Contents
Designing Games That Don't Suck
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
February 9, 2010
 
Ubisoft Q3 Sales Drop 2.7 Percent, Nine-Month Sales Sink 22.5 Percent
 
Dragon Age: Origins Sells In 3.2 Million Units [3]
 
Interview: Composer Garry Schyman Talks BioShock Soundtracks [1]
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
February 9, 2010
 
2K Games
Web Designer
 
Super Happy Fun Fun
Senior Software Engineer
 
Tarsier Studios
Senior Game Designer
 
Tarsier Studios
Senior Game Engine Programmer
 
Konami Digital Entertainment Co., Ltd.
Sound designer
 
Trion Redwood City
Sr. Environment Modeler
 
Trion Redwood City
Sr. Graphics Programmer
 
Vicarious Visions / Activision
Tools Programmer
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
February 9, 2010
 
arrow Television, Meet Games
 
arrow Two Halves, Together: Patrick Gilmore On Double Helix [1]
 
arrow The Road To Hell: The Creative Direction of Dante's Inferno [19]
 
arrow The Sensible Side of Immersion [10]
 
arrow Jumpstarting Your Creativity [5]
 
arrow Truth in Game Design [49]
 
arrow Postmortem: Vicious Cycle's Matt Hazard: Blood Bath and Beyond [4]
 
arrow Developers React: The iPad's Future [16]
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
February 9, 2010
 
Lineage 2 Interview - 'Freya Update Is Just a Beginning' - Pt.2
 
Swashbuckling for Landlubbers: Why you may already be encouraging piracy! [12]
 
Lineage 2 Interview - 'Freya Update Is Just a Beginning' - Pt.1
spacer
About
spacer News Director:
Leigh Alexander
Features Director:
Christian Nutt
Editor At Large:
Chris Remo
Advertising:
John 'Malik' Watson
Recruitment/Education:
Gina Gross
 
Feature Submissions
Features
  Designing Games That Don't Suck
by Jason Bay
11 comments
Share RSS
 
 
July 8, 2009 Article Start Page 1 of 5 Next
 

[In a detailed design article, Griptonite Games' Jason Bay uses classic usability concepts to break down the gamer's use of in-game weapons, objects, and puzzles, suggesting how this can make everyone build better video games.]

A designer's most important job is to craft unique and interesting challenges for the player. Too often though, we discover that players are unexpectedly challenged by aspects that should be easy or even invisible during gameplay.

Advertisement

These might be the workings of the user interface, or an in-world interaction that should be a snap to figure out but somehow just isn't. When these things get in the way of normal progress, players become frustrated and can stop playing your game altogether.

As developers, we try to discover these problems early and rework the objects in question until they approach a better semblance of usability. But the journey from "this sucks" to "hell yeah!" can take a lot of work and iteration and the goal is often reached more through intuition than on established process.

Rather than running on gut instinct, we could benefit from a reliable method of understanding of how players interact with the game so we can consistently predict potential problems and adjust accordingly -- before the game ships.

In classic usability book The Psychology of Everyday Things, author Donald A. Norman describes a system of assessing the usability of objects by examining the psychology behind how people perform tasks. Although his discussion is oriented for real-world objects like doors and clock radios, we can apply his methods to our game worlds to find out whether each game object is truly intuitive and easy for the player to learn and use.

In this article, we'll examine how this idea can be applied to build more intuitive (or more challenging!) objects, puzzles, GUI controls and other game world interactions.

The Seven Stages of Action

Norman defines that each person goes through seven stages of action when using an object, from the time he forms his goal to the time he evaluates whether he's successfully accomplished it:

Stage 1: Form the goal

Stage 2: Form the intention

Stage 3: Specify the action

Stage 4: Execute the action

Stage 5: Perceive the state of the world

Stage 6: Interpret the state of the world

Stage 7: Evaluate the outcome

You can assess the usability of any game entity by mentally walking through this list, in order, and examining whether it's possible for a player to engage in each step. If it seems like a player won't be able to perform one or more of the steps, then that's a red flag indicating a usability problem you should address before your design is perfected. Conversely, you can intentionally omit a step in order to create interesting challenges for the player depending on which one you leave out.

The Seven Stages in Detail

To help illustrate how you can check these stages to analyze a game entity's ease-of-use, let's run through a simple example. Let's say a player thinks the in-game explosions are too loud (he likes 'em loud, but he's at risk of waking his daughter who's sleeping in the next room). If we were to analyze the game's Settings menu, what sorts of things might this player be doing or thinking during each stage of the action?

1. Form the goal: This is the stage where the user forms the overarching end-goal they'd like to accomplish. "Here's the Settings menu. That seems likely to offer an option to lower the volume of the explosions."

2. Form the intention: In this stage, the user starts to drill down on how they could go about advancing toward the goal. "There's a control labeled 'Effects' -- I'll bet I can manipulate it in some way to affect the explosion sounds."

3. Specify the action: During this stage the user identifies specific actions that can be taken. "The 'Effects' control looks like a little handle on a horizontal track -- it looks like I could grab the handle and drag it along the track to change the volume. The right side of the rail has the icon of a large speaker and the left side has the icon of a smaller speaker, so I'll drag it to the left to decrease the volume."

