There are I think two problems here:
The first involves what are called affordance, which is basically how something conveys how it is to be used by how it is designed. A person looks the widget's shape and what is communicated and then decides hwo it's supposed to be used based on prior experience and their culture's common sense. A door with what looks like a push plate that's actually designed to be pulled is an example of a bad affordance.
The second issue has to do with how people respond when in unfamiliar situations. We can get tunnel vision, ignoring details, or base our actions on misunderstood instructions. I remember killing myself repeatedly in a rushed, tense battle between two helicopters in Half Life 2 because I didn't understand that missiles were guided, a fact that was detrimental when I repeatedly ran over to an ammo box or health area and got blasted-- and I've been playing FPS games for more than a DECADE!
If you think your customer base is stupid, you'll have contempt for them when you design. This superiority will, in fact, make you stupid. Rather than putting yourself in their shoes, you'll overlook their basic needs out of a belief that they should not have them. This will make you less successful than you could be.
Am I the only one to find this disgusting?
Not having played the said game, I assume you could just have turned around and see the missiles altering their trajectory? If so, the game has given you sufficient information, all you needed to do was to examine the environment more carefully. Regardless of experience, everybody can fumble sometimes, or become too careless and miss something important that will ultimately lead to death / mission failure. And it is a good thing games can still make that happen, even to genre veterans.
Traditionally the instructions in FPS games have been little more than "You are at point A, reach point B alive". Even the "You are at point A, figure out what to do before the monsters eat you - and you better be quick about it" were not so uncommon. I haven't played many FPS games recently as I'm not much of a fan of the genre, but games like Hereric, Doom 1/2, Quake 1/2, and an odd Star Wars FPS I played usually threw you in one of the above 2 scenarios - with no radio communications to alert and guide you every step of the way, detailed minimap with objective markers, or any such luxury.
I even remember the ancient point & click lucasart-ish adventure called Loom that could fit on a floppy disk. My avatar was given a stick that could play some music, and presumably make things happen by doing so. I walked around several available locations at start, trying countless combinations, but I couldn't accomplish any progress at all (literally). I was stuck on the very beginning of the game. I gave it up after 3 days of trying, but I never once thought that it was a bad game. I just didn't have the skills (or to be brutally honest, the intelligence) to understand and beat it.
On the other hand, to be once again brutally honest, the reaction along the lines of "I don't get this game, this game is stupid" is a typical reaction of an 8-year old on the playground. The game is not bad (poorly designed) because some people have difficulties playing it successfully. They are bad as players. Conforming to the lowest common denominator of the target audience is conforming to that 8-year old attitude - that he must be able to understand the game and be reasonably successful (single-player wise) at it with as little effort as possible for the game to be "good" enough. Unfortunately, games that fit in that criteria are often watered down guided tutorial versions of what they could have been.
IMO, if a player has difficulties with a game, the idea should be that the player should improve in whatever abilities he lacks to play the game better - be it observation, reflexes, lateral thinking, tactical awareness, strategic planning or management skills. The idea should never be that the game (or its sequel) must be downgraded to the level at which that same player whould be able to enjoy success almost effortlessly.
Traditionally the instructions in FPS games have been little more than "You are at point A, reach point B alive". Even the "You are at point A, figure out what to do before the monsters eat you - and you better be quick about it" were not so uncommon. I haven't played many FPS games recently as I'm not much of a fan of the genre, but games like Hereric, Doom 1/2, Quake 1/2, and an odd Star Wars FPS I played usually threw you in one of the above 2 scenarios - with no radio communications to alert and guide you every step of the way, detailed minimap with objective markers, or any such luxury.
I even remember the ancient point & click lucasart-ish adventure called Loom that could fit on a floppy disk. My avatar was given a stick that could play some music, and presumably make things happen by doing so. I walked around several available locations at start, trying countless combinations, but I couldn't accomplish any progress at all (literally). I was stuck on the very beginning of the game. I gave it up after 3 days of trying, but I never once thought that it was a bad game. I just didn't have the skills (or to be brutally honest, the intelligence) to understand and beat it.
On the other hand, to be once again brutally honest, the reaction along the lines of "I don't get this game, this game is stupid" is a typical reaction of an 8-year old on the playground. The game is not bad (poorly designed) because some people have difficulties playing it successfully. They are bad as players. Conforming to the lowest common denominator of the target audience is conforming to that 8-year old attitude - that he must be able to understand the game and be reasonably successful (single-player wise) at it with as little effort as possible for the game to be "good" enough. Unfortunately, games that fit in that criteria are often watered down guided tutorial versions of what they could have been.
IMO, if a player has difficulties with a game, the idea should be that the player should improve in whatever abilities he lacks to play the game better - be it observation, reflexes, lateral thinking, tactical awareness, strategic planning or management skills. The idea should never be that the game (or its sequel) must be downgraded to the level at which that same player whould be able to enjoy success almost effortlessly.
Quote:Original post by Durakken
Ok...let's say it's one of the kind that i have, 2 knobs. One that says cook/defrost and the other with minutes marked off. The door is one where you simply pull and it opens and he still asks you how to operate it?
Ok,...
How LONG do I set it for? How do I start it? What happens if I try to cook something in a tin foil dish in it?
Whilst I agree with most of what is being said here, I do believe Durakken has brought up another issue I have found with MMOs.
"Disgusting" is a bit too strong a word to use, but I do think that spoonfeeding players information without them having to ask is a bad design choice. Primarily this prevents interaction between players in an MMO. For example, if i'm given the exact location of every quest objective, then theoretically I can go from level 1 to max without ever having to talk to another player at all.
Even World of Warcraft (dare i mention it) does not given players exact guidelines, but instead often presents a choice, giving the players a rough area to search, but rewarding players who read the quest text with a more detailed description of the objective.
Therefore i suppose, in an MMO environment, whilst the player does need hints, it (in my opinion) isn't a great idea to give them the entire 'picture' and then force the social interaction at a later point in the game (i.e. groups, etc) but however slowly coax the player into interacting with the community from the get-go.
But again, this is just my opinion.
"Disgusting" is a bit too strong a word to use, but I do think that spoonfeeding players information without them having to ask is a bad design choice. Primarily this prevents interaction between players in an MMO. For example, if i'm given the exact location of every quest objective, then theoretically I can go from level 1 to max without ever having to talk to another player at all.
Even World of Warcraft (dare i mention it) does not given players exact guidelines, but instead often presents a choice, giving the players a rough area to search, but rewarding players who read the quest text with a more detailed description of the objective.
Therefore i suppose, in an MMO environment, whilst the player does need hints, it (in my opinion) isn't a great idea to give them the entire 'picture' and then force the social interaction at a later point in the game (i.e. groups, etc) but however slowly coax the player into interacting with the community from the get-go.
But again, this is just my opinion.
Fundamentally, you're going to have to decide what your target audience is -- how big is it, how much work are they willing to put forth, how annoyed are they by handholding, and so on. Then you design your game to that target audience.
You're free to design your game towards people who don't need handholding, and then to ignore those people who try to play it and complain that they can't figure things out. You'll be limiting your audience by doing that, though, because those players who need handholding won't play your game. You'll get a larger audience by adding the handholding in, because the players who don't need it are still able to tolerate it being there, and thus can still play the game.
You're free to design your game towards people who don't need handholding, and then to ignore those people who try to play it and complain that they can't figure things out. You'll be limiting your audience by doing that, though, because those players who need handholding won't play your game. You'll get a larger audience by adding the handholding in, because the players who don't need it are still able to tolerate it being there, and thus can still play the game.
Quote:Original post by Talin
On the other hand, to be once again brutally honest, the reaction along the lines of "I don't get this game, this game is stupid" is a typical reaction of an 8-year old on the playground. The game is not bad (poorly designed) because some people have difficulties playing it successfully. They are bad as players. Conforming to the lowest common denominator of the target audience is conforming to that 8-year old attitude - that he must be able to understand the game and be reasonably successful (single-player wise) at it with as little effort as possible for the game to be "good" enough.
I completely disagree with this,
Theirs a difference between losing a game from some specific mistake and losing because you don't know the rules of the game. I don't really see the appeal of gameplay that amounts to a text based guess the random number game.
I'll also mention again that you can't say anything is common sense in a video game, for example "use credit card to open door" seems logical but not if "pick lock with wire", "kick down door", "break lock with hammer" and "use C4 on door" won't even give me a response that hints if I'm on the right track.
