It has become fairly common for games to include some sort of tutorial. Many incorporate the tutorial into actual play, as Halo and Assassin's Creed do. But there's still room to improve, of course.
One improvement would be to design a tutorial system specifically for reintroduction. Gamers often abandon a game for days or even months. They forget the controls, goals, interface, etc. It would be nice if there was an option for these gamers other than looking at a control map in the pause menu or starting over.
In most cases, a practice area would serve this purpose. Provide the player with an area where all skills may be practiced without great penalty or challenge. Allow the player to practice here without a tutorial, in case the player is able to pick it up quickly or is impatient. But also provide the option of instruction in the form of NPCs, signs, HUD pop-ups, etc.
Jogging a player's memory is different than teaching him or her new skills. There should be a different system for it, when time allows.
Showing posts with label UI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UI. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Thursday, October 08, 2009
controls vs navigation
Yesterday, I took Batman: Arkham Asylum over to my occasional-gamer friend's house for him to try. "Occasional gamer" is what I call someone who only owns one or a few games at a time and only plays once or twice per month (if that). Most gamers I know face-to-face fall into this category.
My friend loves the game. But, as always, I was surprised by the extent of his difficulties with things I've long been accustomed to. Controlling character movement and the camera in a 3D world is always tricky for occasional gamers. He voiced appreciation for the amount of practice Arkham affords him for the controls... though I expect he would have died against the first giant if I hadn't told him to stay away from it.
But what really shocks me every time is his failing sense of direction. In life, this guy can always tell you where North is and rarely gets lost even in completely foreign areas. In games, on the other hand, he's completely oblivious. After completing a very brief encounter, he'll head back in the direction he just came from instead of move onward.
It seems that the controls, the combat, and other things demand so much focus from my game-rusty friend that he doesn't pay much attention to his surroundings. He forgets where he is, where he's been, and what he's supposed to do because his untrained mind is overwhelmed with everything else. The map helps, but a map can't completely alleviate frustration from losing one's bearings.
This story has relevance for both occasional gamers and veterans. The more a player must concentrate on controls, the less of that player's concentration is available for other mental tasks, like navigation. Looking at another way... the less even an experienced gamer has to concentrate on controls and such, the more you can challenge that player in other ways.
My friend loves the game. But, as always, I was surprised by the extent of his difficulties with things I've long been accustomed to. Controlling character movement and the camera in a 3D world is always tricky for occasional gamers. He voiced appreciation for the amount of practice Arkham affords him for the controls... though I expect he would have died against the first giant if I hadn't told him to stay away from it.
But what really shocks me every time is his failing sense of direction. In life, this guy can always tell you where North is and rarely gets lost even in completely foreign areas. In games, on the other hand, he's completely oblivious. After completing a very brief encounter, he'll head back in the direction he just came from instead of move onward.
It seems that the controls, the combat, and other things demand so much focus from my game-rusty friend that he doesn't pay much attention to his surroundings. He forgets where he is, where he's been, and what he's supposed to do because his untrained mind is overwhelmed with everything else. The map helps, but a map can't completely alleviate frustration from losing one's bearings.
This story has relevance for both occasional gamers and veterans. The more a player must concentrate on controls, the less of that player's concentration is available for other mental tasks, like navigation. Looking at another way... the less even an experienced gamer has to concentrate on controls and such, the more you can challenge that player in other ways.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
skipping tutorials
More than a few times, I've introduced someone who doesn't regularly game to a game and that person chooses to skip the tutorial. Sometimes, they skip the tutorial right away. More often, they start the tutorial, then become impatient and skip to real gameplay.
It mainly has to do with pace. A tutorial shouldn't be too much slower than normal play. It must be fun in its own right.
In some games, it can be better to start the player off with the full palette of actions among easier enemies and challenges. Allow the player to learn through experimentation, rather than overt instruction. That's not feasible in all games.
In any case, all tutorials should be true play -- not a precursor to fun, but actual fun.
It mainly has to do with pace. A tutorial shouldn't be too much slower than normal play. It must be fun in its own right.
In some games, it can be better to start the player off with the full palette of actions among easier enemies and challenges. Allow the player to learn through experimentation, rather than overt instruction. That's not feasible in all games.
In any case, all tutorials should be true play -- not a precursor to fun, but actual fun.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
options on-the-fly
Adriann asked me today: "Do you think it would be at all possible to implement an in-game weapon customization system [in Modern Warfare 2]?" He would like to be able to change weapon options on-the-fly, rather than being limited to a handful of saved loadouts - like in the first Modern Warfare. It's not that the loadouts are a problem. It's that sometimes you want to make minor adjustments, like adding a silencer or switching to smoke grenades.
I think many games could learn from this screen in Frontlines: Fuel of War:
As you can see, two different option sets are included on one screen. The player can quickly and easily move between Loadout, Role or Deployment location by merely flicking the 360 thumbstick left or right. Then pushing the thumbstick down or up changes the player's selection within a set of options.
The player doesn't have to make a selection in one set of choices before having access to another set. The options are not tiered. They are displayed simultaneously. So a player can quickly change one without making a selection in another.
It's a very streamlined interface... worth copying.
I think many games could learn from this screen in Frontlines: Fuel of War:
As you can see, two different option sets are included on one screen. The player can quickly and easily move between Loadout, Role or Deployment location by merely flicking the 360 thumbstick left or right. Then pushing the thumbstick down or up changes the player's selection within a set of options.
The player doesn't have to make a selection in one set of choices before having access to another set. The options are not tiered. They are displayed simultaneously. So a player can quickly change one without making a selection in another.
It's a very streamlined interface... worth copying.
Friday, August 28, 2009
combos
I somehow managed to pull off a 40-hit combo the other day in Batman: Arkham Asylum. It was glorious! It was also easy... in comparison to the combo systems of other games.
I'm usually not a fan of combo systems. That's because I have to remember well over a dozen button combinations... XXY, XXXA, X+Y then A while rolling the thumbstick from down to forward, etc.
In Arkham, one can pull off a fun and impressive combo with nothing more than well-timed presses of X and Y. If an enemy has a knife, you'll need B. If an enemy has shock baton, you'll need to double-tap A. With two-to- four buttons, I can put Jet Li to shame.
There are a few other commands that can be given: A+X to throw, Y+B to cripple, LT for a batarang. But they're unnecessary, and combat is a blast without them.
Arkham achieves this through context-sensitivity. One button activates one of dozen animations depending on how the player-character is oriented in relation to enemies and timing. Even the special moves, like throw and cripple, vary in effect or animation.
I guess, if I see a lesson in Arkham Asylum's combat system, it's this: the dynamics of combat don't all have to be controlled by the player. You don't want to cut the player out entirely or fake participation. But complex combat systems don't have to mean complex controls or instructions.
I'm usually not a fan of combo systems. That's because I have to remember well over a dozen button combinations... XXY, XXXA, X+Y then A while rolling the thumbstick from down to forward, etc.
In Arkham, one can pull off a fun and impressive combo with nothing more than well-timed presses of X and Y. If an enemy has a knife, you'll need B. If an enemy has shock baton, you'll need to double-tap A. With two-to- four buttons, I can put Jet Li to shame.
There are a few other commands that can be given: A+X to throw, Y+B to cripple, LT for a batarang. But they're unnecessary, and combat is a blast without them.
Arkham achieves this through context-sensitivity. One button activates one of dozen animations depending on how the player-character is oriented in relation to enemies and timing. Even the special moves, like throw and cripple, vary in effect or animation.
I guess, if I see a lesson in Arkham Asylum's combat system, it's this: the dynamics of combat don't all have to be controlled by the player. You don't want to cut the player out entirely or fake participation. But complex combat systems don't have to mean complex controls or instructions.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
false positives
I recently watched a submarine movie called Grey Lady Down. In one part, radar is disrupted by canyon walls, making everything a blur. Sonar similarly returns much information that must be filtered out and many false positives.
Could this sort of scenario be made fun with FPS radar?
What if some parts of a map were radar dead zones? What if certain objects on some maps appear as false positives on radar, requiring familiarity for players to know the static dots aren't poachers?
Could this sort of scenario be made fun with FPS radar?
What if some parts of a map were radar dead zones? What if certain objects on some maps appear as false positives on radar, requiring familiarity for players to know the static dots aren't poachers?
Monday, April 27, 2009
multiplayer personalities and UI
One of the things that made Perfect Dark 64 great was the variation in AI personalities. As I recall, the sims I included most often were the JudgeSim, VengeSim, and KazeSim.
Anyone who played that game realizes how much fun those personalities added. Players could be given a similar mix of roles with supportive interfaces.
For example, a player in the role of Judge could be shown only the player with the most kills on radar. The same could be done for a Venge role. Another player's role might be to lay traps and explosives.
Such multiplayer might get complicated, but roles of this general style are worth considering.
Also, it's not always necessary for competitors to each have access to a type of knowledge (like radar). It can be alright for one player to have different information and tools than another player, as long as that's considered in the rest of design.
Anyone who played that game realizes how much fun those personalities added. Players could be given a similar mix of roles with supportive interfaces.
For example, a player in the role of Judge could be shown only the player with the most kills on radar. The same could be done for a Venge role. Another player's role might be to lay traps and explosives.
Such multiplayer might get complicated, but roles of this general style are worth considering.
Also, it's not always necessary for competitors to each have access to a type of knowledge (like radar). It can be alright for one player to have different information and tools than another player, as long as that's considered in the rest of design.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Microsoft Surface games
If Microsoft Surface does become a popular household item one day -- or even just a hotel lobby passtime -- there will certainly be games for it. I don't believe it will greatly change device interaction in general (not person-device interaction, anyway; inter-device interaction, yes), but its unique interface definitely invites fresh types of gameplay.
Touchscreen technology has been around a while now. The iPhone and Nintendo DS are popular, but all such products require one hand to hold and one hand to operate. MS Surface, being a table, invites use of both hands. That drastically affects gameplay potential.
You might immediately think of arcade-style games when imagining Surface games. But deep AAA action adventure games are also possible... especially if linked to a pair of gaming goggles (3-D films and games should be common by the time Surface comes down in price, so using 3-D goggles might be common).
For example, imagine a game involving free-diving and swimming in the ocean. The player could move her hands on the MS Surface similar to true swimming motions. Starting one's hands in the middle of the screen and dragging them outward would propel the character forward in the water. Dragging both hands to the left or right would turn the character. Dragging both hands up or down would send the character to deeper or shallower water. Meanwhile, the goggles would allow the player to look independently of her movement... which enables gameplay like chasing and fleeing.
Placing the fingertips of one's open hand on the Surface and dragging them together would enable you to grab objects (including ladders). The opposite could drop or throw items, depending on the quickness of the movement. Dragging one hand could also throw objects, since only both hands together move the character through the water.
A light slap of the hand on the table could signal a punch or other blow (though I'm not sure how resilient Microsoft's table is). Dragging a finger in a circle around an object could throw a net.
Anyway, I'm really not trying to design a game here. I just mean to show that being able to interact with a touchscreen using both hands creates many possibilities not available when using only one hand. I don't forsee MS Surface becoming an ubiquitous device anytime soon. But if such a day comes, it could be fun for gamers.
Touchscreen technology has been around a while now. The iPhone and Nintendo DS are popular, but all such products require one hand to hold and one hand to operate. MS Surface, being a table, invites use of both hands. That drastically affects gameplay potential.
You might immediately think of arcade-style games when imagining Surface games. But deep AAA action adventure games are also possible... especially if linked to a pair of gaming goggles (3-D films and games should be common by the time Surface comes down in price, so using 3-D goggles might be common).
For example, imagine a game involving free-diving and swimming in the ocean. The player could move her hands on the MS Surface similar to true swimming motions. Starting one's hands in the middle of the screen and dragging them outward would propel the character forward in the water. Dragging both hands to the left or right would turn the character. Dragging both hands up or down would send the character to deeper or shallower water. Meanwhile, the goggles would allow the player to look independently of her movement... which enables gameplay like chasing and fleeing.
Placing the fingertips of one's open hand on the Surface and dragging them together would enable you to grab objects (including ladders). The opposite could drop or throw items, depending on the quickness of the movement. Dragging one hand could also throw objects, since only both hands together move the character through the water.
A light slap of the hand on the table could signal a punch or other blow (though I'm not sure how resilient Microsoft's table is). Dragging a finger in a circle around an object could throw a net.
Anyway, I'm really not trying to design a game here. I just mean to show that being able to interact with a touchscreen using both hands creates many possibilities not available when using only one hand. I don't forsee MS Surface becoming an ubiquitous device anytime soon. But if such a day comes, it could be fun for gamers.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
motion sensing gameplay
To be honest, I don't know much about Wii games. My sister has a Wii, but all I've played so far is Wii Sports, Wii Play, and Mario Kart. That said, the videos I've seen of other games lead me to believe that there's still a lot of untapped potential for the Wii's motion-sensing technology.
