Making you feel like you're there

[Nick_i_am]

hence why, in terms of pure immersion, there is an argument for only letting the player character see what a person in his posision (even in the future or whatever) would be able to see.

 

The problem with that is that is can generate more complicated controls, which can be an immersion breaker in itself.

[Slowtrain]

"HELLO I AM A GAME BUT LET'S PRETEND I'M NOT OKAY".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

lewl.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Perhaps it's a matter of personal emphasis. As a games player, I've never really been as interested in the 'game' part of a game as I am in the story and atmosphere and suchlike. As such, I don't notice things like the interface save that they're particularly bad or cumbersome (like the NWN radial menu). Someone with a more balanced view (or just someone more perceptive, more attuned to what their senses say rather than their brain) might pick up on these other elements.

 

I feel the same way personally, in the sense that I care more about the gameplay and how consistent and credible the gameworld is than I do with how much the interface keeps telling me that I'm playing a game. I'm not making these suggestions because I think the interface would solve any and all problems which might crop up in regards to immersion, because as I've said before it's not exclusive to interface.

 

Perhaps this is my personal bias again, but I'd have been just as happy if the Freespace games had used generic space-battle-bg-with-interface for the main menu than if they'd used the rooms on a spaceship equalling your menu options that they did. Not taking into account that the latter is prettier, of course.

 

I believe that if a compromise between both is worth it then there's really no problem; I'd take an issue with such a thing if the in-game mechanics that tried to take the place of the interface were badly implemented or became too cumbersome. Transposing these kinds of options into valid and credible counterparts in the gameworld can be great, but it shouldn't be done just because.

 

Different example: didn't bother using the ammo readouts on the gun models in Q4. Sure, it's quite impressive and I can appreciate the effort mentally, but I just never used it in the actual game. This may have been due to being trained to look at the HUD rather than the gun, but of course when I'm playing I don't want to be staring at my weapon at any moment in time, trying to read the little screen at an angle when I can look at the whole shebang.

 

I haven't played Quake 4 (don't think I will either) but I have seen images of what you're talking about. If the weapon is going to have that kind of feature, I think the weapon readout should be turned directly at the player rather than placed at that angle.

 

No, true, but I fear that poor implementation of a design that isn't centred around clarity and sense can lead to messiness and confusion. Consider the DX:IW 'eye' hud, which just got in the way. While of course it isn't always going to be like that, the point is that it can and I don't see the rewards really justifying going to the expense to get something like this right when you can just do it the simple way and get on with the game.

 

Point taken, and I agree; as I've said before I don't think it should be done just because. It should be properly designed.

 

See, I'd be saying that about trying to turn computer games into a decent storytelling artform, 'cause that's important to me. Combining the structure/interface of the game with the creation of an alternate world is not so important to me, so 'trying and failing' is not really any better than not bothering - especially when an immersive game world isn't the focus of your project. Even if we limit it to RPGs, a character focused game is not so reliant on this world-immersion-thing as, say, Fallout would be, or your interpretation of DX.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The way I see it, this kind of feature could in fact help in turning them into a better storytelling artform. When you're experiencing a gameworld, I feel the interface is, or can be as damaging to the overall experience as small liner notes would be when reading a book, or hearing/seeing notes about a movie as you watch it. It doesn't mean that it can't work seamlessly but more often than not it negatively contributes to it all.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Out of the ordinary manouvers are being suggested...

How can you pay attention to the combat if you need to press additional keys to see your status and how you fare in that fight?

 

It's the same as trying to call up any other function that potentially needs to be used during combat.

 

So, you have to keep switching to 3D to see your healthstatus? Wow, that really helps me when I have a FP-Swordfight in Oblivion...

 

Why are you complaining about the would be inadequacy of this feature in firstperson when the example was not given with firstperson or Oblivion in context?

 

If you think them as toggles, WHAT is the difference from a fixed HUD? If you play a FPS and ever toggle the Health/Ammo off your either a n00b or Fatal1ty...

 

I'm neither, really. Although I know my playstyle and I know that I tend to not look at health or ammo displays because I'm generally more busy dealing with opponents than I am consulting that information. In fact, trying to read information during those times spells death to my avatar most of the time. I place more emphasis on performing outlandish maneuvers to survive than I do keeping track of health while the avatar is being shot.

 

I don't think watching my screen for health information hard indeed. It will become harder when I have to keep calling up health information in combat manually, instead of at a quick glance at the lower half of the screen...

