Since I've grown quite a bit of interest for the fictional space of games vs the actual 3D space visible to the player lately, I have taken some time to read through parts of Jesper Juul's book Half-Real which elaborates game fiction in relation to game rules. As Erik has mentioned earlier, Juul speaks of the (3D) game space as a place where fiction and rules overlap. What is interesting is that, from a UI point of view, there are cases when fiction and rules do not overlap, resulting in information outside the diegetic (fiction) part of the UI but within the 3D space (or rule space), for example runner vision in ME. In a similar way, there are cases when diegetic (fiction) information is presented outside the 3D game space, such as overlay GPS systems or the GTA4 cell phone. More on this later on.
Another chunk of Juul's material that I think that we should really take into account is the fact that a game world can be either coherent or incoherent. A incoherent world game is a game in which events in the game cannot be explained by the game fiction or contradicts the fiction itself; why does Mario have three lives in Donkey Kong? A game with a coherent world (fiction) is a game in which "nothing prevents us from imagining the world in any detail". Of course incoherent worlds weakens player immersion, and it is important to point out that this is not a problem for the UI designers to adress - it is the responsibility of the game designers to avoid genre conventions, if a strong immersive player experience is desired.
Juul also adresses the incoherent game world as a optional world, refering to the fact that experienced Quake 3 players (in fact I would say that this is common to most competitive FPS games) tend to shift focus from the fictional level of the game to the game as a set of rules. He exemplifies by the fact that players are initially attracted by the graphics, but as they play more they modify the graphics settings to get higher frame rates (thereby faster feedback) at the cost of graphical detail (lower texture resolution etc). From personal experience I know that Q3 also has the option to turn pickupable objects (weapons, health, etc) from detailed 3D models to very abstract 2D icons that are more easily spotted, which is also preferred by experienced players. In short, Juul's explanation to incoherent worlds is that "by game conventions, the player is aware that it is optional to imagine the fictional world of the game", and in some cases (competitive multiplayer) this can actually be desired.
Showing posts with label Diegesis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Diegesis. Show all posts
Friday, March 27, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The design space revisited
The design space we settled for about a month ago relies heavily on the notion of diegesis. One problem with the notion of diegesis is that there are some potential gray areas between what is diegetic and what is non-diegetic. Take for instance the blood stains appearing when taking damage in Killzone 2; having your face splattered with blood seems quite realistic given that half of the characters' body mass consists of blood (which is usually a convention in action games), but the visual effect would most certainly not be distinctive blood stains on your eye retinas. Or the Mirror's Edge runner vision; objects in the game world with the potential of aiding your traverse of the terrain the turns red, yet is this what Faith really sees?
This might motivate an effort to look at an alternative way of mapping out a design space in which diegesis is not a dimension itself, but rather an area within the design space.
If the spatial dimension (is the UI element presented in the game space or not?) of our design space was to be kept, and the diegetic dimension is replaced with the existential qualities of the UI element within the game world (does the representation exist in the fictional game world or not?), the design space would be represented by the model pictured above.
Information representations that is presented spatially in the game space and exist as entities in the game world, are diegetic representations. Take for instance the Doom 3 data terminals; they exist in the game world, they are also presented in the game space, and are hence very much diegetic. The same can be said for the Dead Space menus; the tech setting of the game (sci-fi) allows projecting information on virtual surfaces, hence the menus are not only a part of the game space but also of the fictional game world itself.
Representations can exist in the game world, but aren't necessarily visualized spatially for the player; these are meta representations. The Killzone 2 example above is an example of this; characters bleed when they get hurt, however the blood is visualized as stains on an overlay camera lense rather than in a realistic fashion. Other examples of meta representations would be the GTA IV cell phone (a 2D overlay representation of the character's cell phone), heart-beat audio indicating critical health level (you normally wouldn't hear your own heart beats, yet they exist and can be heard by others), ambient sounds such as thunder or breezing wind (usually just zone/area specific rather than actual spatial 3D audio sources), or the old Doom head indicating character health level and status (an overlay representation of the character's head, which is a representation of the status of the player).
