 Several folks have been talking about The Design of Everyday Things in the context of games, and this excites me tremendously. I am a big fan of Norman's book, as evidenced, but what I'm really excited about is what interest in this book represents. I believe there is a growing interest in improving the usability in games, and more importantly, improving their readability.
Why does this matter? I believe that one of the most interesting aspects of games is the interactive system that emerges from the collaboration of the game's individual mechanics and dynamics.
This is a characteristic unique to games (at least amongst activities we engage with for enjoyment) and perhaps the most emblematic of games' potential for true artistry. But there is an inseparable peril here as well, namely that being able to understanding the system is at least partially a precondition to enjoying it. E.g. there is a lot of time that needs put in before Dwarf Fortress becomes truly enjoyable.
This is a bigger problem than many people think.
Since their inception, games have been trending toward richer simulations, greater graphical fidelity, more varied interactions and more consequential decisions. But it seems a peak was reached and recently there has been a bit of pushback, calls for reducing complexity and making games simpler.
I think this is really an acknowledgment, perhaps subconsciously, that we're becoming more aware of the readability issues in our games. By reducing the elements at play in our systems, we can expedite the player's internalization of a system's behaviours.
Certain studios are incredible systematic in their approach to readability and it shows. Oft-touted, but for good reason, Valve has demonstrated how much they value creating games that are as readable as possible. I asked my fiancée to give Portal a try, even though she basically never plays first-person games.
Her tastes skew towards social games, be they intrinsically so (The Sims, Animal Crossing) or merely circumstantially (Mario Kart, Mario Party, Rock Band). I was curious how she would engage with Portal. The gameplay style wasn't particularly to her taste, and she found the controls a little wonky. But once the control issue was ameliorated, she was able to quickly parse and solve the puzzles, even though the game's interactions were almost totally foreign to her.
Listening to the developer's commentary, in coordination with reflecting on Randy Smith's GDC talk, it's clear this is no coincidence. It's the result of a dedicated and thorough process that behoove most developers to emulate as appropriate.
Making these complex systems readable is important, and not just because it might save the world. Players need to understand all the inputs and all the outputs to make interesting, informed decisions.
These are the mechanisms through which we express our will in the game. This is the machinery that transforms our medium from passive to interactive. It's what makes games interesting and might well be what makes them art.
This is a multifaceted (and as far as I'm aware, relatively unexplored) issue, but we can begin making inroads. Making games more readable begins with two things- empathy and data.
I'm going to discuss both in the next few posts, culminating with thoughts on how poor readability contribute to the adventure game genre more or less eating itself. I hope this will be of interest and, as always, I welcome your thoughts.
(This post originally appeared on Above49)
|
I think that's a great approach to game design...to try to include how to play the game within the game itself.
@Tim That's exactly right. While the quality of an object's affordances is independent from readability, clear affordances (when appropriate) definitely contribute to more readable systems. One of the least enjoyable things the player can do is the "guess which parts of the environment are interactive!" meta-game.
@Luis Excellent, I'd like take a look at than when it's available.
Developers need to invest more time into creating ways to make games more natural and readable, otherwise they will become frustrating and lose their enjoyment. I would like to expand on your article a bit in the area of readable player controls.
It is becoming increasingly evident that intuitive and natural control schemes are brigding the gap between casual and core games. While a core gamer will generally persist and come to grips with the control scheme of a game (as unnatural feeling as it may seem), a casual gamer will generally give up on the title, meaning that poor control schemes can often impact the sales and success of an otherwise great game.
Game developers are becoming aware of this and are now producing ways for the gamer to better immerse themselves into a game without the need for prior education in the title. In particular, downloadable games from places such as the Playstation network or Xbox Live dont have the luxury of of bundling an instruction manual with the title (though, these can be found sometimes through the options menu). Flow (relesed on PSN) is a great example of intuitive control in a game. the game has no start screen, no options and no instructions, however it is so simple to pick up and play that even my housemate (who never plays games) was able to pick it up and play straight away.
It seems that developers are also more willing to create new controllers and peripherals to give the player better control over the games they play. Nintendo seem to be at the forefront of creating innovative control for their systems and games. Remember the first time you played Mario64 with this new analogue stick, and were amazed at how natural the game felt and how easy it was to control mario in a 3D space without the need to actually look at the instruction manual. Surely enough, after the success of the analogue controller, Sony released the dual analogue for playstation and Sega released their analogue pad for saturn. Analogue was now the standard as it was proved to be more intuitive and natural for 3D games. Fast forward a few consoles and Nintendo introduce the Wiimote controller, the next step in game control and immersion. All of a sudden, your grandparents can pick up a game and understand how to control it just by imitating natural movements (Wii Sports I'm looking at you). The success of motion movement have lead to Sony and Microsoft attempt to replicate this control scema (expect the official announcements from both camps at this years E3).
Third party developers are also following suit with the most prominent examples coming from Guitar hero/Rock Band. Do you think these games could have succeded without the use of their natural feeling controls. Even my non gaming friends can pick up these games and play straight away at a decent level. Now, imagine how much fun it would be playing a game like this on a control pad.
I am also interested in your findings Luis. There is nothing worse than immersing yourself into a game world and then be dragged back to reality by something like broken control schemes (Resident Evil I am looking at you). But when a game gets it right (Mario64, Half Life), I can be lost for an eternity in the 'flow' of the game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)