感,玩家也能停留在当前界面继续做一些另外调整,无需退回到某个界面去打开另一个菜单。

总结

主机优先的隐秘设计的必要前提:

1.信息密度、整体用户界面的元素规模和文本易读性都根据最远且合理的观看距离而设定
2.交互设计和玩法操作都以手柄优先
3.PC交互设计倾向于鼠标悬停和单击,而不是繁杂的操作提示,特别是在主要行动上
4.界面有一个基本的布局,然后叠加上平台特定的元素(游戏邦注符合2、3),在玩家更换输入设备时立即切换
在我看来,主机优先的隐秘设计方式相比简单的提示符更换和PC倾向设计在技术层面并没有额外耗费非常多资源。如果你用的是主流跨平台开发引擎那就更是如此了。额外工作都是在前端设计,而且也不算多。主要是在着手设计时,你脑中得有一种新的思维方式,让它形成一种习惯。

《守望先锋》的设计是非常值得我们学习的,无论是PC还是主机玩家都能得到一样好的游戏体验。

另外,我还要感谢Lauren Salk,在Carbine任职期间我们一起研究了不少相关资料。

本文由游戏邦编译,转载请注明来源,或咨询微信zhengjintiao

David Sinclair is a UX design leader who’s previously worked at Carbine, Bungie, Crytek, and Sony Online Entertainment.

I want to take this moment between jobs in the shit-show games industry to talk about designing interface and information systems for video games in the context of multi-platform development. I first started thinking about this when I was working on Destiny as part of the initial planning team around bringing Destiny 2 to PC. Then later at Carbine Studios, I was working on a now canceled game which we planned to ship simultaneously on multiple platforms.

In this piece I’ll confine “multi-platform” to Console and PC games because that’s where I’ve focused a lot of my attention over the past couple of years. Though I do recognize the beginnings of a trend to bring core PC and Console games to mobile — PUBG and Fortnite are two examples.

This article is aimed at UI minded folks working on AAA/AA games with a view to helping them to avoid creating problems for themselves while still providing a great player experience.

Starting Off on the Right Foot

If you know you are going to make a multi-platform game that spans game consoles and desktop PCs, then it would be wise to take this fact into account from the outset when it comes to interface and information design. This is because designing and building twice is expensive and generally a stupid idea.

Waste is the number one problem that plagues the game industry — I’m not going to qualify it here; I’ll probably write about that in some detail if I remain unemployed long enough to get around to it. While employed, I tend to throw myself into it and not come up for air for months at a time.

Onward…

Two designs, two implementations, and if you really fuck it up — two UI teams. That’s what you’re looking at if you focus entirely on one platform in the development of interface and information systems. At best you will set yourselves up to face the various challenges that come with porting your game to another platform. It can get much worse if you actually decide you want to design and build two completely different systems from the get go (I’ve never heard of that actually happening in the case of PC and Console, but now I’ve put it into the Universe…). That’s how you’ll likely encounter the two UI teams issue.

Furthermore, I’d go so far as to claim that even if the original plan is to release on a single platform, still design for the likelihood that that it will make it to other platforms eventually. I triple down on that statement if you are using a multi-platform engine like Unreal or Unity — they make it so easy. The worst thing that could happen is that your UI is legible at any reasonable distance.

Many games have been designed with the sole focus on a single platform, then gone on to be very successful, warranting a release on another platform that has different user experience needs such as input options, screen viewing distance, device specific settings, etc. Anyone who has had to do a port will attest that it can be a real pain to do the work in general, and it’s much harder to do the new platform justice in terms of UX.

It doesn’t take much more effort to think this stuff through in the beginning in spite of current platform plans are. I believe that regardless, your design will be better off for it for reasons that may become clear later on if I remember to qualify that statement.

The Central Problem

Designing interface and information systems for multi-platform games requires the team to consider what I believe to be the central problem at hand:

How do we design and build UI and information systems that look and feel appropriate for the platform and input scheme the player is using while being mindful of development resources?

The variables for consideration are numerous but most can be filed under two key differences between PC and Console platforms:

1.Consoles have limited input options for most players (controllers) while PC players are generally accustomed to a more versatile mouse and keyboard input scheme.
2.Console players at large tend to play on TV sets while sitting some distance away, while PC players more often than not are right up close to their monitors. The primary concern here is legibility of information — colored text at a font-size of 9 points barely flies when someone with great eyesight is hunched over their keyboard only inches from their monitor, let alone on a 40 inch TV on the other side of the room.

Interestingly, these are now fast becoming outdated generalizations born out of a time before:

1.the resurgence of 8 and 16bit-influenced indie games, many of which are very compatible with (and arguably best suited to) controller play

2.HDMI becoming standard for both monitors and televisions
3.casting technology like Steam Link
4.increasing awareness of accessibility needs

These factors have facilitated significant change in actual player behavior. More PC players have controllers and expect to have the option to use them when they please. Likewise there is increased support for the mouse/kb scheme on both PlayStation and XBOX consoles in recognition of greater attention needed to making games playable to people with diverse accessibility needs.

The truth for game developers, is that the lines between PC and console have become blurred and that the problems mentioned above are really just variance in input preferences and viewing distance.

The only immutable difference that currently exists between console and PC’s in gaming is the PC player’s need for more settings to best leverage their hardware, e.g. graphics. This something I’m not going to cover today.

In this article (which is already longer than I thought it would be) I’m going to recommend a specific variation of several “console first” approaches. I think this term is easier for people to get their heads around, but in truth I’m recommending an approach which focuses upon the most difficult problems first — larger viewing distances and limited input methods (controllers).

I feel that this distillation of the problem is helpful in focusing our design efforts.

Console First

I feel like for most people reading this, especially those already in games in a UX design role, it might come across as a bit patronizing to have me here saying “You guys should, like, design for console first.” as if it wasn’t already obvious. I can live with that.

For everyone else, this is why I recommend the already quite widespread practice of console-first UI and information design:

1.If something is legible at the 10ft view, then its legible up close — every time — unless we are talking about a Monet. This isn’t true the other way around.
2.If you can make your control scheme work on a controller, then you can adapt to PC. It’s harder the other way around when you have dozens of keys to choose from and a mouse. That’s how you get the classic MMO systems involving heavy keyboard use and window management.

In the wild

I think the best way to illustrate the approach that I’m going recommend at the end of this article is to go through some real-world examples of how others tackled multi-platform design. I’m about to get specific in referencing certain games and it’s very important to me that I make it clear that I’m not shitting on any of these games or the people who made them. I don’t do that; it’s a miracle any game gets released at all. Also every one of the games I’m about to call out are very successful.

With that let’s get to it. Here are some examples of solutions out there in the wild.

1. Simple Prompt Switch

It has been my observation that the most commonly used approach is what I call the Simple Prompt Switch. I’ve selected the wonderful Dishonored 2 to illustrate this approach. Here is a side by side of the console and PC versions of one of the menu screens:

Dishonored 2 Powers Menu — Console (left), PC (right)

At a glance you could be forgiven for wondering what the difference is. This is because it is a single design with the only difference being that the button prompt icons and labels are specific to the current platform. While in this particular example there is an argument for poor legibility of some of the text due to size and font usage, this screen has been designed to be legible in the common console context of a greater viewing distance. The main giveaway that this is a console-first design is in the favored interaction method — specific button/key presses on both platforms, where a PC first game would emphasize direct input with the mouse, thus leaving the player with only the two mouse buttons to worry about.

Here are the same images posted individually for closer inspection:

Console/PC

I think this approach works. I imagine its popularity is due to likely being the cheapest method. I also think that this method is a bit lazy; in favoring the controller input method this way, it puts a UX burden on the PC player to read over a bunch of key cues instead of encouraging a more natural direct input. Incidentally, this game and many other DO allow direct input, but in presenting these key prompts they are adversely affecting discovery on a platform where ‘hotkeys’ are typically an advanced method for the more adept players or those with an accessibility need for keys over mouse input. This is also true of the web. In a desktop environment, browsing the web is very mouse-driven affair, with systems like tab-indexing as a tool for advanced users or those who with accessibility needs.

2. PC Leaning

Epic Games’ Fortnite Battle Royale has been the talk of the town for the best part of a year now and thanks to their truly multi-platform development suite Unreal Engine, Fortnite is on all major consoles, PC, and touch screen platforms.

I describe the solution Fortnite uses as PC leaning as opposed to PC first for reasons I’ll get into after the following side by side view of the PC and console versions of one of the menu screens:

Fortnite Lobby screen — PC (left), Console (right)

It’s clear to me that the menu system in Fortnite was designed with direct input via a mouse as priority, and I hypothesize that the designers of the menu experience may have come into games from a web background — there’s even the used-to-be-controversial hamburger menu on there. Nevertheless, I hesitate to say this is an all-in PC-first approach for the following reasons:

1.Epic Games are the creators of the multi-platform oriented Unreal 4, if anyone has the vision to think multi-platform from the outset its them
2.Epic Games’ PR had the game releasing on consoles as far back as 2014
3.The general UI and information design both in the menus and actual gameplay read well at larger viewing distances and I doubt that this was an accident.
Here are the same images posted individually for closer inspection:

PC/Console

The solve for the controller context is to augment the existing array of buttons peppered around the screen with button icon prompts. This “works” and probably works fine — I doubt the millions of Fortnite console players are descending upon Epic’s forums with complaints about this implementation. I however think it lacks the elegance of the Simple Prompt Switch of Dishonored 2, partly due to the inconsistent placement of controls across screens, requiring some scanning work to grasp what happening, and in some cases duplication of the button prompts in different areas of the screen like in banner edit screen (which I can’t find a screenshot of right now). There’s other little things that chip away at the console experience such as the use of non standard buttons for primary actions. Look at the start button on the PS4 image above and note that it requires a triangle press to start the game when it has become standard to use the cross icon for those kinds of actions.