Non-diegetic representations are disconnected to both the game space and the game world. This would be traditional overlay HUD elements such as health bars (there is no health bar visible for the in-game character), ammo digits representing how many bullets that are left in the clip, dynamic music, sub-titles, etc.
Finally, UI elements could be presented in the game 3D space without being an entity of the actual game world; spatial representations. Here, we find examples like the character outlines of Left 4 Dead (none of the game characters actually see the silhouettes of their teammates through walls, yet they are visible for the player), the highlighting of interactive/pickupable objects, Faith's runner vision in Mirror's Edge, Dead Space path guidance, or check point beacons in Mirror's Edge.
So what's the point of tearing down the design space just to re-assemble it in a slightly different form? Given our results and reflections so far, it seems like spatial representations and meta representations can be used to engross the player even deeper than what would be achieved with a completely diegetic UI! Spatial representations can be exploited to strengthen the player's in-game perception regarding external information - UI solutions such as runner vision in Mirror's Edge or the teammate silhouettes in Left 4 Dead makes up for the fact that players tend to loose their sense of direction when moving about in a virtual 3D space. Similarly, meta representations can be exploited to strengthen the player's perception regarding internal information; blood stains and heart beats, or even the old Doom head, helps players make up for the fact that the physical game interface (TV, speakers, controller) does not allow players to connect with their in-game avatar using the broad set of senses that is available to us in the real world.
This might motivate an effort to look at an alternative way of mapping out a design space in which diegesis is not a dimension itself, but rather an area within the design space.
If the spatial dimension (is the UI element presented in the game space or not?) of our design space was to be kept, and the diegetic dimension is replaced with the existential qualities of the UI element within the game world (does the representation exist in the fictional game world or not?), the design space would be represented by the model pictured above.
Information representations that is presented spatially in the game space and exist as entities in the game world, are diegetic representations. Take for instance the Doom 3 data terminals; they exist in the game world, they are also presented in the game space, and are hence very much diegetic. The same can be said for the Dead Space menus; the tech setting of the game (sci-fi) allows projecting information on virtual surfaces, hence the menus are not only a part of the game space but also of the fictional game world itself.
Representations can exist in the game world, but aren't necessarily visualized spatially for the player; these are meta representations. The Killzone 2 example above is an example of this; characters bleed when they get hurt, however the blood is visualized as stains on an overlay camera lense rather than in a realistic fashion. Other examples of meta representations would be the GTA IV cell phone (a 2D overlay representation of the character's cell phone), heart-beat audio indicating critical health level (you normally wouldn't hear your own heart beats, yet they exist and can be heard by others), ambient sounds such as thunder or breezing wind (usually just zone/area specific rather than actual spatial 3D audio sources), or the old Doom head indicating character health level and status (an overlay representation of the character's head, which is a representation of the status of the player).
Non-diegetic representations are disconnected to both the game space and the game world. This would be traditional overlay HUD elements such as health bars (there is no health bar visible for the in-game character), ammo digits representing how many bullets that are left in the clip, dynamic music, sub-titles, etc.
Finally, UI elements could be presented in the game 3D space without being an entity of the actual game world; spatial representations. Here, we find examples like the character outlines of Left 4 Dead (none of the game characters actually see the silhouettes of their teammates through walls, yet they are visible for the player), the highlighting of interactive/pickupable objects, Faith's runner vision in Mirror's Edge, Dead Space path guidance, or check point beacons in Mirror's Edge.
So what's the point of tearing down the design space just to re-assemble it in a slightly different form? Given our results and reflections so far, it seems like spatial representations and meta representations can be used to engross the player even deeper than what would be achieved with a completely diegetic UI! Spatial representations can be exploited to strengthen the player's in-game perception regarding external information - UI solutions such as runner vision in Mirror's Edge or the teammate silhouettes in Left 4 Dead makes up for the fact that players tend to loose their sense of direction when moving about in a virtual 3D space. Similarly, meta representations can be exploited to strengthen the player's perception regarding internal information; blood stains and heart beats, or even the old Doom head, helps players make up for the fact that the physical game interface (TV, speakers, controller) does not allow players to connect with their in-game avatar using the broad set of senses that is available to us in the real world.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
A diegetic approach to game UI's
Magnus and I were talking today about possible approaches to a games UI and HUD designs.
