Games were made to be immersive. Through storyline, graphics, compelling characters and more they took you to a world that was not your own. However two things that are often overlooked for immersion in gaming are the interaction and the interface. The interaction between human and controller is what made the Wii the platform it is today and a good interface can make a game's setting come to life. So where have we come from in this front? And where are we going? How has interaction and interface made games what they are today? And what could they do better?
So let's start with the history of the HUD, or heads up display, a feature in most games nowadays that stores information away from the action. The HUD is what tells you how much gas your race car has, and how many more attacks it'll take to beat your opponent into oblivion. The HUD started with pong when it noted the score and has lived humbly in the background since. The HUD is the games way of talking back to us, and nowadays it's getting replaced more and more with in-game elements. This is because some TVs get burns in them when a persistent image is left on screen. So how do the HUDs of today function? They integrate the information into the section on screen. Where you used to have an ammunition counter in a first person shooter, today the ammo is listed on the gun. Instead of the hit point counter decreasing when being hit, the screen will flash red.
Today when it is necessary to have a HUD it is made to fit the flavor of the world. For instance compare the HUDs in Oblivion and Fallout 3, both 3rd person/ 1st person role playing games. The HUDs look completely different while still conveying the same information. In oblivion hit points are measured with a bright red bar, conveying blood, and the compass is the largest piece of it. In Fallout hit points are measured through ticks which lead the player to assume any hits they take are either dodged, dealt as damage to clothing or finally dealt as wounds. This is because the fallout world is more realistic, actual wounds would be much more fatal in the fallout world than in oblivion. The fallout HUD is much more streamlined, sectioning off each piece of information while the oblivion HUD is more free form. Both HUDs only display essential information, next to no numbers (besides ammunition in Fallout), and are tucked neatly out of the way where you wouldn't normally look. More detailed information can be called up with a button.
So where will the future for HUDs be? Will they speak to us and tell us the info we need? Or will they become smaller and smaller? I think that the trend will go towards less visual cues, however sound will be less used than the article implies. This is because talking HUDs would get annoying quickly. Instead we will have HUDs that provide feedback in other ways. For instance with the new motion controls it would be easy to program a game that makes you less accurate when wounds are sustained. This coupled with the screen tinting red would provide a realistic feel to taking damage. As the article implies there will be more HUD-less games in the future and more games will have the integrated elements. In the future the HUD will fade into the background being even more behind the scenes than it ever was, but enhancing games all the more.
Where interfaces will become more invisible, Interaction will come to the forefront of games. Game interaction design started out with the joystick of the Atari and arcade games, which in addition would have a button or two. These were simple, but did not feel special or very comfortable. The first leap toward making interaction part of immersion was with the flight simulator games. These games required a joystick, which made the experience. It was like flying a real plane, every aspect felt that way, mostly because of the joystick controls. If the mouse was used or even worse if ti was controlled though the w a s and d keys the game wouldn't have had half the impact it actually did. The next important leap was with controllers that were crafted to be comfortable to hold. The boxes and ovals of the NES and super Nintendo were traded out for the Playstation, Xbox and Gamecube controllers. These were vastly superior to their predecessors because you could play for longer periods of time, and the controls felt natural. This was augmented by the fact that the controllers were easy to use with all the buttons being mapped out to which fingers would press them and how the controller would be held. Finally came the Wii, Xbox Kinect and Playstation motion controllers. These interactive devices make games even more immersive. This is because they can feed back through the controller. The Wii, being the older model, is the best of the three because it has the most practice using the controls in games. Want to play golf? Swing the controller like a club. Want to play fishing? The controller can do that too. Every conceivable interaction can be programed to feel right using the Wii controls. The Kinect goes one step further, removing the controller entirely. I think that this will be one of the many possible futures for gaming interaction. The downside I see is that there is no way for the game to provide tactile feedback, something gaming has had since the rumble feature. How will we feel getting hit without a shaking controller? Or the jolt of turbulence as we try to land a plane? I feel that removing the controller removes one way for the game designers to speak to their players, and takes a whole sense out of the equation of gaming and as such is a mistake. I do however see great promise in the Emotiv. The Emotiv is a device that lets you control a computer using your thoughts, by mapping when you are thinking what. So if you think “move back” the computer will map that and the next time you have similar brain patterns the emotive will read it as you telling it to “move back” This device will be revolutionary in the production of games once it can be paired with some sort of tactile feedback. This is because there will be nothing in between you and the machine, no buttons to not hit, no awkward controls, just you and the computer. Imagine Games where you play a telepath, or a wizard brought to life and more immersive than ever. Imagine fighting games where you control the character as a puppet, and have to make the muscle movements to do the moves. Imagine being able to point to the screen and have your finger be the mouse. This is why I see the Emotiv as the future of game interaction, and of computer interaction in the next twenty years. All it takes is for developers to start seeing it's true power.
Emotiv - Brain Computer Interface Technology. Web. 31 Jan. 2011. <http://www.emotiv.com/>.
Kelly, Martin C. "Historical Reflections on Victorian Data Processing." Viewpoints Oct. 2010. Print.
Mastin, Kirk. "Interface and Video Game Design: 7 Examples. « Through the Looking Glass." Through the Looking Glass. 9 Oct. 2008. Web. 31 Jan. 2011. <http://kmastin.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/interface-and-video-game-design-7-examples/>.
Moggridge, Bill. Designing Interactions. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2007. Print.
Wilson, Greg. "Gamasutra - Features - Off With Their HUDs!: Rethinking the Heads-Up Display in Console Game Design." Gamasutra - The Art & Business of Making Games. Gamasutra, 3 Feb. 2006. Web. 31 Jan. 2011. <http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2538/off_with_their_huds_rethinking_.php?page=1>.
Images required
No comments:
Post a Comment