 

I've said multiple times that I suggested for it to be called up or toggled. You wouldn't have to keep calling it up if you toggled, obviously, just as you don't need to keep pressing a crouch button if you are toggling it. Because of this, the health display could be shown permanently if you so wanted to, except not using a conventional interface.

 

Hopefully, it was the last time I had to repeat that...

 

First you describe how to change the current HUD but from your 2 latest posts it looks like you wan't to replace the HUD with... the HUD.

Or do I just seem to fail you wan't to replace permanent health/ammo display with Permanent health/ammo display (but with a toggle you will never use to turn it off)

 

...but I guess not.

 

The point is to remove the interface from the visual area but to make the information still present. To do this I suggested the information to be displayed trough in-game methods. You would still have the information at your disposal, wheter you called it once or toggled its display, but still there. The only changes would be:

• Instead of a floating bit of interface, the information would be visible directly off the models in the game. Ammo would be displayed directly on the weapon model. Health would be displayed on the character model - again, check the wrist watch example to see if you can figure out how exactly it could still be permanent.
   
  
• Instead of a permanent display of the information, players could choose to call it on demand or toggle it On or Off.
  

That is why their is a HUD displaying your PRIMARY information to make such decisions in a quick thought of mind instead of first getting info from several different "tools" and then get into the combat, unknowing how you fare untill one of both dies (or you check your nice tool in combat and die because that gives the other guy the advantage).

 

But why? It is important to know (especially in "True FPS") what your health lvls are, why only have them on certain occassions when it is usefull to have them at all times...

 

What is there to complain if the different "tools" are, or can be, visible all the time? What are you complaining about if my suggestion allows you to have your health levels displayed at all times if you so wish? From everything I've been (repeatedly) typing what exactly am I not being able to convey? Tell me.

 

You say so, but the fact remains your suggestion is +Realism and -Immersion and -Gameplay...

 

No, the fact remains you're somehow attributing a notion of realism to a suggestion that is poised to lessen the idea of playing a game rather than a gameworld. How can you even suggest I'm pushing for more realism when I'm not basing anything of what I'm writing in reality; and suggest I'm pushing for less gameplay (?) when gameplay remains virtually unchanged?

 

Once again, play more FPS (Preferably online). I'll bet you'll check your health/Ammo regularly when fighting... (atleast if you have a good FPS)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As I said before, I don't check it that often. Even when I played online, such as in Quake 3 Arena or Medal of Honor, I focused almost always on sensing surroundings, opponent movements and tactics. I barely looked at my health or ammo levels.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

But in single player games like MSG or even the single player campaign of FEAR (or RPGs) immersion is something to strive for. In such games integrating the interface into the gameworld could very well be a good thing if done right. Not every idea is going to work for every game, because all games are different.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Precisely.

 

Take the lightgem in the Thief games, which indicates how deep in the shadows (and therefore hidden) the player is. There is never an attempt to justify it by giving it some in-game reason for existing, it's simply a tool to deliver information to the player. Would the game be more immersive if we were told the lightgem is actually a magical ring Garrett wears?

 

I would enjoy it either way, really, but why wouldn't this make the gameworld more immersive to some players? It can potentially make gaming artefacts and conventions much more tolerable.

[BattleCookiee]

Role-player, from all what you says it looks like you wan't to replace a small compact HUD with a enormous chunk of screen taking HUD...

 

Why should a game become more immersive if the lower part of the screen is occupied by your arm and watch on it when it can be a simple clock in the lower lvl?

 

Part of a HUD is that is has to be compact, yet clear to allow to check up fast when needed, making it take huge chunks and "hidden" is going to SEVERLY annoy and thus break immersion because you wan't to press De-Install rather than continue playing...

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Role-player, from all what you says it looks like you wan't to replace a small compact HUD with a enormous chunk of screen taking HUD...

 

Not really, Wookie, no. I expected what I was saying to have been clear enough, but I guess I wasn't able to express it properly. My suggestion is basically to make it so the information is still visible and just as compact, but instead of being conveyed trough a conventional interface it is instead presented trough the game's models. In short, turn something which potentially looks like this:

 

 

Into something that, again potentially, would look like this:

 

 

Minus the bad graphical quality of late night Photoshop rush jobs.

 

Notice the difference? The 'floating' top left health bar and the top right ammo bar were transposed into the models. The ammo counter was placed on the weapon, the health bar was placed on the character as some gadgetesque display. Now, would this work for all games? No, I never said otherwise. It is however, very possible to do and if properly implemented can outdo the need for conventional interface displays.

[angshuman]

That was pretty impressive for a rush job.