Running off Keira's post, I’d like to see games that don’t just give the player a small set of actions to use exclusively throughout the entire game. Instead, if the programming is simple enough, fill the game with interactions that will be intuitive but are specific to one or a few parts of the game.
If the arms and hands are very basically represented in a game, then simply directing those hands in intuitive motions could accomplish any number of tasks.
If the player sees a ladder, it would be intuitive to simply place a hand on one rung, then the other hand on the next rung, and back and forth as the character moves up or down. Any object could be grabbed by moving the hand over an object and closing the hand.
Even the relatively rudimentary motion-sensing technology of current consoles could be used to make open-ended, explorative gameplay in this way.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
control standards?
Should consoles have standards, hard or soft, for which buttons on their controllers do what?
You don't have to play many games or play often to be annoyed by disparity in controls. One game uses Left Trigger to aim and the next uses it to direct squad mates. One game uses the Y button to jump, another B, another Left Bumper. It would sure make life easier for gamers, especially occasional gamers, if we could count on some familiarity in controls.
By the way, this is one of the reasons occasional gamers get discouraged from becoming regular gamers. Every game's controls are a challenge to learn, because little is familiar.
You don't have to play many games or play often to be annoyed by disparity in controls. One game uses Left Trigger to aim and the next uses it to direct squad mates. One game uses the Y button to jump, another B, another Left Bumper. It would sure make life easier for gamers, especially occasional gamers, if we could count on some familiarity in controls.
By the way, this is one of the reasons occasional gamers get discouraged from becoming regular gamers. Every game's controls are a challenge to learn, because little is familiar.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
text size
It's the epitome of myopic design...
The developers play their game only on HD-TVs, so they make the short-sighted (or even deliberate) mistake of providing only one size for all the game's text: HD size (i.e., small). As a result, gamers with standard-definition TVs -- still the majority of gamers -- have to strain their eyes if they can read anything at all.
It's a senselessly common problem that has irritated me in many games. But this is the first time I've heard a developer basically tell the gamers with standard TVs that they don't matter.
Yes, HD is the future. But many of us aren't there yet. I realize that text size affects UI design. But is the difficulty really so significant that you're willing to exclude millions of potential customers?
This seems plainly ridiculous to me. Am I speaking from ignorance here?
The developers play their game only on HD-TVs, so they make the short-sighted (or even deliberate) mistake of providing only one size for all the game's text: HD size (i.e., small). As a result, gamers with standard-definition TVs -- still the majority of gamers -- have to strain their eyes if they can read anything at all.
It's a senselessly common problem that has irritated me in many games. But this is the first time I've heard a developer basically tell the gamers with standard TVs that they don't matter.
Yes, HD is the future. But many of us aren't there yet. I realize that text size affects UI design. But is the difficulty really so significant that you're willing to exclude millions of potential customers?
This seems plainly ridiculous to me. Am I speaking from ignorance here?
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Press Start
Why?
Some traditions have oft-forgotten purposes. The "Press Start" screen is not one of those.
If I realize while watching the title screen that the game I've just booted up is not the disc I meant to play, then why the hell would I want to "Start" before I "Exit"? When I delete a save file, then alright... ask me, "Are you sure?". But don't ask me if I'm sure I want to play the damn game.
Just take me to Main Menu screen, already.
Some traditions have oft-forgotten purposes. The "Press Start" screen is not one of those.
If I realize while watching the title screen that the game I've just booted up is not the disc I meant to play, then why the hell would I want to "Start" before I "Exit"? When I delete a save file, then alright... ask me, "Are you sure?". But don't ask me if I'm sure I want to play the damn game.
Just take me to Main Menu screen, already.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Voice commands and magic
These days, Raph and a number of other developers talk about trying to make game controls more intuitive. The ideal situation is that a person with no history playing video games can pick up the controls quickly and easily, and retain that knowledge without need of a tutorial system.
Aside from ease of use, intuitive controls also engage players more strongly than more artificial control schemes. One of the main reasons I'm excited about the upcoming Tom Clancy's Endwar is that the use of voice commands in that game fits perfectly with the game's setting: a general commanding his troops from afar. Implemented well, a system of voice commands could really connect players to their role.
I was just thinking that spell-casting would be another intuitive use of voice-commands. In most fantasy stories, summoning magic involves some form of vocal incantation. What if players learned magic the same way as Harry Potter, Merlin, Allanon, or Ash ("Clatu! Verata! Nic...[cough]")?
I see two interesting consequences to this.
First, it would facilitate a natural and flexible learning curve. The player wouldn't be learning language like college students learn a second language (lots of foreign words all at once, and a bunch of mechanics which would be better acquired through intuition); the language would come just a word or phrase at a time, expecting little of the player. But there's flexibility in that a player could choose his or her own pace; by researching in libraries, meeting and learning from NPCs, learning from other players, or any number of other ways.
Also, voice-commands for spellcasting would add retention and recollection as gameplay factors. Player personalities would become a factor. One player might be the absent-minded apprentice who has to write down the spells on her hand because she's always forgetting. Another player might be the flustered bookworm who is always teaching spells to others, but whose mind tends to go blank when danger is imminent. Another might specialize in group incantations, able to carry on the lead incantation as the others repeat a different chant. And this also allows for some players to establish themselves in the community as truly phenomenal wizards... players whose encyclopedic knowledge and instant recollection makes them stand out in the crowd.
There's no denying that voice-commands as a game's only control scheme, as opposed to merely an option, is not conducive to a level playing-field. But a level playing-field is not necessary in all games; not even in all multiplayer games. Sometimes, compelling gameplay is best achieved by allowing for real differences.
Voice-commands could be combined with other intuitive systems for more depth and difficulty, if desired. Similar to D&D, spells could require a combination of voice and movement. Imagine having to draw a symbol with your mouse, ala Black & White, while also recalling a voice-command. It could be as simple or complex as you care to make it.
Aside from ease of use, intuitive controls also engage players more strongly than more artificial control schemes. One of the main reasons I'm excited about the upcoming Tom Clancy's Endwar is that the use of voice commands in that game fits perfectly with the game's setting: a general commanding his troops from afar. Implemented well, a system of voice commands could really connect players to their role.
I was just thinking that spell-casting would be another intuitive use of voice-commands. In most fantasy stories, summoning magic involves some form of vocal incantation. What if players learned magic the same way as Harry Potter, Merlin, Allanon, or Ash ("Clatu! Verata! Nic...[cough]")?
I see two interesting consequences to this.
First, it would facilitate a natural and flexible learning curve. The player wouldn't be learning language like college students learn a second language (lots of foreign words all at once, and a bunch of mechanics which would be better acquired through intuition); the language would come just a word or phrase at a time, expecting little of the player. But there's flexibility in that a player could choose his or her own pace; by researching in libraries, meeting and learning from NPCs, learning from other players, or any number of other ways.
Also, voice-commands for spellcasting would add retention and recollection as gameplay factors. Player personalities would become a factor. One player might be the absent-minded apprentice who has to write down the spells on her hand because she's always forgetting. Another player might be the flustered bookworm who is always teaching spells to others, but whose mind tends to go blank when danger is imminent. Another might specialize in group incantations, able to carry on the lead incantation as the others repeat a different chant. And this also allows for some players to establish themselves in the community as truly phenomenal wizards... players whose encyclopedic knowledge and instant recollection makes them stand out in the crowd.
There's no denying that voice-commands as a game's only control scheme, as opposed to merely an option, is not conducive to a level playing-field. But a level playing-field is not necessary in all games; not even in all multiplayer games. Sometimes, compelling gameplay is best achieved by allowing for real differences.
Voice-commands could be combined with other intuitive systems for more depth and difficulty, if desired. Similar to D&D, spells could require a combination of voice and movement. Imagine having to draw a symbol with your mouse, ala Black & White, while also recalling a voice-command. It could be as simple or complex as you care to make it.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Situational Commands in MMOs
A situational combat command system, like the one in Dead Rising, could be a good way of making environments more meaningful and creating situational tactical opportunities for MMO players. These systems can increase a game's replay value immensely.
Dead Rising has a system in which the same button combination (X and A) initiates a different command based on where the character is relative to the NPC you're attacking. If you're behind the enemy, in front of the enemy, or beside the enemy, you perform different attack moves even though you're pressing the same buttons on your controller.
Perhaps something exactly like that is too much for your average MMO because, requiring a lot of information to passed between the server and client, it would be unforgiving to bad connections and latency. But the general principle could be applied to the character's environment without much difficulty.
For example, if a druid is casting his lightning spell in a forest of pine trees, he might see an addtional effect to his spell. In real life, if lightning strikes a pine tree, the sap often crystallizes and rockets out around the tree like bullets. That could be made to happen in the game: lightning strikes the tree, causing a small explosion and doing damage to all nearby characters. Perhaps the druid would have to be wary of using this spell in such a forest, lest he damages his allies, as well as foes.
Another example might be a warrior performing a particular weapon swing while fighting amidst a field of ant mounds. By targeting one of the mounds near the enemy, he would knock ants onto the foe, resulting in a damage-over-time attack.
Or a healer might use the mist off a nearby waterfall for a special area-of-effect heal spell. A mage might use the same mist to add a buff to his summoned water elemental.
All of this could be done with minimal stress on the server, because the player is merely targeting an environmental object like they would normally target an enemy. The objects could be programmed to always be active but only respond to particular skills/spells, which only particular classes would have access to. Thereby different classes would have special opportunities to shine in particular environments, and players would be rewarded for being knowledgable and perceptive enough to use those environmental opportunities. There are other ways to allow players to target such objects as well, like the "Ctrl" key function in Command & Conquer.
Dead Rising has a system in which the same button combination (X and A) initiates a different command based on where the character is relative to the NPC you're attacking. If you're behind the enemy, in front of the enemy, or beside the enemy, you perform different attack moves even though you're pressing the same buttons on your controller.
Perhaps something exactly like that is too much for your average MMO because, requiring a lot of information to passed between the server and client, it would be unforgiving to bad connections and latency. But the general principle could be applied to the character's environment without much difficulty.
For example, if a druid is casting his lightning spell in a forest of pine trees, he might see an addtional effect to his spell. In real life, if lightning strikes a pine tree, the sap often crystallizes and rockets out around the tree like bullets. That could be made to happen in the game: lightning strikes the tree, causing a small explosion and doing damage to all nearby characters. Perhaps the druid would have to be wary of using this spell in such a forest, lest he damages his allies, as well as foes.
Another example might be a warrior performing a particular weapon swing while fighting amidst a field of ant mounds. By targeting one of the mounds near the enemy, he would knock ants onto the foe, resulting in a damage-over-time attack.
Or a healer might use the mist off a nearby waterfall for a special area-of-effect heal spell. A mage might use the same mist to add a buff to his summoned water elemental.
All of this could be done with minimal stress on the server, because the player is merely targeting an environmental object like they would normally target an enemy. The objects could be programmed to always be active but only respond to particular skills/spells, which only particular classes would have access to. Thereby different classes would have special opportunities to shine in particular environments, and players would be rewarded for being knowledgable and perceptive enough to use those environmental opportunities. There are other ways to allow players to target such objects as well, like the "Ctrl" key function in Command & Conquer.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Better Controls for RTS Games
I don't play as many RTS games as I used to. I've got Age of Empires: III and love it, and was impressed by Battle for Middle Earth II, but my interest in RTS has waned after C&C: Red Alert...and I'm honestly not sure why. So maybe the following thought is out of ignorance, but it applies to the games I know.
RTS controls are in dire need of innovation.
MOVEMENT PRECISION
Positioning an army exactly how you want them in these games is like trying to parallel park with two flat tires. First I have to ensure my army is coming at the target spot from precisely the right angle, and then I have to be sure to click on exactly the right spot...not too far ahead or behind. A failure to position the army right where I want it means a gap in the valley or other zone I was attempting to block, or some other strategic fault.
Why can't I use the WASD keys to maneuver my army precisely, as if it was an FPS character controlled in 3rd-person view? Why can't I use the Numpad keys to quickly and easily instruct my armies to maintain a particular formation including mid-march, and not just when they reach the target formation? Wouldn't it be great to change their formation in reaction to a moment's circumstance with just the tap of a single key, instead of having to rush through a series of scroll options (like in BfME 2)? I seem to remember Sacrifice doing this to some success.
And wouldn't it be nice to have the option of preset strategic commands of a script beyond a single action?
BATTLE-SPECIFIC COMMANDS
Imagine having one hotkey for "fall back to the valley" and another for "fall back to the fort"...these points being selected by the player through waypoints.
TARGET-SPECIFIC COMMANDS
Imagine being able to direct each type of military unit (archers, pikemen, cavalry, etc) to focus its attacks on a particular unit type of the enemy's (ex: "my archers, aim for their cavalry first"). This could be selected before battles and would remain active until otherwise chosen, like character stances in some RPGs and fighting games. There could also be items or hotkeys to allow players to affect unit-enemy preferences on-the-fly.