In some screens there’s also a lack of a clear grid layout that is useful for the console-style select and commit model.

To be honest I remember this being much worse than what it actually is, but in the spirit of checking myself before wrecking myself, I just jumped in and played again under both control schemes, and while I stand by my assessments, it’s all pretty clear and learn-able.

In summary, I think that Fortnite’s PC Leaning implementation favors PC players to the extent that Dishonored 2’s Console-First approach favors console players. Both are solid and effective approaches, but I think we can go one better.

We are about to get to get to the meat of this whole 2000 word plus bowel movement (I don’t think I’ve written this many words in a single sitting since I was at university).

3. Secretly Console First

I used the term Secretly Console First in a work meeting while I was going over plans for the next milestone of the project I was working at Carbine Studios R.I.P.. “Why is it a secret?”, I was asked. It’s a secret because the goal is for the PC player to never get the feeling that console was favored in the development of the game. PC gamers tend to be loudly critical when they feel like they are playing a “shitty console port”. They still remember the original Borderlands port and have been hyper sensitive ever since. Dishonored 2 is by no means a shitty console port, but it clearly favors console/controller input in its messaging in the menus and the savvy PC gamer is going to feel that.

Overwatch exemplifies what it is to be Secretly Console First. To me it is the finest current example of a game that addresses the central problem of multi-platform UI and information design:

How do we design and build UI and information systems that look and feel appropriate for the platform and input scheme the player is using while being mindful of development resources?

Here is a side by side of the ‘Select a Hero’ screen on Console and PC:

Overwatch Select a Hero Screen — Console (left), PC (right)

In Overwatch, Blizzard has created all of its layouts, and sub elements in a way that makes them clearly readable at large viewing distances. The high-level UI layout, the environment and character model setup is done once for both platforms, yet the interaction design is clearly different:

1.The console version uses the commonly used (to the point of being standard) pairing of select and commit interaction design, with button prompts at the foot of the screen for easy cross referencing
2.The PC version uses the mouse-centric hover and click method that is the most efficient browsing and interaction method for most PC players

Here are the same images posted individually for closer inspection:

Console/PC

The Overwatch approach is achieved by building two sets of elements that are toggled on and off according to the input device currently being used. Where Dishonored 2 is simply replacing labels and icons, Overwatch is switching out the entire interaction design. This means that in conjunction with a high-level layout that has breathing room, the interaction layer can adapt to the needs of the input method. Note the small icon underneath the character name on the PC version that looks like “[!]”. This is a more mouse-appropriate way to handle the “Hero Details”, especially with its position following the gestalt (oh no he didn’t) principle of proximity. One could argue that this is the main positive of Fortnite’s method which leads me to this image:

Some kind of rankings display, PC

Overwatch uses the proximity based button prompt method seen in Fortnite at several points in their menu systems, but the key difference is that it is exclusively for of secondary or tertiary actions. The above screen is about competitive rankings, the relevant controls such as detail drill-downs or main navigation are placed in along the bottom. Editing player identity specifics such as the emblem is an option placed as convenience for the player and not the primary function of the screen. I feel that this approach, used sparingly, helps keep the main row at the bottom clear for the few important interaction options, while still allowing the player to easily do other tangential things with the game without going back out and drilling into another menu somewhere.

Wrapping Up

Here is the basic Secretly Console First list of ingredients:

1.Information density, general UI element scale, and text legibility targets the greatest reasonable viewing distance

2.Interaction design and gameplay controls are solved for controllers first
3.PC interaction design favors mouse hover point and click with clear buttons favored over prompts, especially for primary actions
4.Screens have a single basic layout, and platform specific elements (2 and 3 above) are switched out on-the-fly as the player changes input method

This Secretly Console First approach, which in my opinion does both extremes justice, is not much more expensive to technically achieve — if at all — than the Simple Prompt Switch or the PC-Leaning methods shown further up the page. This is especially true if you’re using on of the major multi-platform development engines out there. The extra work is in the upfront design and even then it isn’t much. It mostly requires exercising a new mindset when approaching the design to the point that it becomes habit.

Let’s follow Overwatch’s great example and treat PC and Console players with equal care.

I’d like to thank Lauren Salk who worked with me on researching this stuff at Carbine. She is awesome and quickly got hired a couple of weeks after the shutdown.

(source:gamasutra.com


上一篇:

下一篇: