Whatever your game, it is important to have a good interface. Your interface is the link between the player and the game. It is what facilitates the entire game experience. The best interface is the one nobody notices. It should create a seamless experience.
If the player every actively notices your interface, it has failed. There will be a initial learning curve where the player learns the controls; The only way around that is for the learning curve to be placed in another game. For instance, first person shooter tend to use a fairly standardized set of controls. Because of this,most players have already learned how to use those controls, and don't suffer that learning curve. A good set of controls is intuitive enough to learn easily, and minimizes the learning curve associated with them.
After that learning curve, it should provide a smooth experience. There are many game I have played and loved, and even when playing them on a regular basis, I would be unable to tell you what the controls were. They worked smoothly, and I could simply use them without thinking about it. However, if a game has bad controls, it creates a hindrance in the game, and becomes noticeable. This is why I can tell you that sonic generations used X for speed boost, and B for duck. Normally this is not an issue, but there is a part where you need to be boosting, and ducking under lethal blades. A single mistake will force you to restart. And this was a problem, because X and B are on opposite sides of the key arrangement, making them difficult to use in conjunction. This is also why I can recite the control sequence in Red Dead Redemption needed to quick travel. Pull up the start menu, select the map, then place a waypoint where you need to go, then go back to the world, pull up the inventory, go to the second screen, select your campsite(and you have to be in an appropriate place to use it), select quick travel from the campsite menu, select your waypoint as the destination, and finally quicktravel. It is an ordeal. Contrast oblivion, where you hit a button to pull up your map, click on your destination, and then quick travel there. No muss, no fuss.
The challenge in a game should never come from the controls. Awkward controls never make a game fun, it is just annoying. If you find yourself designing a section where the challenge comes from working with awkward controls, redesign. Make smooth controls, and have a more challenging task.
What makes a good interface? To put it simply, a good interface is one that does what the player expects it to. This is another reason to use standardized controls. If people use a certain set of controls in one game, they create the expectations that they will work like that in a similar game. Deviating from standards can take an otherwise fine set of controls, and make them into a barrier. This requires particular consideration with sequels. If you are going to change basic controls between installments in a series, you better have a really, really good reason.
Customizable controls can go a long way to addressing these issues. The functionality available to assign still needs to be well-planned, but you can't meet the needs of every player. For instance, inverted Y-axis. This is a huge divide among gamers, should the y-axis control(and sometimes even x-axis control) be inverted? I can actually play with both(even x-axis inversion) given a warmup period, but the option to select which one you want can be a godsend for most players. Player's also tend to have quirks in their preferences. For instance, I prefer to have crouch attached to my side mouse button.
Speaking of extra mouse buttons, never require an unusual input device. Never require more than 2 mouse buttons, never require the use of the control wheel, etc. You can utilize them. The scrollwheel can be a convenient method of streamlining controls. However, it is not guaranteed(albeit rather likely nowdays) that it will be present, so other options should be available. In FPSs, it is often the weapon switching control. However, you can still use the number keys to select your weapon, even if you lack a scrollwheel.
One important guideline is to make it so the player does not need to reposition their hands. If they have both hands on the keyboard, they should stay on the keyboard. They should not need to reach over to the mouse. If the player's left hand is on the WASD keys, the controls for that hand should be easily reached from that position. For similar reasons, unify your game and menu controls. Don't control the menus with a mouse if it is a keyboard only game. Don't make enter the select key if the fire button also works. This lets the player use the same set of controls throughout the experience, making it more streamlined. The more mixed-in with the gameplay this is, the more important that is. For example, if you have a victory screen between levels, and the game is a keyboard game, don't require the player to use the mouse to interact with the victory screen. That just breaks the flow. However, if you have unusual menu controls, make sure they are obvious from the menu screen. There is nothing more frustrating that starting a game, and the hitting random keys on the keyboard to figure out how to select start.
The GUI is also important. First, it should stylistically match your game. Second ,it should be streamlined. Display everything you need clearly, and don't clutter it up. Don't hide things if they need to be conveniently accessible, but don't display things that aren't needed. also try to match the screen space used and the importance of the information. The exact health of every peice of armour you have probably isn't the most important piece of information to you at any given time, so you don't need an ever-present, full-body wireframe displaying all of their health. Your current health is probably extremely important, so it is appropriate to have a prominent health display. However, don't let it get in the way.
Try to display the information in the most relevant manner to the player. A numerical display of health may be very precise, but the player is generally more concerned with the percentage of their health left. Displaying it graphically makes it easier and quicker for the player to take in. Hence, the health bar. It may be appropriate to have a numerical display in conjunction with the health bar, but the quick overview of the situation is what is needed on a moment-to-moment basis.
Symbols can be a good way to label your interface without taking up much screen real estate. However, make sure your symbols are clearly distinguishable at a glance, and indicative of what they represent. Having a series of alien glyphs may fit thematically with your game, but is not going to convey meaning to the player. This is another place where standards are useful. The red cross may be cliche, but it has a clear meaning to the player.
Even better is the interface that needs no labels. Take minecraft, for example. the health bar, the hunger bar, the air bar, the armour bar, all are clear in their purpose, with no need for a label. The inventory screen is also designed intuitively, so there is no need for labels like "your inventory" or "chest". The few things that do need labels are done with clear symbols in a non-intrusive manner. The armour slots have a clear symbol of what goes in them, emblazoned directly on the slot, making it streamlined and keeping the interface clear. The furnace symbols are clear. The fuel goes under the fire, you put what you are smelting over the fire, and the arrow points to the output. Simultaneously, the fire acts as a gauge for how long the fuel will last, and the arrow acts as a gauge for how long it will take to smelt.
Also consider how much time the player will have to look at the interface. If it is a high-action, fast paced game, they won't have more than a quick glance to see if their health is low, and it would be really helpful if you can make low health highly noticeable. If it is a relaxed, tactical game, you have more leisure to display stat blocks, add in mouse-over text, and provide a wealth of information. If you are in a menu screen, there is no action, and you can take the time to display the information fully. This does not mean you shouldn't still present the information clearly and well, and have it easy to understand. Good design is important still, but the time constraints are different. Accessing a character's biography may be appropriate in a menu, it is almost certainly not appropriate in the middle of combat.
Although I haven't read this yet, I find it really good that you are dedicating your time to creating tutorials in a sense on what makes a game or breaks a game. Also you explain how the gaming industry has developed over time. This is a very good thing to put online, and I have yet to see anyone else put something like this online anywhere.
I will edit this post with my thoughts on this after reading it.
Edit: After reading your post, I have come to the following conclusion:
As in all your other theories, aka theories 1-9, you have provided a clear statement and clear reasons. You also include any information that could help the reader understand what got you your statement.
Good job, and well written.
Swearing is ****ing disgusting and everyone who swears is a piece of ****. I swear, mother****ers should learn to hold their goddamn tongues and shut the hell up if they can't say anything good.
In Arden's Vale I spent no time learning the controls, I just started walking around, looking at things, and talking to things without a thought, It had the standard right-click to change action, left-click to perform the action, put mouse at the top of the screen o access the menu and inventory, all completely standard for many adventure games!
In Warning Forever It took oh so long to figure out the menu controls(I played the game several times before I figured out how to navigate the start menu), and the game controls are nonstandard! good game but learning the controls is not easy, but the flexibility of the shooting and how the bosses change as a result gives it a great twist. Also had customizable game modes in the menu somewhere.
In Arden's Vale I spent no time learning the controls, I just started walking around, looking at things, and talking to things without a thought, It had the standard right-click to change action, left-click to perform the action, put mouse at the top of the screen o access the menu and inventory, all completely standard for many adventure games!
In Warning Forever It took oh so long to figure out the menu controls(I played the game several times before I figured out how to navigate the start menu), and the game controls are nonstandard! good game but learning the controls is not easy, but the flexibility of the shooting and how the bosses change as a result gives it a great twist. Also had customizable game modes in the menu somewhere.
Warning forever is a good example of how not to do your menu. It should not be hard to use the start menu. Its easy to overlook as a developer, because of course you know how to use it, so the fact its completely obscure to everyone else can slip by you. That is why usability testing is important. Find someone who hasn't played your game before, sit them down in front of it without instruction, and see if they can easily figure it out.
And when I say utilizing standard control schemes is good, I don't mean that you can't have your own method for controlling the game, if it is appropriate. Its more keeping to standards if that type of control scheme is common. If you made a FPS with IJKL for movement, but you are doing all of the standard things for an FPS, it would be bad. people who play FPSs on the PC are used to WASD. Not to mention that IJKL is not very ergonomic.
I honestly couldn't recite to you every control in tf2. I know them all, but it's all in muscle memory. I also hate games that use the arrow keys instead of wasd, and there are few exceptions.
I honestly couldn't recite to you every control in tf2. I know them all, but it's all in muscle memory. I also hate games that use the arrow keys instead of wasd, and there are few exceptions.
I actually had trouble with wasd when I first encountered it. saw no reason to not use the arrow keys.
Game Design Theory 2 - Linearity
Game Design Theory 3 - Leveling and Grinding
Game Design Theory 4 - Complexity
Game Design Theory 5 - Fun
Game Design Theory 6 - Difficulty vs. Challenge
Game Design Theory 7 - Adventure games
Game Design Theory 8 - Level Design
Game Design Theory 9 - Crafting an Experience
Whatever your game, it is important to have a good interface. Your interface is the link between the player and the game. It is what facilitates the entire game experience. The best interface is the one nobody notices. It should create a seamless experience.
If the player every actively notices your interface, it has failed. There will be a initial learning curve where the player learns the controls; The only way around that is for the learning curve to be placed in another game. For instance, first person shooter tend to use a fairly standardized set of controls. Because of this,most players have already learned how to use those controls, and don't suffer that learning curve. A good set of controls is intuitive enough to learn easily, and minimizes the learning curve associated with them.
After that learning curve, it should provide a smooth experience. There are many game I have played and loved, and even when playing them on a regular basis, I would be unable to tell you what the controls were. They worked smoothly, and I could simply use them without thinking about it. However, if a game has bad controls, it creates a hindrance in the game, and becomes noticeable. This is why I can tell you that sonic generations used X for speed boost, and B for duck. Normally this is not an issue, but there is a part where you need to be boosting, and ducking under lethal blades. A single mistake will force you to restart. And this was a problem, because X and B are on opposite sides of the key arrangement, making them difficult to use in conjunction. This is also why I can recite the control sequence in Red Dead Redemption needed to quick travel. Pull up the start menu, select the map, then place a waypoint where you need to go, then go back to the world, pull up the inventory, go to the second screen, select your campsite(and you have to be in an appropriate place to use it), select quick travel from the campsite menu, select your waypoint as the destination, and finally quicktravel. It is an ordeal. Contrast oblivion, where you hit a button to pull up your map, click on your destination, and then quick travel there. No muss, no fuss.
The challenge in a game should never come from the controls. Awkward controls never make a game fun, it is just annoying. If you find yourself designing a section where the challenge comes from working with awkward controls, redesign. Make smooth controls, and have a more challenging task.
What makes a good interface? To put it simply, a good interface is one that does what the player expects it to. This is another reason to use standardized controls. If people use a certain set of controls in one game, they create the expectations that they will work like that in a similar game. Deviating from standards can take an otherwise fine set of controls, and make them into a barrier. This requires particular consideration with sequels. If you are going to change basic controls between installments in a series, you better have a really, really good reason.
Customizable controls can go a long way to addressing these issues. The functionality available to assign still needs to be well-planned, but you can't meet the needs of every player. For instance, inverted Y-axis. This is a huge divide among gamers, should the y-axis control(and sometimes even x-axis control) be inverted? I can actually play with both(even x-axis inversion) given a warmup period, but the option to select which one you want can be a godsend for most players. Player's also tend to have quirks in their preferences. For instance, I prefer to have crouch attached to my side mouse button.
Speaking of extra mouse buttons, never require an unusual input device. Never require more than 2 mouse buttons, never require the use of the control wheel, etc. You can utilize them. The scrollwheel can be a convenient method of streamlining controls. However, it is not guaranteed(albeit rather likely nowdays) that it will be present, so other options should be available. In FPSs, it is often the weapon switching control. However, you can still use the number keys to select your weapon, even if you lack a scrollwheel.
One important guideline is to make it so the player does not need to reposition their hands. If they have both hands on the keyboard, they should stay on the keyboard. They should not need to reach over to the mouse. If the player's left hand is on the WASD keys, the controls for that hand should be easily reached from that position. For similar reasons, unify your game and menu controls. Don't control the menus with a mouse if it is a keyboard only game. Don't make enter the select key if the fire button also works. This lets the player use the same set of controls throughout the experience, making it more streamlined. The more mixed-in with the gameplay this is, the more important that is. For example, if you have a victory screen between levels, and the game is a keyboard game, don't require the player to use the mouse to interact with the victory screen. That just breaks the flow. However, if you have unusual menu controls, make sure they are obvious from the menu screen. There is nothing more frustrating that starting a game, and the hitting random keys on the keyboard to figure out how to select start.
The GUI is also important. First, it should stylistically match your game. Second ,it should be streamlined. Display everything you need clearly, and don't clutter it up. Don't hide things if they need to be conveniently accessible, but don't display things that aren't needed. also try to match the screen space used and the importance of the information. The exact health of every peice of armour you have probably isn't the most important piece of information to you at any given time, so you don't need an ever-present, full-body wireframe displaying all of their health. Your current health is probably extremely important, so it is appropriate to have a prominent health display. However, don't let it get in the way.
Try to display the information in the most relevant manner to the player. A numerical display of health may be very precise, but the player is generally more concerned with the percentage of their health left. Displaying it graphically makes it easier and quicker for the player to take in. Hence, the health bar. It may be appropriate to have a numerical display in conjunction with the health bar, but the quick overview of the situation is what is needed on a moment-to-moment basis.
Symbols can be a good way to label your interface without taking up much screen real estate. However, make sure your symbols are clearly distinguishable at a glance, and indicative of what they represent. Having a series of alien glyphs may fit thematically with your game, but is not going to convey meaning to the player. This is another place where standards are useful. The red cross may be cliche, but it has a clear meaning to the player.
Even better is the interface that needs no labels. Take minecraft, for example. the health bar, the hunger bar, the air bar, the armour bar, all are clear in their purpose, with no need for a label. The inventory screen is also designed intuitively, so there is no need for labels like "your inventory" or "chest". The few things that do need labels are done with clear symbols in a non-intrusive manner. The armour slots have a clear symbol of what goes in them, emblazoned directly on the slot, making it streamlined and keeping the interface clear. The furnace symbols are clear. The fuel goes under the fire, you put what you are smelting over the fire, and the arrow points to the output. Simultaneously, the fire acts as a gauge for how long the fuel will last, and the arrow acts as a gauge for how long it will take to smelt.
Also consider how much time the player will have to look at the interface. If it is a high-action, fast paced game, they won't have more than a quick glance to see if their health is low, and it would be really helpful if you can make low health highly noticeable. If it is a relaxed, tactical game, you have more leisure to display stat blocks, add in mouse-over text, and provide a wealth of information. If you are in a menu screen, there is no action, and you can take the time to display the information fully. This does not mean you shouldn't still present the information clearly and well, and have it easy to understand. Good design is important still, but the time constraints are different. Accessing a character's biography may be appropriate in a menu, it is almost certainly not appropriate in the middle of combat.
Game Design Theory 11 - Flow
I will edit this post with my thoughts on this after reading it.
Edit: After reading your post, I have come to the following conclusion:
As in all your other theories, aka theories 1-9, you have provided a clear statement and clear reasons. You also include any information that could help the reader understand what got you your statement.
Good job, and well written.
In Warning Forever It took oh so long to figure out the menu controls(I played the game several times before I figured out how to navigate the start menu), and the game controls are nonstandard! good game but learning the controls is not easy, but the flexibility of the shooting and how the bosses change as a result gives it a great twist. Also had customizable game modes in the menu somewhere.
Warning forever is a good example of how not to do your menu. It should not be hard to use the start menu. Its easy to overlook as a developer, because of course you know how to use it, so the fact its completely obscure to everyone else can slip by you. That is why usability testing is important. Find someone who hasn't played your game before, sit them down in front of it without instruction, and see if they can easily figure it out.
And when I say utilizing standard control schemes is good, I don't mean that you can't have your own method for controlling the game, if it is appropriate. Its more keeping to standards if that type of control scheme is common. If you made a FPS with IJKL for movement, but you are doing all of the standard things for an FPS, it would be bad. people who play FPSs on the PC are used to WASD. Not to mention that IJKL is not very ergonomic.
Game Design Theory 11 - Flow
I actually had trouble with wasd when I first encountered it. saw no reason to not use the arrow keys.