From that discussion I think we realized the benefits of approaching the games UI/HUD from a bottom-up perspective starting of in the diegetic design space that the game provides.
When it comes to the UI in general (read; menus) - start of with a design that utilizes diegetic elements from the game world itself and strip it down if necissary in order to simplify it and make it more usable. This diegetic approach yields very flavourfull interfaces with a strong tie to the game world serving as a nice trasition into the actuall game experience (Little big planet is a nice example) - in the same way as elaborate starting credits in movies (especially high-budget action movies). The menu should "set the stage" for what is to come and if possible introduce some of the game elements.
When it comes to the HUD, start with the game world and the character model and try to map as much as possible to that. Strip down and simplify these solutions in order to reduce complexity and ambiguity but raplace them only if necissary with non-diegetic or "meta-diegetic" solutions. - Remember that a diegetic solution that is a bit too ambigious can still be kept, serving as a complement to another, reinforcing, element.
Start of with the notion of no menu, no HUD and build from there, with a thorough rational for ever added componet instead of building on pre-existing patterns.
From that discussion I think we realized the benefits of approaching the games UI/HUD from a bottom-up perspective starting of in the diegetic design space that the game provides.
When it comes to the UI in general (read; menus) - start of with a design that utilizes diegetic elements from the game world itself and strip it down if necissary in order to simplify it and make it more usable. This diegetic approach yields very flavourfull interfaces with a strong tie to the game world serving as a nice trasition into the actuall game experience (Little big planet is a nice example) - in the same way as elaborate starting credits in movies (especially high-budget action movies). The menu should "set the stage" for what is to come and if possible introduce some of the game elements.
When it comes to the HUD, start with the game world and the character model and try to map as much as possible to that. Strip down and simplify these solutions in order to reduce complexity and ambiguity but raplace them only if necissary with non-diegetic or "meta-diegetic" solutions. - Remember that a diegetic solution that is a bit too ambigious can still be kept, serving as a complement to another, reinforcing, element.
Start of with the notion of no menu, no HUD and build from there, with a thorough rational for ever added componet instead of building on pre-existing patterns.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Frames, Game Taxonomy and Diegesis
Caillois taxonomy of game pleasures - what pleases us about games and play - seems to provide helpful guidance in designing UIs for different types of games. This model can be connected to frames and diegesis, according to the sketched figure below.
First of all, the player frame is the frame we adapt to understand and make use of the rules of the game - how we reason as players of the game. Since rules are a vital part of every computer or console game (or indeed any other game as well), playing a game will always involve adapting the player frame in one way or another. However, depending on what elements (competition/mimicry/vertigo) the game uses to make us feel engaged and engrossed, playing a game will also involve adapting the person frame (reasoning as a person in the real world) and/or the character frame (reasoning as character in the game world). In other words, playing a game involves switching between frames, which is a rather strong argument against the possibility of achieving full immersion.
The competition element of games involves switching back and forth between the person frame (sense of achievement, competing against oneself or other individuals) and the player frame (making use of and exploiting the game rules to achieve ones goals). Here, rather than focusing on an UI that immerses the player into the game world, the UI should support the competitive spirit and make sure that the game rules are clear to the player.
The mimicry element of games instead involves the player frame (adapting the game rules in order to take part of the game world) and the character frame (being immersed into the game world). Here, the diegesis of the UI should be an important tool to push the player into the character frame rather than being reminded by distracting non-diegetic UI elements that the game is "just a game".
The vertigo element of games involves the person frame on a perceptual level, and the player frame on a game-rule level. The goal of pure vertigo games is to achieve a sensory-rich experience (skiing, mountain-climbing, etc.). In FPS games, this can be reflected in platforming, the chaos that follows intense battle and explosions, scare and fright, or as in Mirror's Edge applied to character movement itself by parkour. From a vertigo point of view, the UI should try to push the player into the person frame, to try to connect the game to the player's primary framework of senses.
In most FPS games, all three elements of competition, mimicry and vertigo exist, however one element will be in more focus than the others. Hence, the UI should support the element most dominant. In Mirror's Edge, this could be the element of vertigo (the act of parkour). In Battlefield: Bad Company single player, the dominating element could instead be mimicry (taking the role as one of the squad soldiers). In the multiplayer part of Bad Company, the dominating element is competition (competing against rivaling team, competing internally by getting higher scores than teammates).
First of all, the player frame is the frame we adapt to understand and make use of the rules of the game - how we reason as players of the game. Since rules are a vital part of every computer or console game (or indeed any other game as well), playing a game will always involve adapting the player frame in one way or another. However, depending on what elements (competition/mimicry/vertigo) the game uses to make us feel engaged and engrossed, playing a game will also involve adapting the person frame (reasoning as a person in the real world) and/or the character frame (reasoning as character in the game world). In other words, playing a game involves switching between frames, which is a rather strong argument against the possibility of achieving full immersion.
The competition element of games involves switching back and forth between the person frame (sense of achievement, competing against oneself or other individuals) and the player frame (making use of and exploiting the game rules to achieve ones goals). Here, rather than focusing on an UI that immerses the player into the game world, the UI should support the competitive spirit and make sure that the game rules are clear to the player.
The mimicry element of games instead involves the player frame (adapting the game rules in order to take part of the game world) and the character frame (being immersed into the game world). Here, the diegesis of the UI should be an important tool to push the player into the character frame rather than being reminded by distracting non-diegetic UI elements that the game is "just a game".
The vertigo element of games involves the person frame on a perceptual level, and the player frame on a game-rule level. The goal of pure vertigo games is to achieve a sensory-rich experience (skiing, mountain-climbing, etc.). In FPS games, this can be reflected in platforming, the chaos that follows intense battle and explosions, scare and fright, or as in Mirror's Edge applied to character movement itself by parkour. From a vertigo point of view, the UI should try to push the player into the person frame, to try to connect the game to the player's primary framework of senses.
In most FPS games, all three elements of competition, mimicry and vertigo exist, however one element will be in more focus than the others. Hence, the UI should support the element most dominant. In Mirror's Edge, this could be the element of vertigo (the act of parkour). In Battlefield: Bad Company single player, the dominating element could instead be mimicry (taking the role as one of the squad soldiers). In the multiplayer part of Bad Company, the dominating element is competition (competing against rivaling team, competing internally by getting higher scores than teammates).
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Digesis by Communication
Excerpt from the book "Beyond Role and Play" concerning diegesis construction. Article by Mika Loponen & Markus Montala:
"... every player's diegesis is different by definition (since it is constructed in the players mind). In the best possible situation the diegeses are equifinal. Two interpretations are equifinal when they are similar enough to cause indistinguishable consequences. Equifinality is easiest to achieve if all players have a good understanding of the genre, style and world of the game "
The opposite of equifinality is called arbitration - this occurs in all forms of communication when people have different interpretations of the meaning of symbols (language).
The authors go on saying that: "...it can be said that the more the diegeses are constructed through icons and indices the more (life)-like a game is."
To use an example from Mirror's Edge, let's look at Runners Vison (an object colored red in the environment) and how it can be interpreted by players' diegetically in at least 3 different ways:
Indexical interpretation: Faith actually sees some objects as red (allthough they are not), due to some special mental state or through some exotic technology.
Symbolic interpretation: Faith picks out important objects in the environment through her own perception and the red color is just an arbitrary way of showing this.
(Iconic interpretation: Someone has actually been nice enough to paint stuff red to help Faith.)
After discussing indexical vs symbolic interpretations of signs the authors state that:
"The more a game is based on indices, the less chance there is for misinterpretations, and the less need for non-diegetic communication."
However, the authors identifies at leas two mayor problems with a fully indexical game world.
1. The player need to have an extended knowledge of objects in the game world, its back story and so on, in order to fully interpret indexical symbols.
Example: In an FPS with no HUD a player has to know that an assault rifle holds 30 bullets and a revolver holds 6 in order to best time his/her reloads.
2. Every player will still have a unique interpretation of each symbol, and the designer can never guarantee that all player make the right (or even the same) interpretation.
-I found this way of using semiotic concepts to describe game world symbols very interesting and useful to us.
"... every player's diegesis is different by definition (since it is constructed in the players mind). In the best possible situation the diegeses are equifinal. Two interpretations are equifinal when they are similar enough to cause indistinguishable consequences. Equifinality is easiest to achieve if all players have a good understanding of the genre, style and world of the game "
The opposite of equifinality is called arbitration - this occurs in all forms of communication when people have different interpretations of the meaning of symbols (language).
The authors go on saying that: "...it can be said that the more the diegeses are constructed through icons and indices the more (life)-like a game is."
To use an example from Mirror's Edge, let's look at Runners Vison (an object colored red in the environment) and how it can be interpreted by players' diegetically in at least 3 different ways:
Indexical interpretation: Faith actually sees some objects as red (allthough they are not), due to some special mental state or through some exotic technology.
Symbolic interpretation: Faith picks out important objects in the environment through her own perception and the red color is just an arbitrary way of showing this.
(Iconic interpretation: Someone has actually been nice enough to paint stuff red to help Faith.)
After discussing indexical vs symbolic interpretations of signs the authors state that:
"The more a game is based on indices, the less chance there is for misinterpretations, and the less need for non-diegetic communication."
However, the authors identifies at leas two mayor problems with a fully indexical game world.
1. The player need to have an extended knowledge of objects in the game world, its back story and so on, in order to fully interpret indexical symbols.
Example: In an FPS with no HUD a player has to know that an assault rifle holds 30 bullets and a revolver holds 6 in order to best time his/her reloads.
2. Every player will still have a unique interpretation of each symbol, and the designer can never guarantee that all player make the right (or even the same) interpretation.
-I found this way of using semiotic concepts to describe game world symbols very interesting and useful to us.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Game Audio Connected to Diegesis
I stumbled upon an interesting Gamasutra article proposing a framework for game audio. The IEZA framework splits the audio design space into a) a diegetic/non-diegetic dimension and b) an activity/setting dimension, resulting in the sound categories below (quoted from the article):
As the notion of diegesis feels more and more relevant for the project, this article could serve as a good base for argumentation and inspiration.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3509/ieza_a_framework_for_game_audio.php?print=1
The Interface category expresses the activity in the non-diegetic part of the game environment. In many games of today this is sound that is synced with activity in the HUD, either as a response to player activity or as a response to game activity.
The Effect category expresses the activity in the diegetic part of the game. Sound is often synced to events in the game world, either triggered by the player or by the game itself. However, activity in the diegetic part of the game can also include sound streams, such as the sound of a continuously burning fire.
The Zone category expresses the setting (for example the geographical or topological setting) of the diegetic part of the game environment. In many games of today, Zone is often designed in such a way (using real time adaptation) that it reflects the consequences of game play on a game's world.
The Affect category expresses the setting (for example the emotional, social and/or cultural setting) of the non-diegetic part of the game environment. Affect is often designed in such a way (using real time adaptation) that it reflects the emotional status of the game or that it anticipates upcoming events in the game.As the notion of diegesis feels more and more relevant for the project, this article could serve as a good base for argumentation and inspiration.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3509/ieza_a_framework_for_game_audio.php?print=1
The UI Design Space - Initial thoughts
Looking at the results of the objective game study so far, some trends can be identified. The notion of diegesis seems relevant to take into the picture.
The visual non-diegetic dimension of the UI design space seems to be highly exploited by FPS games in general; traditional HUD-elements layered on top of the game in various forms, menus used for different purposes. Blur filters, red glow when the player is damaged and fading the screen when dying seem to fall into a 'grey area' - is it always what the player character really experience? The visual diegetic dimension is less exploited - a few games use diegetic information elements, mostly in the form of highlighting interactive objects. Environmental effects seem to be rare. Possibly, this will change as more games are studied.
In the auditory dimension, diegetic UI elements mainly seem to exist in the form of heart beats and pulsating sounds to indicate a critical health level. Non-diegetic audio used to convey information mostly exists in the form of dynamic music indicating battle, used by a few of the games studied so far.
Controller rumble is more or less exclusively used in a diegetic way; vibrations when a weapon is fired, when taking damage, etc.
In the search for unconventional, innovative ways to get rid of traditional, immersion-breaking HUD elements, there seems to be a lot of unexplored ground in the diegetic visual dimension as expected, as well as both the diegetic and non-diegetic haptic and auditory dimensions.
The visual non-diegetic dimension of the UI design space seems to be highly exploited by FPS games in general; traditional HUD-elements layered on top of the game in various forms, menus used for different purposes. Blur filters, red glow when the player is damaged and fading the screen when dying seem to fall into a 'grey area' - is it always what the player character really experience? The visual diegetic dimension is less exploited - a few games use diegetic information elements, mostly in the form of highlighting interactive objects. Environmental effects seem to be rare. Possibly, this will change as more games are studied.
In the auditory dimension, diegetic UI elements mainly seem to exist in the form of heart beats and pulsating sounds to indicate a critical health level. Non-diegetic audio used to convey information mostly exists in the form of dynamic music indicating battle, used by a few of the games studied so far.
Controller rumble is more or less exclusively used in a diegetic way; vibrations when a weapon is fired, when taking damage, etc.
In the search for unconventional, innovative ways to get rid of traditional, immersion-breaking HUD elements, there seems to be a lot of unexplored ground in the diegetic visual dimension as expected, as well as both the diegetic and non-diegetic haptic and auditory dimensions.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Ramblings: Diegesis in Movies and Games.
The Concept of Diegesis (described in a previous post) is something that manifests in similar manners in both movies and games (at least if we consider action/FPS games). Both media rely (almost) entirely on visuals and audio to convey information to the viewer/player.
Therefor games and movies share many non-diegetic elements that do not, to any real extent, brakes immersion or engrossment. These elements would be things like the musical score - while being a strictly non-diegetic element, a musical score often adds to immersion and engrossment rather than diminishing it. The same might be said of sub-titles - giving important information to the viewer/player that adds to his understanding and appreciation of the experience.
However - consider someone hitting the menu button on the DVD remote during a crucial scene in a movie, or a player opening an inventory screen during an epic fight with a monster. These are non-diegetic elements that really breaks the immersion for us.
I believe that in the thesis we should really look at the differences between the non-diegetic instances that breake immersion and the ones that does not. And also to consider the usability aspect of diegetic and non-diegetic HUD solutions. Navigating in Mirror’s Edge without the little cross-hair dot would probably be a lot harder, although the dot itself is a non-diegetic object.
Therefor games and movies share many non-diegetic elements that do not, to any real extent, brakes immersion or engrossment. These elements would be things like the musical score - while being a strictly non-diegetic element, a musical score often adds to immersion and engrossment rather than diminishing it. The same might be said of sub-titles - giving important information to the viewer/player that adds to his understanding and appreciation of the experience.
However - consider someone hitting the menu button on the DVD remote during a crucial scene in a movie, or a player opening an inventory screen during an epic fight with a monster. These are non-diegetic elements that really breaks the immersion for us.
I believe that in the thesis we should really look at the differences between the non-diegetic instances that breake immersion and the ones that does not. And also to consider the usability aspect of diegetic and non-diegetic HUD solutions. Navigating in Mirror’s Edge without the little cross-hair dot would probably be a lot harder, although the dot itself is a non-diegetic object.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Diegesis
This article on Gamasutra discuss the term Diegesis and how it relates to games. If nothing else the Diegesis concept can be usefull as part of the terminology used in the thesis.
Simply put most sound effects that you hear in a game would be considered diegetic - since the sounds would be perceived by any game character as well as the player (i.e exists inside the game world). Most game music however would be considered non-diegetic since it exists external to the game world, and would not be audible for a character in the game.
Most classic hud elements and almost all menus are therefor to be considered non-diegetic elements.
Simply put most sound effects that you hear in a game would be considered diegetic - since the sounds would be perceived by any game character as well as the player (i.e exists inside the game world). Most game music however would be considered non-diegetic since it exists external to the game world, and would not be audible for a character in the game.
Most classic hud elements and almost all menus are therefor to be considered non-diegetic elements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)