Knowing the rules of the game is a completely different issue. I was never trying to say that a player should put up with cluttered interfaces, messy controls and ambiguous (or unavailable) information on how the game should be played. Such things arguably do make the game more challenging, but it's obviously a wrong way to go about it and a serious design flaw as such.
However, I wouldn't relate the examples you listed to the "rules of the game". The rules of such a game would probably be something along these lines:
- You control a character (in first person)
- You can move in any direction, jump, kick, and punch
- You can pick up various items and store them in your inventory
- Those items can be used on world objects and/or other items in the inventory
- Those items can also be weapons that you can hold in your hand(s) and use against your enemies.
"How to get past this door" is not a rule that you are entitled to know beforehand. Neither does the game have to inform you of the possible uses of all (or any) of the items you have in your inventory or your character's abilities.
Consider this example:
If you run into a door with a punch card slot, I do not consider it a bad design for the game to just let you notice the slot yourself, remember that you carry a punch card, and try to use it on the door - or to figure out you need to find a punch card if you do not have it. And just so you wouldn't be able to search at leisure, there are zombies around.
I do, however, consider it a bad design if the game highlights the slot for you when you approach the door, and prints out a big fat message "Card identification required". At which point your character usually "remembers" that the person with the right card works in an office down the hallway, and the game marks the location / direction on your map / HUD. There are a few zombies around, which is the only thing you really need to worry about.
In the first case, you still overcome some sort, however simplistic and obvious, of a challenge. Getting past the door was your accomplishment, and it carries some weight. In the second case, the whole procedure of getting past the door was a complete waste of time. The game solved its own challenge, you just clicked the right buttons. Moreover, each subsequent occasion you get to use a punch card on the door slot will be a pointless waste of time as well. Except that many won't care it is pointless, because it's easy progress.
I agree many obvious things aren't that common sense in video games - which is all for the better. The world gives you enough obvious hints, but you still need to actually "get it" yourself. And that is the whole point.
However, I wouldn't relate the examples you listed to the "rules of the game". The rules of such a game would probably be something along these lines:
- You control a character (in first person)
- You can move in any direction, jump, kick, and punch
- You can pick up various items and store them in your inventory
- Those items can be used on world objects and/or other items in the inventory
- Those items can also be weapons that you can hold in your hand(s) and use against your enemies.
"How to get past this door" is not a rule that you are entitled to know beforehand. Neither does the game have to inform you of the possible uses of all (or any) of the items you have in your inventory or your character's abilities.
Consider this example:
If you run into a door with a punch card slot, I do not consider it a bad design for the game to just let you notice the slot yourself, remember that you carry a punch card, and try to use it on the door - or to figure out you need to find a punch card if you do not have it. And just so you wouldn't be able to search at leisure, there are zombies around.
I do, however, consider it a bad design if the game highlights the slot for you when you approach the door, and prints out a big fat message "Card identification required". At which point your character usually "remembers" that the person with the right card works in an office down the hallway, and the game marks the location / direction on your map / HUD. There are a few zombies around, which is the only thing you really need to worry about.
In the first case, you still overcome some sort, however simplistic and obvious, of a challenge. Getting past the door was your accomplishment, and it carries some weight. In the second case, the whole procedure of getting past the door was a complete waste of time. The game solved its own challenge, you just clicked the right buttons. Moreover, each subsequent occasion you get to use a punch card on the door slot will be a pointless waste of time as well. Except that many won't care it is pointless, because it's easy progress.
I agree many obvious things aren't that common sense in video games - which is all for the better. The world gives you enough obvious hints, but you still need to actually "get it" yourself. And that is the whole point.
Quote:Original post by Talin
Consider this example:
If you run into a door with a punch card slot, I do not consider it a bad design for the game to just let you notice the slot yourself, remember that you carry a punch card, and try to use it on the door - or to figure out you need to find a punch card if you do not have it. And just so you wouldn't be able to search at leisure, there are zombies around.
This, I actually find to be bad design if the card slot is just a simple graphic sitting there on the wall by the door.
What would be far better is the card slot has a little blinking light, and when you try to interact with the door it warns you that you need to present the proper key card to gain access to this door.
The issue is that you need to find a way to clearly present the information, while not giving them orders as to what to do or how to do it as if they were a robot.
