Good Practice

After meeting with Gregor and discussing my research on LinkedIn I've come to the decision not to focus on mobile games but to instead look for good practice menu design and how it can be created in order to improve the players FTUE.

I've come a cross a few good menu designs for console games as a results, the latest of which is the upcoming ''Trine 2'' which allows players to control their character on screen before starting and just generally get to grips with the controls and have fun.

The screen changes between night and day for aesthetic appeal. The player can also move, jump, attack and swing their character around the screen there are objects to destroy and the player can also gain an achievement within it. The idea is to let the player have fun from the get go. 

Pressing start however brings up a traditional menu.

"If something exists, it exists to a certain amount, if it exists to an amount, it can be measured"

I've been forwarded an interesting video regarding methods of testing as discussed by Bill Fulton , Mike Ambinder from Valve & John Hopson of Bungie.

http://vimeo.com/26733185

Lack of reference material

After some initial research there seems to be very little out there which currently utilises an in-game menu system. While many games enable the player to control the character to select a level, very few do so to selct game options.

The original Playstation titles Crash Bandicoot and Abe's Odyssey allow the player to use certain game control when selecting menu items and levels. The former sees the player navigate an environment and learn the controls in order to select a level. The downloadable title Braid does a similar thing whereby player navigate an environment and walk through doors to select levels.

Abes Odyssey lets players learn the different dialogues within the menu, not massively revolutionary its just nice that the player is given feedback when slecting an option, rather than being shown what it will do.

Abes Oddysee

With regards to mobile titles, the most popular App store releases such as Angry Birds, Cut the Rope and DoodleJump all use a similar button system. No characters are utilised and the intention is to get players playing the game as quickly as possible.

The intention for my research is that while i recognise within mobile apps players want to start playing quickly, if one can make an enjoyable menu system they may not wish to.

Mario Paint

Mario Paint, released for the SNES in 1992  enables player to mess a round and have fun with the title screen, using some of the in-game mechanics. The section almost forms a game in itself, which is the intention of this research as to get gamers to have fun and enjoy themselves before they play the game will ultimately achieve my goal.

Fables UX Disasters

Disclaimer: I've played and completed Fable 1 (Xbox) and Fable 2(X360) but not played Fable 3 (X360) my knowledge is restricted to that I know the player is king of Albion, Peter Molyneux acknowledged it wasn't the best and my friends who did play it, weren't keen.

Beginning my research into User experience within menu systems brought me upon an article regarding Fable 3's UX failures (http://www.uxbooth.com/blog/learning-from-fable-iiis-ux-mistakes/). I'm going to summarise and discuss the points brought up, if anything for my own knowledge and future reference.

The 3 primary issues are:

1. Misuse of metaphor
2. Over simplification
3. Lack of user control

Misuse of metaphor

Description 

Within fable 3 when players press start, rather than a 2D pause screen popping up, players are taken to a 3D room within the game whereby they can interact with different objects to view different information. 

Pros

Keeps the player immersed, players have a real understanding of where they are in the world and it keeps them feeling like they're a character rather than a godlike person with easy access and control over everything. 

Provides space away from the action. In keeping with a pause feature it enables players to have a breather from the action, 

Cons

• Requires an initial understanding of where certain information is. This means players are gonna have to spend some time familiarising themselves with the various places within the room, not forgetting players are likely to forget over time.
• Info can't be accessed quickly. Perhaps at first its a great feature, but come a few hours into the game if all the player wants is a map. Having to navigate a room for it may be a pain.
• Too many clicks A golden rule of an interface is to try to minimise the number of actions players need to do in order to gain their needed info. fable takes far too long, apparently

Main points

Pause and menu screens are there so players can get access to something quickly while also providing a breather away from the action. Fable manages the latter but not the former, it keeps the player immersed but at their expense not their benefit.

