Let's talk about how we play games and how that experience can have an (almost dire) affect on what we think of it. From consoles, controllers and keyboards to tutorials, menus and walls of text that can potentially destroy your motivation: Interaction design.
One of the main points of getting people to carry on playing is to keeping
it as simple as possible; this goes from ingame, to menus to the
actual console itself. If you were presented with a console that had
twenty different buttons on it, you wouldnt know what to do save for
reading the instruction manual instead they're very simple: There's
an on/off switch. Similarly if you decided to make SHIFT reload instead of R then that'd just aggravate veteran players and new ones when they go off and play another similar game forcing them to remember various button layouts. Fortunately it seems there was a meeting one day where game designers got together and decided upon a general consensus towards what buttons do what. Yay.
CurrentGen consoles are all good, so let's talk about one that was bad:
|
Wannabe Transformer |
A
good example of how NOT to make a console is the SEGA Genesis, or
more specifically the 32X. Consoles back then were about as intuitive
as a Chinese keyboard, fiddly as hell causing you to spend the good
part of an hour just plugging everything in. Plug and Play
was not a term known back then. Plug, plug, plug, find an
extension cable and plug some more then get pissed off and play
would be more accurate. The reason why this one particularly gets a
mention is due to how they upgraded
the console. Every other company just created a brand new console
entirely whereas SEGA thought it best to just add on heaps of shit
turning it into some twisted orgy of plastic and wires.
I
could go on but if you're interested in what a massive pile of ass
this was its well worth watching this video review by the Angry Video
Game Nerd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvR_3OTxs8A
When
it comes to menus we've all been there, we all have a game that
whenever we press the 'I' key our blood level rises just a little
bit. The one that sticks out for me has to be The Witcher, they had a
menu for EVERYTHING, there's nothing quite like bombarding me with a
heap of lists to get me into a game, oh yeah! In fact its not just
the menus that were aweful, but the entire gameplay; Swapping between
sword fighting styles, pausing the game midfight, click-to-move and
even click-to-fight by which I mean you had to click on the bastards
just to attack! What era were they in when they designed this
artifact? Seemless is not a word I'd use to describe The Witcher. I
didn't so much enjoy the game but endure it, all because of how
unnecessarily complicated it was.
|
Intimidating? Na, I love me a headache. |
|
It
is pivotal that you get the interaction right. The Witcher's story
was great, it was engrossing, but did I enjoy the game? Fuck no!
Eighty hours of my rockstar life went into struggling with that game
because I can't quit on a game I've spent more than five hours on.
God it was awful; handled like a walrus with ice-skates and that's
the sad part; it would have been a great game if they had a
simple-yet-modern 3rd
person/over the shoulder camera angle that when you clicked the mouse
it swung the sword, none of that cursor nonsense. Star Wars: Jedi
Outcast 2 had three different sword styles, just like The Witcher but
because it was a 3rd
person click-to-slash game it was fun, easy, intuitive. It came out
five years BEFORE The Witcher. Facepalm
Many
game has made mistakes like this, early gaming was riddled with it
but could you blame them? Noone had written a book on game design in
fact the most common way to learn how to play would be for someone to
teach you. Like card games, board games, chess; How intuitive is
chess? I mean really? I still don't know all the rules. Whenever I
played against my friend as a kid he always had to remind me what did
what, the same with poker – I learn the rules, and then my brain
farts them out the next day deeming it useless information.
|
So how do you actually play chess? |
You
cant pick up a deck of cards and go 'ah ok, so the queen of hearts
does this' whereas, thanks to consoles largely being the same these
days, you can pick up the controller and have a good idea of what
you're doing based on the style of game. i.e. right trigger/R2 is
fire, if it's not that then it's gona be right-back/R1. Nice and
simple, if it's not one button it'll be the next. It's almost
instinctive when playing a new game just to jam the controller to see
what does what unlike ten years ago you always turned to your buddy
to ask: 'So what are the controls?'
Failing
that, the designers take it upon themselves to grab you by the scruff
of your neck, throw you down and say 'HERE'S A TUTORIAL LEVEL!'
Whereby you either skip and wing it through the next few levels or
patiently experience what is usually a boring ass segment of the game
where they often tell you the obvious: 'Yeah, so use the
mouse to look around.' Yeah, no
fucking shit. The fact that they deem it necessary to include that in
a tutorial is either them being anal or a testament to the much
speculated fuck-wittery of your average player.
Though
I'm a skip kind of guy
I don't mean to knock tutorials. Most games its a waste of time but
sometimes you get something new, like haring across buildings in
Assassin's Creed or how to survive in certain horror games and so I'd
deem it worthy of my time.
|
Yeah, I will not remember any of that in 5 seconds time. |
But
does anyone enjoy a tutorial whereby they pause the game, tell you
what to do or you have to read (heaven
forbid) a wall of text? And then there are these bastards!(Right) Does
ANYONE find these enjoyable? My mind looks at them, shits with woe
and I'm left there jumping my eyes around the screen as if I'm on
crack trying as hard as I can to remember the controls because these
are ALWAYS on a fucking loading screen! Like, shit, I didn't know
they'd be testing my memory.
