Game-state feedback and affordance amplifiers

Apart from our initial objective game study, we haven't looked at how information can be categorized. In this post, I propose an alternative to our earlier taxonomy of internal, external, goal-oriented and non-diegetic information.

The information conveyed to the player can be divided into two types: game-state feedback informing the player about the current state of the game, and affordance amplifiers that re-enforces the affordances of the environment and invites to player interaction. Examples follow below:

---
GAME-STATE FEEDBACK
Health bars
Red/blur filtering to indicate critical level of health
Ammo counters
Teammate status
Mirror's Edge checkpoint beacons
Bad Company red overlay triangle to indicate points of interest (if point of interest is also an object of interest, its an affordance amplifier as well)
Overlay radar/GPS navigational aids
Objective instructions
Maps
Pause menus
Dynamic music
Bloody textures on enemies and characters indicating that they're damaged

AFFORDANCE AMPLIFIERS
Shiny shaders on pickups and other objects of interest
Runner vision
Crosshair used to show that an object is interactable/pickupable
Crosshair distinction between allies and hostiles (affordance: kill enemy, talk to friend)
The avatars hand reaching out to pick up or interact with an object
Doom 3 data terminals
Red barrels indicating that they will explode when shot
---

Since the nature of individual types of game-state feedback differ quite a lot from each other, this might motivate a sub-categorization within the game-state feedback category. This might draw on the earlier internal (health, ammo, etc) and external (objectives, navigational aid, teammate status, etc) information categories.

This categorization opens up for some interesting borderline cases, when an informational vehicle - a representation - contains both game-state feedback and affordance amplification. Examples of this is an indication of a point of interest (game-state feedback) that is also an indication to an interactable object of interest (affordance amplifier), or the red clouds on enemies in Mirror's Edge indicating both that the enemy must be defeated in order to progress (game-state feedback) and that the enemy is of special interest (affordance amplifier).

I think that this way of categorizing information is more systematic from a UI/game designer point of view than our earlier method.

Determining the UI strategy

For quite some time, we've struggled to find a model that we can use to separate different FPS games from each other and see what game characteristics that affects the UI strategy suitable for the game - a ground for UI design guidelines. In this post, I will describe one approach to this.

There are at least five factors that in some way have a direct impact on the UI of a FPS; Level of Competition, Fiction Persuasiveness, Spatial Interaction, Rules Transparency, and Level of Vertigo.


The level of competition of the game determines whether an overlay 2D HUD might be a reasonable strategy or not. In games based heavily on narrative (level 1), designers might wanna go for an approach that pursues something that draws close to the notion of immersion, by working with diegesis and avoiding a traditional HUD breaking the illusion. However, the more competitive elements the game experience builds on, the importance of being able to make strategic gameplay decisions grows for the players; in pure multiplayer games (level 3), it is also important do make these decisions fast. Hence, ambiguous information should be avoided in these situations, which is most easily achieved with an overlay HUD.


The fictional persuasiveness of the game determines how important the notion of diegesis is to the game UI. In games with fiction that attempts to deliver a game world nearly identical to the real world during some time in history (level 3), slightest non-diegetic element might break player immersion. In games that delivers plausible worlds that are quite different from our own (level 2), diegesis might be just as important, but can be allowed by using artifacts and entities that builds on the game fiction (sci-fi, post-apocalyptic, etc). If a game does not try to hide the fact that it is an artifical world (level 1), the level of diegesis might not be an issue at all.


We think that when the 3D geometry affects gameplay, it also affects the UI regarding interface elements with spatial qualities. If the geometrical aspect of level design has no direct impact on gameplay (level 1), there is no or little need for UI elements presented spatially in the 3D space. However, as the importance of the geometry grows for the player (level 2, 3), the UI should support this by providing short-term navigational guidance and strengthening environmental affordances. If full diegesis is not a design goal, UI designers can work with spatial information such as the runner vision or checkpoint beacons in Mirror's Edge - if diegesis is important, signifiers might be a better tool.


The rules transparency of the game impact on how affordances is conveyed to the player, and the diegesis of the learning/tutorial approach of the game. If the game does not make the slightest attempt to hide the fact that it is governed by a rule framework (level 1), affordances can be conveyed by fairly straight-forward approaches such as pure textual feedback ("Press x to pick up weapon.") throughout the whole game. If this strategy is not desirable (level 2), designers should make an effort to restrict non-diegetic affordance references to a tutorial part of the game, and convey the rules in a somewhat more diegetic way ("You must find the fire escape ladder to gain access to the building" instead of "Find the exit to proceed to next level").


Finally, the level of vertigo determines how the game should make up for the fact that the only links to the perception of your in-game avatar are graphics, audio and rumble. If the gameplay is sensory-poor (level 1), this link is of less importance. However, as the gameplay draws on sensory-rich elements such as height or speed (level 2), the player needs to be linked closer to his/hers game-ego. This can be achieved by exaggerating (meta-representations, according to our previous terminology) and fortifying these senses visually, sound wise, or by rumble; for example blurring the edges of the screen (used in racing games, and Mirror's Edge) to indicate speed, or exaggerating traffic noises when jumping between rooftops.

Familiarity over Ease-of-Use.

In this Gamasutra articel by Ian Bogost he picks a part the old saying: "[Games] should be easy to learn and hard to master", proving that this is not necessarily the case at all.

Here are a few nice quotes that could be helpful in designing Hud elements perhaps.

"Familiarity of subjects helps apologize for unfamiliarity of form."

- Most game deal with very familiar subjects like sports (or other athletic activities), races, warfare or puzzles. Even though the control scheme in a game like SKATE is totally new, a player familiar with the subject of skating will have no problem picking it up and enjoying it (something that would not necessarily be true for someone that has never been exposed to skating and skate culture).

"Mechanical simplicity is less important than conceptual familiarity."

- You can more easily pick up complex tasks (Like playing Pong for the first time) if you are familiar with the simulated activity (playing table tennis). The same thing goes for most of what the FPS experience is all about, navigating in 3d spaces and the use of firearms (although not necessarily direct experience) are concepts we are all familiar with even though the paradigms of WASD + mouse or the two analog stick-game pad used for navigating and firing are quite hard to master the first time you try.

"By culturing familiarity and constructing a habitual experience. By finding receptors for familiar mechanics and tuning them slightly differently, so as to make those receptors resonate in a new way, and then coupling those new resonances with meaningful ideas, practices, or experiences."

- This quote highlights the need to innovate with a sense of conservatism. It might be better innovate from within persistent paradigms than attempting to "brake to mold" every time you make a new game. Part of the appeal of both RPG's and FPS's are the fact that they are so familiar to the player. You can take with you many of the lessons learned through yers of gaming and directly apply them to the next FPS on the market. The "Tuning of mechanics" that Bogost talks about are thing like the destructible environments in games like Battlefield BC that makes you challenge your "old" knowledge-set and forces you to approach the game in a slightly different manner than those you played before it- thus retaining a sens of habitualness whilst still affording new and unique experiences.

Mirros's Edge analyzed using our current model

Game space: Here we have all the geometry of the game (3d models of buildings etc.)

Fiction space: Here we have all the cut-scenes and back story/setting of the game.

Rule space: Here are all the rules governing the interactions between player and game. The rules both dictate what is possible and what actions/outcomes are more or less valuable/desirable. This is were we would place direct instructions to the player like "press LB to Jump".

Intersection between Game space and Fiction: Here are all the objects in the game world that adds to the feeling of being "inside" the fictional world - but that are NOT interactive (i.e. covered by the rules), Things like buildings in the background, billboards with messages like "Vote for Pope!" and any door that is not colored red . It is important that a player accepts that these things are not possible to interact with, as any attempt to do so might break immersion/engrossment. (Note that in this case there are no explicit fictional explanations as to why interactions are impossible).

Intersection between Game Space and Rule Space: These are all the objects that are present in the games 3d world, covered by game rules but not explained by the fiction. In mirror's edge the check point beacons and the ghost in time trial are these kind of entities. Runner's vision does not quite qualify for this category since it is (at least vaguely) explained by the fiction.

Intersection between Rule Space and Fiction Space: This is when the game communicate to the player using the "language" of the fictional world. In mirrors edge (Story mode) you are not simply given the instruction - "Get from place A to B". Instead the objectives of a level are conveyed using fictional elements (in time trial however, objectives are conveyed without this layer of fiction). Also - the "taking damage" effects belong to this category since they are rule and fiction derived but have no actual presence in the 3d world (since they depict an internal state).

In the Center: In the middle we have any object that is both governed by game rules, present in the game space and part of the fiction. Here we have faith's body (and how it moves through the environment), all the surfaces you can run on, jump to and so on, as well as runner's vision. Also the logos idicating that there is a runner's bag near by is a nice example of a good use of a signifyer object in this cathegory.

From the focus group session it is clear that player often attempt to move objects more towards the center of the model by their own accord. Like stating that an "unopenable" door must be locked (when in fact, the door is just a "life less" prop and there is nothing behind it).

The design space revisited, once again

Inspired partly by the work of Jesper Juul mentioned in the previous post, we have once again taken a look on how the design space can be modified even further. In the last proposal, we laid forth a UI design space with two dimensions; the spatiality in relation to the 3D game space, and the existential qualities within the fictional game world. Jesper Juul speaks of the game space as a meeting between fiction and rules. As mentioned before, there are cases (from an UI point of view) when fiction and rules do not overlap but are still in the game space, resulting in information outside the fiction part of the UI but within the rule space; for example runner vision in ME. In a similar way, there are cases when fictional and rule-based entities is presented outside the (3D) game space, such as overlay GPS systems or the GTA4 cell phone.

An alternative take on the UI design space would be to describe it as the collision of the 3D game space, the fictional space, and the rule space. The old design space expanded with a rule dimension, sort of.


What's good about this? Traditional HUD elements today resides only in the rule space, outside the 3D game space and the fiction space. To pursue an immersive/engrossing experience UI designers should focus on pushing the UI closer to the core of the design space.

Another advantage is that the model can be exploited from different directions depending on the nature of the game. A competition based experience is a lot about rules, a mimicry-heavy game experience is a lot about the fiction, and pursuing vertigo is a lot about feeling that you are one with the 3D game space, which means that depending on a games focus, the model can be exploited from different directions. For example, if a game is heavily competitive an overlay HUD might actually be preferable while signifiers might be regarded as vague information, while in a heavily mimicry based situation spatial and non-diegetic representations might break the immersive experience. Exploitation of the earlier design space differed a lot depending of the nature of the game.

This UI design space also illustrates the role of the game UI designer as we see it, being involved with both game designers (rule space), level designers (game space), and fiction/art director (fiction space).

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.

The results of the interviews - early reflections

During the last two weeks we have conducted five interviews, trying to prove our hypothesis going something like this: a player engrossment/immersion model can be created using a taxonomy of games (competition, mimicry, vertigo) and frames (person/player/character), and this is reflected in the game UI and the diegesis-spatiality of conveyed information.


When talking to our interviewees, we tried to elicit what they consider to be an engrossed/immersed game experience, and what elements that breaks this experience. According to the model above, the results of an early analysis of the comments and states made by each person interviewed can be visualized in the following way:

Dimitry prefers authentic and realistic war themed FPS games, and although he plays competitive multiplayer games to a high extent (stating Red Orchestra as one example) he seems to be playing for a mimicry experience rather than the competitive aspect. He does not want to be reminded that it is "just a game", hence he moves between the person and the character mimicry frames (taking his real-world knowledge into the game-world). Dimitry prefers diegetic UI solutions and no HUD at all, although he do think that the HUD-heaviness of games such as Team Fortress 2 is ok as the game does not aim for a realistic experience.

Guy enjoys both pure gameplay and more immersed experiences; according to him, he plays story-heavy games like Bioshock for more of an experience, while (quote) ”TF2 [and other multiplayer games] are so absurd.. you’re playing them as a game rather than an experience”. Hence, we would say that in a mimicry situation Guy engrosses himself on a character frame level, while playing more competitive games in the player frame. Guy is one of the two interviewees that have played Mirror's Edge, in which he seeks an experience of being embodied as Faith in the game-world rather than enjoying the story told. HUD-wise, Guy feels that it is good to have more information in a competitive multiplayer situation, but finds it desirable to find alternative solutions to a traditional non-diegetic overlay HUD in single-player experiences.

Robert is as diverse as Guy, describing himself as a player both enjoying competitive multiplayer and story-based single player games. In single-player games, he is in it for the story and the game universe, while he plays competitive multi-player games for competing and feeling better than others. Robert has played Mirror's Edge as well, naming one of the reasons he enjoyed the game so much was because (quote) "it was just you and the game [no hud] and not a lot of other stuff you had to look at”. As with Guy, Robert playes competitive games by moving between the person and the player frame, while single player mimicry experiences is played largely in the character frame. Robert prefers games that strive for a fully transparent HUD because (quote) “the HUD does not help immerse you into the game and sometimes it even disturbs the experience”, however he also says that (quote) "in some games you really need to know stuff like how much ammo you got".

Mattias describes himself as a "classic gamer", having played a lot of Counterstrike in his past but have now moved on to more single player games. To him, an engrossing multiplayer experience is when he is really focused on what happens at the moment and what his teammates and rivals is doing, while he enjoys single-player games for the unexpected turns of the narrative and puzzle solving. This could be interpreted as that Mattias plays competitive games in the player frame, while in story-heavy games he moves between the character frame and the player frame. Mattias don't believe that the game experience is very dependent on the HUD strategy chosen by the developers - as he is a "classic gamer", he prefers explicit solutions such as overlay health bars as it helps him make in-game decisions, however he admits (when asked about it) that fully transparent HUDs is more realistic and is probably suited for games aiming for a high level of realism.

Henke mostly play single-player games, though not for experiencing the story but more as playgrounds. He really enjoyed Halflife (1), and mentions the ability to play around with the physics as one reason. He does mention Bioshock as a game he enjoyed because of the thrilling game-world, however he found the non-varied nature of the gameplay to be irritating. This points at Henke playing mimicry games in the player frame. As Mattias, Henke does not believe that the HUD play a large role in the engrossment/immersion of a game, stating that (quote) "I can be sucked into a game no matter if it has a good HUD or not". When asked, he believes that more information makes sense in multiplayer games, hence a more HUD-heavy UI strategy might be of importance in those compared to single-player experiences.

Altogether we're quite content with this non-quantative interview user study, as we've gained some knowledge. Our immersion/engrossment model seems appropriate, however it seems that it can be modified into the following:


In competitive game situations, players move between their person frame (personal goals, striving towards a sense of achievement) and the player frame (exploiting the game rules). In a mimicry game situation players seem to move primarily between the person frame and the character frame - carrying over real-world knowledge into the game-world. The same goes for vertigo-focused games. A traditional HUD seems to be most important when acting in the player frame, hence a 2D overlay UI strategy might be suitable for competitive games, while alternative strategies might be desirable in mimicry and vertigo situations.

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).

Ramblings: Taxonomy of Games and How it May Affect the UI

In the book "Man, Play and Games" from 1958, french philosopher Roger Caillois proposes an interesting classification of play and games that could be of importance for us.


According to Caillois, there's four fundamental categories of games: Agôn, games with a competitive nature; Alea, games of chance in which the participants have no control of the outcome; Mimicry, residing into a closed, conventional and in certain respects imaginary universe; Ilinx, the pursuit of vertigo (sv: yrsel), a sensory-rich experience of movement, speed and chaos.

According to Caillois, games can also be placed on a scale measuring how governed the activity is by rules. On this scale, the extreme points would be a) Paidia, the primary power of improvisation and joy, and b) Ludus, the urge to be challenged by difficulty and competition.

Games could of course touch on several of these categories. Mirror's Edge constantly attempts to provide the vertigo of parkour, but throughout the story mode mimicry is also an element as players play the role as Faith and immerse themselves in the game world, and in time trial agôn becomes a significant element as the competitive nature of the game is strengthened.


I think that this might be of importance, as it should be quite important to design a game UI that strengthens the nature of the game. Once again Mirror's Edge can be used to exemplify how this taxonomy can affect the UI. Vertigo is the dominant element of the game throughout all game modes, and this is strengthened by details such as blurring the edges of the screen to signify high speed. In the story mode, mimicry is also quite an important aspect, hence the lack of a 2D HUD breaking the illusion of being a part of the game world. However, in time trial the competitive nature of the game is stronger than mimicry, hence the addition of overlay digits for speed and time as they strengthen the competitive player engagement.

Ramblings: Improvisational Theatre

The teammate conversations in Left 4 Dead continue to intrigue us. The way teammate speech conveys useful information about both 1) your internal status and 2) their own status, actions and observations, feels quite immersion-strengthening.

A similar way of conveying information can be found in improvisational theatre. This is described in a book I'm currently reading, "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" by Malcolm Gladwell. The way that actors play their roles is to a full extent shaped by the other actors' reactions and dialogue. The informational content of the lines of your fellow actors shapes the setting and the plot of the play ("It's really cold here"), and also your internal status (e.g. "You look angry, what's the matter?"), providing a ground for the continued play. Good improvisational actors are those capable of maintaining the frame set by the other actors.

To a certain extent, this form of interaction is also used in live action role-playing.

I think that this might be relevant to us and should possibly be a part of our study of other art forms.

Charts: The Design Space and How it is Exploited Today

One possible charting of the UI design space of FPS games is to divide it into three dimensions: the information channels (how is the information conveyed?), the diegesis of the information conveyed (is the information diegetic or non-diegetic?), and the spatial quality of the information carrier (does the information representation exist in the game 3D space or not?). If this division is made, a four-field chart of each main information channel (visual, audio, haptic) can be produced. By putting examples (from the objective and subjective game study) into the charts, we can see how the design space is exploited by games today.

VISUAL INFORMATION


Game developers today mainly tend to use non-spatial visual information carriers (2D overlay elements, image filtering) to convey information. Spatial representations seem to be used to a far less extent; here, few conventions exist, hence exploration might reveal quite innovative ideas on how to information can be conveyed.

AUDITORY INFORMATION


As far as game audio is concerned, diegetic information represented in a non-spatial way seem to be the most exploited area (allthough there's probably still plenty of the area left to explore) when it comes information more sophisticated than mere auditorial feedback on explosions and weapon fire. Games such as Left 4 Dead (teammate dialogue, characteristic special infected sounds) shows that a lot of potential also reside outside of this area.

HAPTIC INFORMATION

Similar to the auditorial dimension, developers today tend to exploit controller rumble mainly in a diegetic non-spatial way. In most cases vibrations seem to be exclusively used for giving feedback on being hit by enemy fire and/or when the player use firearms. Looking at examples from other game genres, it's clear that there is a lot of unexplored space when it comes to the haptic dimension of the design space.

Ramblings: Immersion, memesis and the spatial HUD

I wanted to take some time discussing the connection between memesis and immersion. I'v always had the idea that higher memesis (a more realistic game word, with a better player embodiment and few or no non-diegetic elements) will lead to a higher degree of player immersion.

Allthough I still think this is the case (to some extent) I think I'm growing more and more friendly to the idea of non-diegetic spatial HUD elements. The Player outlines in L4D comes to mind as a perfect example of how to implement HUD elemets that adds to both the experinece and usabillity without disrupting the immersion.

When comapring L4d with a game with a very high level of mimesis, like Far Cry 2 - I belive that L4D plays better, since it compensates for my loss of perception that hapens when i "enter" the simulated game world.

To me L4D's outlines represents my game characters notion of where his fellow survivors are - something that you, in real life, would know by very subtle clues (a kind of subconcious perception) almost impossible to convey in a game. A similar reasoning can be done for Runners Vision in ME (also a kind of spatial hud element).

Spatial HUD elements helps compensate for the lack of saliance and the loss of some elements of perception (partly due to a loss of Proprioception) inherent in any 3D game world - compared to reality.

Ramblings: Informational Content vs Carriers

In the analysis of our initial studies of how information is conveyed, it feels important to reflect on how information carriers are separated from their content - the information itself. While an information carrier itself may not have spatial qualities (exist in the 3D game space), the content can still consist of spatial information. This is the case with HUD maps, compasses and radars - the information carrier is a 2D overlay object, conveying information about the external surroundings.

In FPS games, information about internal status - non-spatial data such as health, ammo, etc. - is normally conveyed through information carriers without spatial qualities, such as 2D overlay health bars or effect filters, digits for ammo count, etc. In a similar way, it is not uncommon to provide external information through information carriers with spatial qualities, such as checkpoint beacons in Mirror's Edge, indicating pickup-able objects by highlighting the objects themselves, the character outlines when teammates are behind walls in L4D, etc.

A combination that is very interesting in my opinion is when spatial information carriers are used to convey information content about one's internal status. One of few examples of this is the use of NPC speech in L4D; besides of conveying information about the surroundings ("Boomer!", "Safehouse ahead!"), the teammates' comments can also refer to the player's health ("If you don't find first aid you're not gonna survive!"). It seems like this area is largely uncharted, yet I think this way of conveying information has great potential from an immersion point of view .

For literature on the separation between informational content and information carriers/vehicles, we might want to look into semiotics and philosophy.

Ramblings: Internal and external HUD elements.

When comparing the total number of occurrences of HUD Elements in the games it turns out that elements conveying internal states outnumber the external states 2:1.

This is interesting to think about since the internal states like health, stance etc is something that, in real life, would be percived through one or several of the senses not available when playing games.

In an FPS you do not have access to any form of direct proprioception. (That's a fancy word for your body's sense of its own physicality — its "map" of itself. Proprioception is how you know where your various body parts are — and what they're doing — even when you're not looking at them. It's why you can pass a ball from one hand to another behind your back; it's how you can climb stairs without looking down at your feet)

Because of this - HUD elements need to be contrived in order to convey this type of internal information to the player.

Looking at the outside world however, is a different thing. Here reality and the simulated game world have much more in common. We can use the same perceptual abilities (spatial awareness, locating sound through stereo or surround effects etc.) to evaluate states in the external world.
Therefor, there is not the same need for HUD elements to convey information to the player - since this information can be elicited from the world itself in a natural way.

Instead, most external elements are either present in order to compensate for the loss of some of our senses (stereoscopic vision for example) or simply implemented for the sake of usability or practicality.

Ambient Information

I found an article about ambient/peripheral displays, mapping out the design space of 'ambient information systems' in a quite interesting way. The authors speak about:

Information capacity, representing the number of discrete information sources that a system can represent.

Notification level, the degree to which system alerts are meant to interrupt a user.

Representation fidelity, the level of abstraction of the information carriers - how the data from the world is encoded into patterns, pictures, words, or sounds.

Aesthetic emphasis, relative importance of the aesthetics of the display.

Allthough the authors are describing the design space for what is called ambient information systems - ubiquitous computing systems more or less - I do think that the described dimensions are quite important for game interfaces as well. The notification level is especially important from an immersion point of view, and the semiotic aspect of representation fidelity is relevant for diegesis.

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1133265.1133277&coll=Portal&dl=GUIDE&CFID=20369361&CFTOKEN=36793872

Interaction Frames of Pen & Paper RPGs

I've read through some chapters of 'The Fantasy Role-Playing Game', a book that provides some interesting views on how information is conveyed in pen & paper RPGs.