Remedies

In my opinion, while I like the idea of keeping the player immersed, it is a video game and at the end of the day the player wants a specific bit of info, and they want it fast.

Instead, as d-pads aren't as vital as they once were, why not do something similar to Fallout or LA Noire? Press 'Right' and perhaps the player reaches in their pocket for a map, 'Left' may bring up a piece of paper with quests on it. As long as its dynamic and happens on screen then immersion can be sustained while giving the player what they want.

Lack of user control

Once King, players have a specific number of days to carry out tasks How fast those days progress is not made clear to the player

In a game which tries to hand over control of a kingdom and its people to the player, fable 3 certainly makes it difficult. Much in the same way Dead Rising used real world time for players to complete tasks, then pushed them back if they didn't, Fable 2 impedes players and hides information

Over simplification

In a game which gives choice to the player, the amount is fairly restricted. deciding whether to keep an economy up or not only has 2 choices, much like many decisions within the game. the truth of the matter is, life is complicated and no decision is right, wrong or simple. fable confused accessibility with simplification. Players want to be challenged, people arent stupid and this isn't FarmVille. Players want to be challenged (see Mass Effect sales) so don't make it too simple and mundane.

The same is said of combat, balancing classes is vital in any video game and is not a new concept, so when magic becomes the dominant power late in the game (which can easily happen to any game) then why would someone persist with melee. Either gives players choice and balance them, or centre the game around one aspect and make it amazing Simple case of trying to please everyone and pleasing no-one

Steve Jobs - Innovator, CEO and great presenter

While many point to the late Steve Jobs as a great inventor, innovator, business man and CEO. Presenter is another title which suits him well

Apple keynote presentations create a buzz unlike any other, not just because of the pre-speech build up but also due to his on stage demeanour and presentation technique.

I've had a look around and found some interesting points regarding what makes a great presentation, the Steve Jobs way:

1. Setting the theme
2. Outlining
3. Emphasis
4. The 'unforgettable moment'
5. Images>Text
6. Ignore minor mishaps
7. Benefits to the user rather than the product
8. Practice

Many of these points were re affirmed in a lecture today: 

1. One idea per slide
2. Reinforce the core message
3. Create a thread throughout (Much like a comedian)
4. Images>Text
5. An introduction should be strategic and not technical
6. Keep track of time, have a timer in view
7. Rehears and repeat, goes without saying but not often done
8. Answer questions succinctly and don't deviate (unless a politician)
9. Concluding is not summarising

Innovate rather than replicate

With the intention of looking at innovation, the focus of my project should be focused on creating new ways of showing players game mechanics, rather than identifying the best existing one.

My colleague Paul pointed me in the direction of Zack Hiwillers depiction of Mario if developed in 2011 http://www.hiwiller.com/2010/04/29/if-mario-was-designed-in-2010/. During Mark Zuckerberg's speech at F8 this year he talked of how while being able to share achievements and content is what makes 2011 so great to be in, but doing so intrusively at the annoyance of the player is an unfortunate repercussion of  its popularity.

I believe this is how players feel about many mobile game tutorials/introductions. Rather than helping payer they're seen as a hindrance, one to be skipped past if possible. While there's no doubt some games require a reasonable amount of tutorial (such as 'GameDevStory'-which while fun often feels like one big tutorial) others would benefit from more exciting methods.

My aims then are as follows:

1. To identify current methods of introducing game mechanics and controls within mobile games.
2. To determine which ones work well and which don't based on: 
1. Time taken to get into gameplay from booting the game
2. Whether players get frustrated by the game
3. Level of enjoyment experienced by players
3. To identify any demographic trends

My general objective is to research and carry out experiments into how introducing mechanics and controls can be done either without the player feeling like their hand is being held or wasting their time.

To do this I will first observe and test using human player subjects playing a variety of existing mobile games for the first time.

During testing I'll have to use games the subjects haven't played before, possibly negating the use of such games as Angry Birds and Cut the Rope.