4. Execute the action: (He grabs the little handle with his pointer and moves it along the track to the left.)

5. Perceive the state of the world: In this stage, the user first experiences any feedback that resulted from his change to the system. "I've dragged the handle to the left and then released it there. The game played a sample sound effect."

6. Interpret the state of the world: This is where the user interprets the meaning of the feedback he received in the previous step. "Now the handle is closer to the icon of the smaller speaker and the sample sound seemed to be quieter than what I heard in-game before I moved the handle, which probably means that the explosions will also be quieter."

7. Evaluate the outcome: "I wanted to turn down the sound volume, and that's what I did. Success!"

A typical user would move through these stages subconsciously in a couple of seconds, but if he isn't able to smoothly move through each and every one then it can lead to confusion or frustration. It's your job to make sure that doesn't happen.

 
Article Start Page 1 of 5 Next
 
Comments

Luis Guimarães
profile image
When you're trying to make imersivity and comfort for the player to focus on the game, it's needed skills and the pure sense of joy, everything that is not a challenge shall not be one, it's just distraction, distraction of anything out of the game's world...

I like to think in any game as I think in any software I use, the difference is that between those steps 2 or 4 there is something like "choosing the best tool and best way to accomplish your goal".

This is simple, I have an enemy, a weapon and a crosshair, and an input system such as a mouse, so I'm going to point the crosshair at the enemy while I'm carring the gun and then shoot. If the crosshair or the gun or my mouse doesn't respond well to my mind state that makes that action pure automatic as an extention of my own body actions, then I'll feel it, no matter the smalest jam that happens, I'll feel cheated. Same goes if I'm using and 6-axis and my enemy moves fast or takes good cover, then a simple action of aiming, that as a player I know I can do, just seems that I can't, so of course I'm gonna blame the input system.

Same goes for movement, jump, an things that seems simple in real life or in what the player is used to... "do these developers play soccer?! why my superstart soccer player cannot do a simple task that me and all my friends, and even my granda can do?!", the result is simple: "it sucks!", or in other words, player is being challenged by something that is out of the game's world.

Glenn Storm
profile image
Great article, Jason. Usability analysis is a good tool for bulletproofing interactive systems. This is a fine summary of how that analysis applies to game design and I think it gives some insight into how usability might even play a role in game play. (i.e., purposely omitting information to a particular stage of action) Thanks again!

Ian Fisch
profile image
Great article and great examples.

Ivan Kanev
profile image
Excellent reading, thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience. =]

Stefan Durmek
profile image
Yea, good article with many good points. Thanks!

André Martins
profile image
Very interesting article and nice examples!

Dead Space is an amazing example of showing the player all the information they need - without even showing it all the time. I like the way they used the floating menu to gather all the data the player may need to understand the history and to remember the main points of the controls. However... the game itself failures on letting the player change the control scheme, which is something I thought very problematic and annoying.

Bart Stewart
profile image
In a practical sense, what this very good article reminds me of most is a simple rule of thumb: never assign a programmer to create any element of a user interface if anyone else is available.

It's a truism throughout software development that the skills that allow some programmer to be very good at specifying object behaviors don't always translate into an ability to communicate effectively with other people. Ignoring this reality (sometimes because there's just no one else to do the job) is, I suspect, why we see problems like incomplete feedback (the programmer already knows what the control does) and confusing communication (such as rampant misspelling of words).

In other words, someone who's good at solving Stage 4 challenges in game development may not be equally talented at addressing game development challenges from Stages 1, 2, 3, 5, or 6.

Ichiro Lambe
profile image
I recognize the character and setup screen from our 12 title, The Wonderful End of the World. :) But I wasn't sure of the audio setup screenshot is meant to reflect good or bad practices?

Ichiro Lambe
profile image
That should read "12th title" and "...wasn't sure if the audio..."

So much for proofreading after a night of no sleep. ;)

Theo Tanaka
profile image
Great article, I really liked the last part where you discuss about giving hints to the player about what he has to do, like a notes screen, quest log. Those are things that when implemented poorly make me get stuck in games that I haven't touched in a while. That happened a lot in old RPGs, and I always had to look for some FAQ to find which part of the game I was in. Also, hints at boss battles should always be implemented, specially if the boss needs an uncommon strategy. I remember getting stuck at boss battles that didn't make very clear what I was supposed to hit or do.
I think that everyone on the development team should pay attention to those problems, but specially the game designer should know these points, because they have a great influence on the fun factor.

Christian Philippe Guay
profile image
It's clearly a great and useful article. However, I think it could be confusing, because it also talks about graphics, sounds, etc. It is very useful to understand how an action is performed, but games are also about any kind of interactivity and that goes so far beyond just "the action".

In this article, many great things are specified, even the reward, but I didn't find a part that explains how to produce fun and that's the most important part of a game. For sure, the reward needs to be fun, but it should be the same case for the mechanic used to perform the action and unfortunately there isn't much about that. If there was, I didn't feel it was enough for me.

I would love to hear more about your thoughts on the subject or read new articles ^^.

- Khris



none
 
Comment:
 


Submit Comment