First of all, information in pen and paper RPGs is channeled through spoken word and player-player/player-gamemaster note passing. One of the interesting things about RPGs is the lack of performer-spectator division - the act of role playing is similar to theatre in the way that a performance of acting takes place, however the spectators of this performance are the performers themselves. This opens up for interesting views on diegetic and non-diegetic information in RPGs.

The author of the book talks about Gary Alan Fine's three primary levels of meaning within role-playing games (social frame, game frame, gaming-world frame), and how switching between them is identified as engrossment. The author expands the three frames of interaction into the following five:

1) The social frame inhabited by the person
2) The game frame inhabited by the player
3) The narrative frame inhabited by the raconteur
4) The constative frame inhabited by the adresser
5) The performative frame inhabited by the character

Each of the last three frames take place within the game-world. According to the author, RPG players tend to operate within the conventions of the game rather than within their primary frameworks, and this can be immersion breaking.


Hopefully, this can be of some use for us, and if nothing else at least provide some background material for the report. The notion of frames originate from Goffman's 'Frame Analysis', which could be worth checking out as well.

Rules of Play: Magic Circles and Meaningful Play

During our tutoring meeting today, the notion of 'magic circles' was brought up. Wikipedia defines the term as "the membrane that encloses synthetic worlds such as FPSs, online social environments, and MMORPGs". The term seem to have been introduced by Johan Huizinga in the 30's (in the book Homo Ludens), and applied to gaming in the book Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals by Salen and Zimmerman.

Magic circles seems to be quite strongly related to immersion and engrossment, and even if we don't have much use for the term 'magic circles' itself, I think that we should check out the book Rules of Play. The authors also write about 'meaningful play'; when the actions that the game system affords the player seem enticing and make sense in pursuing the goal(s) of the game. This notion of 'meaningful play' seems highly relevant for us.

McCloud on How Words and Pictures are Combined in Comics

After a quick penetration of McClouds "Understanding Comics", one thing that could be directly related to our project is the variations of interplay between words and pictures in comics. Words and pictures can be regarded as the information channels in comics (together with shape of panels and space between panels).

According to McCloud, words and pictures are combined in the following ways:

Word specific combinations: "pictures illustrate, but don't significantly add to a largely complete text."

Picture specific combinations: "words do little more than add a soundtrack to a visually told sequence."

Duo-specific combinations: "both words and pictures send essentially the same message."

Additive combinations: "words amplify or elaborate on an image or vice versa."

Parallell combinations: "words and pictures seem to follow very different courses - without intersecting."

Montage: "words are treated as integral parts of the picture."

Interdependent combinations: "words and pictures go hand in hand to convey an idea that neither could convey on their alone."

This could be related to the notions of conflicting, redundant and complementary multi-sensory displays that Erik elaborated on in a previous post. I guess every single of the combinations above have their optimal uses for different purposes (immersive, narrative, etc.) - most interesting for us should be the interdependent interplay between information channels, to provide an experience as rich and immersive as possible for the player.

Ramblings: Symbol Interpretation

-I don't know if this will be of much use to us, but I found it quite interesting

This is a system for dividing symbolic (textual) interpretations into three distinct iconic meanings (from "Beyond Role and Play"):

1. Imaginisation - the player fills in the information gaps using his/her own imagination.

2. Diagrammatisation - the symbol is interpreted systematically and logically (no information is added by imagining) .

3. Allegorisation - The obvious is ignored and the symbol is interpreted as a metaphor.

These categories are perhaps applicable to other types of symbolic communications (other than textual) and might be of some help.

Ramblings: Media tracks - Games vs Film.

In this "article" summarizing the book "New Vocabularies in Film Semiotics", I came across an interesting view on film as a media. According to the author, film has five tracks that can be used to convey meaning to the viewer:

1. Moving images
2. Dialogue
3. Noise (environmental sounds)
4. Music
5. Text

All these tracks are shared with Games as a medium. However, games have at least 3 more tracks at its disposal, that I can think of:

6. Responsive behavior (the game world responds to your actions and you are forced to respond in return),
7. Haptic feedback (Rumble)
8. Non-diegetic elements (the HUD and menus).

This might be something worth looking further into IMO....