This could also be applied in the other direction. The player might direct particular units to retreat only if they encounter a particular enemy unit.
CONDITION-TRIGGERED COMMANDS
Imagine if the player could issue orders that remain latent until conditions, chosen by the player, activate that command. Ex: "If > 40% casualties, fall back to the valley." That command could even be compounded with "If > 70% casualties, fall back to the fort"; compounded meaning that both commands were issued before the battle, but are merely activated separately (and automatically, in response to those conditions).
GUARDED RETREAT
It would be great if I could rank my units as hierarchal lines of defense. As games are now, in order to have my pikemen stay and guard the retreat of my archers, I must have the two types of units separately selected and accomplish the retreat manually. But what if I had preselected my pikemen as the first line of defense and the archers as the second line? So when I order the retreat, the pikemen automatically know to stay and fight until the archers are a safe distance away.
Controls like this, especially, would make RTS games ultimately more easy to manage. Of course, all of these simplifying controls require a learning curve, so it's debatable how much this lowers the initial learning curve. But certainly, more casual gamers could be allowed a fair gameplay experience without use of many of these features, while veterans and hardcore gamers could explore an extensive range of strategic possibilities and command prowess.
One of my favorite movies is Patton. I highly recommend that and other old WWII films to anyone interested in RTS design, because they help expose the many limitations of current RTS games and the avenues of potential growth.
RTS controls are in dire need of innovation.
MOVEMENT PRECISION
Positioning an army exactly how you want them in these games is like trying to parallel park with two flat tires. First I have to ensure my army is coming at the target spot from precisely the right angle, and then I have to be sure to click on exactly the right spot...not too far ahead or behind. A failure to position the army right where I want it means a gap in the valley or other zone I was attempting to block, or some other strategic fault.
Why can't I use the WASD keys to maneuver my army precisely, as if it was an FPS character controlled in 3rd-person view? Why can't I use the Numpad keys to quickly and easily instruct my armies to maintain a particular formation including mid-march, and not just when they reach the target formation? Wouldn't it be great to change their formation in reaction to a moment's circumstance with just the tap of a single key, instead of having to rush through a series of scroll options (like in BfME 2)? I seem to remember Sacrifice doing this to some success.
And wouldn't it be nice to have the option of preset strategic commands of a script beyond a single action?
BATTLE-SPECIFIC COMMANDS
Imagine having one hotkey for "fall back to the valley" and another for "fall back to the fort"...these points being selected by the player through waypoints.
TARGET-SPECIFIC COMMANDS
Imagine being able to direct each type of military unit (archers, pikemen, cavalry, etc) to focus its attacks on a particular unit type of the enemy's (ex: "my archers, aim for their cavalry first"). This could be selected before battles and would remain active until otherwise chosen, like character stances in some RPGs and fighting games. There could also be items or hotkeys to allow players to affect unit-enemy preferences on-the-fly.
This could also be applied in the other direction. The player might direct particular units to retreat only if they encounter a particular enemy unit.
CONDITION-TRIGGERED COMMANDS
Imagine if the player could issue orders that remain latent until conditions, chosen by the player, activate that command. Ex: "If > 40% casualties, fall back to the valley." That command could even be compounded with "If > 70% casualties, fall back to the fort"; compounded meaning that both commands were issued before the battle, but are merely activated separately (and automatically, in response to those conditions).
GUARDED RETREAT
It would be great if I could rank my units as hierarchal lines of defense. As games are now, in order to have my pikemen stay and guard the retreat of my archers, I must have the two types of units separately selected and accomplish the retreat manually. But what if I had preselected my pikemen as the first line of defense and the archers as the second line? So when I order the retreat, the pikemen automatically know to stay and fight until the archers are a safe distance away.
Controls like this, especially, would make RTS games ultimately more easy to manage. Of course, all of these simplifying controls require a learning curve, so it's debatable how much this lowers the initial learning curve. But certainly, more casual gamers could be allowed a fair gameplay experience without use of many of these features, while veterans and hardcore gamers could explore an extensive range of strategic possibilities and command prowess.
One of my favorite movies is Patton. I highly recommend that and other old WWII films to anyone interested in RTS design, because they help expose the many limitations of current RTS games and the avenues of potential growth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