[Pidesco]

Role-Player's idea seems like the way to go to me. I do have a question though. Why hasn't this been done yet? I'd think someone would have come up with this idea already.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Soulseeker

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Let's see how "easy" it really is.

 

Who claimed it was "easy" to begin with?

 

I will give screens of 3 FPS and you will say how they can best give the info on a "immersive" instead of a HUD-way

 

This isn't a contest. I and others have said already, it doesn't necessarily work with all games. In fact my inital suggestion wasn't even for a firstperson shooter; you were the one to bring up the implementation of that into firstperson shooters and then, apparently oblivious that I wasn't talking of FPSs to begin with, seemed irate that I would suggest it for FPSs! If you were expecting the suggestion to apply to all games in existence or to FPSs when it wasn't meant to - as obviously each game is different in design - then you only have yourself to blame for the disappointment.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Role-Player

[Llyranor]

Hmmm, I'm quite tempted to go play Operation Flashpoint with no hub/crosshair/anything.

[Nick_i_am]

It rocks, and on TI servers it would only add to the overall experiance.

[Diamond]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is really really hard to apply this model (or think of a similar new one) to all games. For example a (*gasp*) WW2 shooter, where you don't have a health meter or ammo LED display.

[BattleCookiee]

Besides that there is always alot more info on the HUD than just health/Ammo...

 

Anyways, Role-Player; you indeed did not suggest it for FPS, not RTS, nor RPG, nor TBS, nor anything else than stealth games in the first place.

 

Would that have something to do with working away a HUD on any other game would be impossible and illogical?

 

So, fine, your suggestion doesn't work for FPS, but show me an example of another game type (Non-stealth game) where you could make it work (say RTS/RPG)...

[Hell Kitty]

why wouldn't this make the gameworld more immersive to some players?

 

This is what I mean when I say that a comment like "This game is immersive" is a worthless as "This game is good." There is no right answer, as it comes down to personal preference. Some players might find a particular part of the game adds to the immersion, while others will find that same thing works against it.

 

Developer: "Even though everyone working on this game agrees that feature X would be bad for immersion, we've decided to include it anyway because some players out there might find it immersive".

 

The developer can only include or exclude features based on what they['i] think will work for the particular product they are trying to make.

[Nick_i_am]

For the right kind of game, Role-Player's idea is a very good one.

 

Too bad all the games that were quoted with screenshots are pretty much the wrong kind of game.

 

Another simple example of this kind of thing was the Golden Eye game for the Nintendo 64, your health would only flash up when you were hit and to pause James Bond would look down at his watch. Intigration of HuD elements with the actual gameworld is a very nice idea. Another example of this is the HuD and other functions being provided by the HEV suit in Half-Life. No HEV? no health, no armour, and no voise saying 'major fracture detected' when you throw yourself off a cliff. The suit itself became as much a character and part of the gameworld as the person wearing it, if not more so.

[Hell Kitty]

In Trespasser you health was displayed by looking at the heart tattoo on your left breast.

 

The HEV suit was definitely wore of a character then Gordon Freeman, but then Gordon Freeman is as much a character as Doom's Space Marine.

[Nick_i_am]

Oh yeah, I forgot about that feature of Trespasser, it could have been a very nice game if it didn't, you know, suck. Though the game was worth it just for DEPLOY THE HAND!

 

Though come to think of it, I remember now the novelty of playing an FPS where I could look down at my own boobs. ...to check my health...yes... "

 

...shut up, I was 14.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Besides that there is always alot more info on the HUD than just health/Ammo...

 

Hence, once again, why I suggested it for the game I was talking about. It works for that game because those are mainly the only two constant elements which are shown, and don't necessarily need to be shown. It's pretty obvious it wouldn't work for any of your other suggestions, or any other which needed more information on screen.

 

Would that have something to do with working away a HUD on any other game would be impossible and illogical?

 

No, it would have to do with what games it may be applicable.

 

So, fine, your suggestion doesn't work for FPS, but show me an example of another game type (Non-stealth game) where you could make it work (say RTS/RPG)...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First, the suggestion didn't have anything to do with the game using stealth or not; it had to do with the game's interface. Second, you can figure out if the same idea will work on a game or not depending on how much interface is required to be shown. Unsurprisingly, it is going to work better in games that don't use many on-screen information to begin with. You wouldn't expect this to be implemented in a game that requires information from more than a dozen different sources. On the other hand, I'm sure a couple of firstperson shooters wouldn't suffer by including an inventory presentation like that of, say, Grim Fandango.

 

 

There is no right answer, as it comes down to personal preference.

 

That basically answers the question, doesn't it?

Edited January 12, 2006 by Role-Player