Example:
You are told to go to Section 12. You find a big door labeled Section 12. You walk up to the door and activate it like all other doors in game. Nothing happens.
Player says "Ah @$#* this %!*@, this game is broken". Why? Because there is no clear indication that this door doesn't work like others.
Give the user what they need to know: What item it is they need, how they can find out where the item is. Then they need to have a clear way to find things like: Where locations are, and how to get to them. Who people are, and a way to look up where they are, which ties back into where the locations are.
Quote:Original post by Talin
Not having played the said game, I assume you could just have turned around and see the missiles altering their trajectory?
Yes, but the problem was that I was operating on an assumption that the missiles were self guided. The problem could have been that I know a bit TOO much about guidance systems (a tiny bit, but enough to assume for some odd reason that the missile guidance came from the warhead). The beam was washed out on my TV and I was playing from 6 feet away with a wireless controller. So it amounted to a perfect storm of user stupidity. [grin] I didn't understand at first that the only reason I had previously been hitting the target was because I happen to be checking it's progress and the missile's while ducking up from cover!
Quote:
I haven't played many FPS games recently as I'm not much of a fan of the genre, but games like Hereric, Doom 1/2, Quake 1/2, and an odd Star Wars FPS I played usually threw you in one of the above 2 scenarios - with no radio communications to alert and guide you every step of the way, detailed minimap with objective markers, or any such luxury.
Granted there's a more hardcore way to play the game (heck, you could turn the monitor off and play by sound!). But there's also something to be said for assessing the overall common sense level of the players. I always vote for training the player up to the expected level and making aids that might be too brain dead optional for veteran players (like in Halo 1, I believe you could turn off ally markers in multiplayer so that the game experience could be more challenging for the experienced.)
Quote:Original post by Durakken
"So i have never played any star ocean game before and i just got this one a couple weeks ago.
i have played it once or twice but i seem to be stuck where to go..
i just started the game and i was told to find the other ships that crashed but the only place i can seem to find is urd falls cave and it seems like everything else is a dead end...i must say i dont feel like the smartest person with this but i just want to get past the point so i can actually enjoy what looks like a really fun game.
any help? "
For those of you have played the game... you can only go from your ship to the waterfalls, through the falls, and to another part of the map to get where you need to go. The direction you should go as well as the entrance/exit is clearly marked. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if it's the only available path to follow then it should be the path you take...
This isn't the only example of this I've seen. Playing MMOs, especially ones like CoH, the developers go out of there way to have tutorials and way points and markers all over the place so you don't have to ask someone else, but I find people that without exploring their HUD or anything around shout they're lost and are confused and want another player explain to them what was in the tutorial provided by developers...
I've always found this behavior incredibly disgusting and been annoyed with it. Am I the only one that feels this way? I ask this here because it's a design element that costs time that for many just is a waste...so what do you all think about this behavior?
To answer the original question, since I don't seem to see a response from anyone who have actually played the game, the key is on the mini-map, which you can make full screen at anytime by pressing the start button. The mini-map is usually up in the upper right hand corner and will actually display context sensitive details about the environment. For example, in your case, go where there is a big exclamation point.
As someone who has played the game for more than 60+ hours, I think their choice to move the important information about the environment from the actual displayed environment is to preserve the sense of realism. You have a game where you are usually running around wilderness settings on undeveloped alien planets more than half the time. So, it makes sense that you wouldn't see crazy markers in the world that resemble platforms or road signs. They even replaced the concept of a "chest" based on the environment around you. So, in an insect infested area, a "chest" may be a egg pod like thing.
The only thing the game is guilty of, along with some of the recent entries from tri-Ace is having itty-bitty print and on screen text that you could not possibly read on a standard def TV. This also is true for the markers on the map, they aren't that visible on a standard def TV, especially if it is less than 30". Move to HD and the game looks and feels totally different.
So, I know the arguments here have skewed towards a debate over level design, but I kind of wanted to address the original question and say that it was most likely a design choice to not pollute the environment with artificial markings. It should be noted that this issue mainly occurs in the wilderness areas of the game and is less so in the indoor artificial environments, like in a space station. So, I guess the simple bottom line is, how much of the immersion do you want to break in order to point the user in the right direction when it comes to level design. How artificial can you make an area before it feels forced and out of place with the rest of the environment and proposed setting.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement