Another look at game interfaces
My post last week about how a real newbie experiences a game spurred some interesting discussions about interfaces. Instead of posting a long comment, I figured I'd post some actual content on the blog about user interfaces.
Mike Rozak kicked off the party with this comment:
MMORPGs have the most evil/complex UI of just about any game genre out there.
Let me establish some foundation here. UI is important because it is the way the player interacts with the game; this may seem to be simply repeating the definition, but it's important to understand. If the UI is to complex, then the user does not know which options they should use. If it is too simple, then they may not be able to use the options they want.
A look at console controllers
Let's look at console controllers. One of the first controllers for a come console was the Atari 2600/VCS controller. The basic controller had four direction sensors (that could register 8 directions) and one button. This was a very simple controller that allowed many people to play the game, including my mother. However, this also limited the types of games you could play without resorting to all sorts of confusing hacks. One game, Raiders of the Lost Ark required you to use the second controller for inventory manipulation. It was cumbersome, to say the least, to swap between the controllers.
Later we got the (now iconic) NES controller. This design quadrupled the number of buttons available for use in the game, making it more complex. But, this allowed for much more expressive games: imagine trying to play The Legend of Zelda with the old Atari joystick (and only two hands!). Later we have the SNES controller that added four more buttons to the mix (including trigger buttons), and that became the gold standard for other game designers to use as a template. But, consider that the SNES controller has eight times the buttons the old Atari controller had.
A look at different games using those controllers
But, consider the difference between a typical Atari game and a typical SNES game in terms of gameplay. To put it in high-brow game designer terms, think about the verbs that the player can use in the game. In Space Invaders, you have two basic verbs: move (in one dimension) and shoot. Even if we look at a game like Asteroids which used more controller options to add a few more verbs and travel in a 2D plane, we're still talking about a very simple game.
Contrast this with Super Mario World for the SNES where the basic verbs are numerous, but supported by the more complex controller. Verbs include: move (left or right), jump, spin jump, climb, and duck for the basic version. You can also fly and shoot fireballs if you have the power up items. If you have Yoshi you can use the tongue, swallow enemies, spit out enemies to use as weapons, and jump off Yoshi's back. This is a lot more complex than the Atari 2600 games, and this requires a more complex controller.
Consider that I haven't even talked about the controllers with more shoulder triggers, analog sticks, analog buttons, or motion control we see in more modern controllers. Or the specialized controllers for some games, or other monstrosities
Now, let's make the jump to keyboard and mouse. 104 keys and a multi-directional input device. There's a reason why PC games are generally considered the most complex, because they have the most complex input devices.
Consider the PlayStation type of controller: 4 main buttons, 4 shoulder buttons, 2 "system" buttons, 1 direction pad, 2 analog sticks. Even if we use the shoulder buttons as modifiers (R1 + L2 + circle = a defined action), thats still only 60 input combinations that you have to memorize! You could not even play M59 very well without major changes to how the game works, and thats ignoring any sort of chat options.
What does it all mean, really?
Why this lengthy trip down memory lane? Because controllers are the physical counterpart to the user interface. As controllers became more complex, we were able to realize more complex games on consoles. And, some people complain that modern controllers are too complex for some people: all the buttons are very confusing and require a minimum amount of dexterity to use. As I mentioned before, my mom used to play Atari games with me, but that slowed down once we got an NES and stopped completely by the time I got a SNES and later consoles.
And, I think user interfaces are similar. The complex UIs for MMOs are sometimes very confusing for some people. However, just like the more complicated controllers, it allows us to have much more expressive gameplay options. To use the "verbs" examples again, the typical "verbs" in an MMO put just about any other game to shame. MMOs often have completely different modes of gameplay (fighting, crafting, social, etc.) that you don't won't find in a single, traditional console game.
Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Albert Einstein
Now, does this mean that we don't have to worry about UIs in online games? Absolutely not. But, I think the maxim of stated in the section title applies here; we should make interfaces as simple as possible, but making them too simple can be just as harmful as making them overly complicated.
We also have to look at what it means to be "simple". Does it mean less keys that need to be pressed? Does it mean less clutter on the screen? Does it mean less options to confuse the player? Does it mean less things to be memorized (like menu positions or command lines)? Does it mean more input based on context? If forced to, I probably could make M59 playable using just an NES controller. But, you probably don't want to have to memorize all the different combinations required to actually play the game; while interface while simple because there are less input options, would ultimately fail because there would be more memorization required.
Ultimately, MMO interfaces are going to be more complex than many other game interfaces by definition of what we expect to be able to do in the games compared to others. Attempts to simplify the interface are going to change the nature of the games; and, while this may be a good and desirable thing, it's something that has to be considered as a whole. You can't just "simplify" WoW's interface and expect it to stay the same game.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI: http://psychochild.org/wp-trackback.php?p=562
It's sort of interesting that the first "RPG" for the PC was arguably Rogue -- which had a bazillion verbs, one for every letter -- TWO for every letter. That's the root of the western RPG -- everything is useable, every key does something...
The user interface has improved a LOT from those days -- but it's the complete opposite of the console route.
Comment by Trevel — 26 January, 2009 @ 8:10 PM
Mappable keys is a big plus for any MMORPG. This allows me to standardize the key functions to what is comfortable and familiar to me. Granted this can lead to issues later on when you are trying to help a game newbie learn the interface of the game. One of the first things I introduce them to is the mappable key interface so they can see what is what and change it if they like.
Being able to access the key interface while logged into game is another plus. One game made you log out making it difficult to do what you trying to do. You couldn't read the chat you had just had with someone on how to change things nor could you ask someone in game for help while changing things. It was quite a painful process to say the least.
Comment by sourpuss — 27 January, 2009 @ 6:00 AM
sourpuss wrote:
One game made you log out making it difficult to do what you trying to do.
You're probably subtly referring to Meridian 59 there. M59 was lucky to get mappable keys at all. The nature of the system dictated that you could really only update your settings by logging out and back in. Not ideal, but better than being stuck with the default settings forever. ;)
But, definitely one of those things to learn from and do better next time around.
Comment by Psychochild — 27 January, 2009 @ 3:58 PM
Channel Massive’s Electric Eye
[...] very interesting look at game interfaces from Brian Green (aka [...]
Pingback by Channel Massive — 29 January, 2009 @ 11:09 AM
He could just as easily have been talking about Asheron's Call 2, which also required you to log out in order to change settings. Actually, I think all of AC2's competition required that also. It's only recently that games have gotten in-game keyboard remapping.
It's an interesting feature actually, because if you don't design your input system with that feature in mind, it's often impossible to hack it in later. So it's a feature you have to get right from the start.
Comment by Eric Heimburg — 29 January, 2009 @ 11:21 PM
Of course, I don't entirely agree:
1) Yes, as a general rule, more complex gameplay (associated with longer 500+ hour gameplay) results in more complex UI and/or game controls.
2) MMOs could do a better job of introducing the UI. They could certainly polish it and clean it up. There is way too much clutter on a typical MMO screen.
As an example of something they could do: For YEARS I've had dual monitors, with video cards able to support them. All notebooks (50% + of computer sales) and many medium-to-high end desktops have multiple monitor ability. And yet, I've never had a MMO offer to shove all the clutter (equipment, chat, etc.) off to my second screen.
3) The more complicated the UI, the more a game limits its-self to hardcore players. Sony and Microsoft came out with complicted UI systems (with umpteen million buttons, as you describe). Nintendo produced a game controller based on motion, not on gazillions of buttons. I think Nintendo is winning.
4) Occasionally, som technology comes along that turns complicated UI into simple UI, enabling less hard-core people to use the UI. GUI's were one such example, making it much easier to use a computer than a command prompt.
Comment by Mike Rozak — 29 January, 2009 @ 11:48 PM
UI conventions might be seen as symptoms of what the game can teach the player.
On a very primitive level the game even teaches the player how to map a hotkey, or how to open an inventory or a paperdoll. Keep following this argument and you'll find that the game also teaches the player how to get a lot of "threat" from a mob, and how to manage a guild. The genre is old enough now for a lot of the audience to depend on skills mastered in an old game to play the current game. (Look at how many of the more successful guilds in WoW were started and managed by reasonably successful management groups in EQ, UO, Lineage and the other older games.)
The interface appears to be far from what you worry about when you set up some DKP system and forced raid attendance rules. The interface is separated from the details of the guild management by a few levels of abstraction. A relatively similar interface is likely to present relatively similar challenges to the players, this puts almost all new mmorpg's in a "pre-grokked" market where the relative individual gain in potential fun (read: new skills to master) from switching game diminishes by each new title.
Its also relatively common to find a game that changes its interface without changing the skills required for playing the more abstract parts of the game. This appear to be a failing strategy.
To attempt something constructive around this problem I could imagine looking at a design which demand different skills at the higher levels of abstraction. A target could be to make sure that DKP is useless. Eventually by avoiding the skills or skill atoms used by current genre kings the design might change enough to also alter the interface level and thereby avoid the pre-grokked market altogether. What kind of game or genre we'd end up with is beyond my meagre imagination.
Comment by Wolfe — 30 January, 2009 @ 2:13 AM
Mike, I think one problem here is that you're assuming a "one size fits all" philosophy for interfaces. Your comment about graphical UIs vs. the command line interface shows exactly this problem; the GUI has certainly allowed a lot of people to have easier access to their OS, but try doing tasks like renaming a long list of files in a GUI. Some people shun the GUI, whereas some people get completely confused when presented with a CLI. Even in online games we often have a way to do actions both graphically and through a command line (the dreaded slash commands).
To bring this back to game terms, the UI you need as a newbie, as a normal player, as a PvPer, or as a raider may be completely different. You have different needs and different requirements. The problem is that there is no "one size fits all". If you oversimplify the UI and don't provide notifications that other options are available, then you will frustrate the power-users who tend to be the hubs of the social networks in the larger games. Give too complex of a UI or present too many customization options at the beginning, and you could scare off the more casual types.
Part of the trick is to figure out what you need to present for the UI and customization options to satisfy the best number of players. You can argue that most developers present a more complicated UI assuming the player has previous experience with these types of games, and that this is the wrong way to go about it; however, I don't think we can just hand every player a simple UI (an Atari joystick), tell them they can't upgrade, and expect online games to have the same richness of expression they have now. As I've said above, UIs are complicated because the interactions are complicated.
Comment by Psychochild — 31 January, 2009 @ 4:02 PM
One of my earlier fascinations with UI control was the old arcade game "Bomber Jack" (or was it "Bomb Jack"?), where there was one stick for steering, and only one button, but it was context sensitive. You used it to jump up, but if you were already in the air, the same button was used to glide instead. Don't remember how old I was, between 10 and 12 at a guess, but it struck me as a genius move from the designers, since it was easy to use and really worked out well in gameplay. Then again, I may have been an odd child. ;)
Comment by Stoffe — 14 February, 2009 @ 7:42 PM
It was Bomb Jack. Context-based input is a good thing that can help reduce some complication, but that doesn't mean every game can be boiled down to just one button!
For example, consider Mighty Bomb Jack for the NES. In that game you also had power coins that allowed you to open chests in that game's longer stages. You activated the coins by pressing the other button. The jump button kept the same functions as the arcade game: jump and glide. More buttons = more options, but it leads to more potential "complication". It's a question of how expressive the controller (or interface) is for the game in question.
Comment by Psychochild — 15 February, 2009 @ 2:48 AM