The
best tutorials are the ones when you don't even realise they're
telling you how to play or where to go. They do this threw subtle yet
cunning level design that when you find out how to do it you get a
sense of satisfaction that YOU did and not the computer just
spoon-feeding you.
That's
not to say being told what button is what is necessarily a bad thing,
its just a case of how they do it as an example a lot of games have
whatever button you need to press on the screen when you need to
press it like when you go to a door there's an 'E' hovering right
there. It's not exactly creative but it's also not intrusive unlike
Burnout: Paradise where they have DJ. Atomika pausing the game just
to let you know you can do shit;
Got it, now on your
bike I was having fun driving.
...pause my game you
prick.
What
made that particularly silly is that the guy is constantly on the
radio anyway so why not just have him tell you it at those moments?
Why take you out of the game?
A recent game that had
a great tutorial level was Skyrim: (que rose-tinted goggles)
You're on a cart with
three prisoners, you then find out one is the leader of a rebel group
and is about to have his head cut off by the Imperial Legion. Bang!
There's a rebellion against the empire and you're about to get the
chop as well. This sets up the Stormcloaks (rebels) as the good guys
and the Legion (empire) as the bad. That changes somewhat as you
progress through the game but there's one part of the thesis. Next,
as your head is on the block a dragon attacks. BOOM! Dragons are in
this game too, and judging by how people around you act it's a big
deal. Whalla, within the first five minutes of the game you're up to
speed on current events.
...and then the
game-play starts.
After the initial
fleeing to a building you find yourself on the top floor of a
building and need to jump across to another building. You now know
you can jump in this game – it didn't just tell you in an oh
yeah, you can do this too kind
of way, instead it said you can do this... NOW DO IT BEFORE THE
DRAGON GETS YOU FUCK!!!
Finally
you escape the dragon's wrath into a stonewalled keep. Depending on
who you chose to follow, the stormcloak or imperial (already letting
you get a taste of choosing a side) the NPC will tell you to come
over to them so they can undo the binds around your wrists; you go
over, press E and there you go, you now know you can talk to people
in this game. Moments later you come across the corpse of some poor
bastard and are told to loot their gear and equip it; you now know
that you can loot corpses and equip gear. Having just gotten some
sweet loot you probably want to give it a test, handily, some enemies
are coming your way; and now you know you can attack and block.
|
Behind you! Yeah I'm not fooling for that one buddy... |
The
rest of the sequence has you doing like things with magic, sneak
(passed a sleeping bear, hinting that if you don't want to engage,
there are ways to avoid it) and being told you have a map whereby the
person you were with points you in the direction of the next area
should you want to carry on OR he tells you if you'd rather do your
own thing then that's fine. How good is that? Instead of wondering
should I get on with the quest? Will it matter if I wait too long
or can I even go wondering yet? He just flat out tells you that
if you want to go walkies, then by all means go walkies but the
dragon thing was a big deal, driving home that you've just began your
epic journey.
Not
once did they pause the game, make you read shit or do a boring ass
tutorial level. They don't even tell you it's a tutorial level not
that you'd realise as it's so action packed and engrossing you become
completely immersed. Brilliant start to a brilliant game.
So we've looked at how
games like The Witcher were bad solely because of unintuitve
gameplay, whereas games like Skyrim started out on a strong leg due
to an informative yet fun introduction and how generally being taken
out of the game (breaking immersion) is not only dull in most cases,
but really irritating and unrewarding. The point of rewarding players
for being smart really needs to be driven home to game designers.
There's really no sense of achievement when being told how to do
something.
That last point brings
me to consoles again, but this time the motion sensitive ones: Wii,
Move and Kinect. I myself NEVER had an interest in this, I'm quite
happy to continue sitting down while playing with a controller.
Nevertheless in the spirit of talking about intuitive play, it really
can't get simpler then one of these. You want to swing your sword?
Swing the remote. Done. Well, that's what I thought anyway. You can't
just make any old movement and it'll do it, you have to swing that
sword in a particular way so don't go thinking your Obi-Wan Kenobi
and start spinning around the place 'cus that ain't gona cut it. This
really destroyed any hopes I already didn’t
have with motion sensor play. Technology just isn't at that point yet
where you really feel like you're in the game, instead you're left
with what I can only describe as a step back for gaming.
For
games like Wii Sports yeah of course it makes sense as the whole
point is to be active yet for a game like Resident Evil 4 why would
you play it with an awkward motion sensor and not a reliable
controller? Surely it's just more frustrating and in the end you'll
probably end up sitting down anyway. The irony is Nintendo brought
out a controller for the Wii.
Went
on a bit of a tangent there but the point remains, if not now then
sometime in the future we'll have (I hope) games where you actually
play the game as if you're in it, just think about that for a second!
Like the Matrix or some shee-it
as this current motion sensor stuff is for kids... or parties.
Really.
As
for 3D? When I can play it without having to wear glasses on my
glasses or having to sit exactly perpendicular to the screen – then
we'll talk.
Talk about
irritating.