Maps are great when designed well, but landmarks also help.
While roaming alleys in Deus Ex, I realized that I was using particular NPCs like landmarks to tell me which direction to go.
I was able to do so because the NPCs were various and unique. One had wild red-dyed hair. Another had a green mohawk.
If your NPCs are going to be just standing around anyway, why not make them useful in this way?
Showing posts with label maps. Show all posts
Showing posts with label maps. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
NPCs as geographical indicators
Labels:
art,
maps,
navigation,
NPCs and story
Thursday, November 05, 2009
gradual indicators (navigation)
Maps are the most common way to guide players around games. Other methods include beacons, landmarks, a compass, trails, and many other things.
Another option I rarely see is what I'll call gradual indicators. By that I mean, a visual feature becomes stronger/weaker or more/less common as the player nears certain places or objects of importance. These gradual indicators can lessen or even negate the need for UI methods which distract from the gameworld.
For example, elevation can be used in this way. In Rise of the Argonauts, the player knows whether he is running towards the palace or the docks of Mycenae by whether the path is sloping upward or downward. The same method can be used in any number of settings, including dungeons and roads. The degree of a slope can be telling, too. If two paths both lead up a mountain, one can be recognizable from the other if it is significantly steeper.
Vegetation can be a gradual indicator. Grass and shrubs might grow tall in one area and shrink or die out toward another. Oaks might dominate one area while mesquite trees dominate another. Both trees might habit an area, but the ratio between them could indicate to the player in which direction he is headed.
Architecture and objects can be used in the same way. The facades of buildings and their relationships to each other (such as how far apart they are) can indicate if the area the player is proceeding toward is wealthy or poor, old or new, damaged or undamaged (by war, weather, or graffiti), and so on. Statues and decorations can change in frequency or in subject through an environment. The type of shops or their names can change in style and tone.
Even audio can lead players. The roar of a waterfall or pounding of waves can gradually rise in volume as the player nears them. Likewise, the sounds of animals, the firing of weapons, the chatter and laughter or shouts of NPCs, or a thousand other things.
Animations and even environmental A.I. can guide players. As a player nears a battlefield, he might increasing notice NPCs crouched over and weeping. Or NPCs might be increasingly erratic and skittish... increasingly distressed as the player nears the source of that distress. The NPCs might pace, look around fearfully, or chatter to themselves. Think of the A.I. in Batman: Arkham Asylum and how the Joker's men act differently as they become more aware of Batman's presence and are afraid.
There are countless forms gradual indicators can take. The goal is to help players navigate environments without having to take their eyes off the gameworld or see anything that takes their attention off the story they're experiencing.
Another option I rarely see is what I'll call gradual indicators. By that I mean, a visual feature becomes stronger/weaker or more/less common as the player nears certain places or objects of importance. These gradual indicators can lessen or even negate the need for UI methods which distract from the gameworld.
For example, elevation can be used in this way. In Rise of the Argonauts, the player knows whether he is running towards the palace or the docks of Mycenae by whether the path is sloping upward or downward. The same method can be used in any number of settings, including dungeons and roads. The degree of a slope can be telling, too. If two paths both lead up a mountain, one can be recognizable from the other if it is significantly steeper.
Vegetation can be a gradual indicator. Grass and shrubs might grow tall in one area and shrink or die out toward another. Oaks might dominate one area while mesquite trees dominate another. Both trees might habit an area, but the ratio between them could indicate to the player in which direction he is headed.
Architecture and objects can be used in the same way. The facades of buildings and their relationships to each other (such as how far apart they are) can indicate if the area the player is proceeding toward is wealthy or poor, old or new, damaged or undamaged (by war, weather, or graffiti), and so on. Statues and decorations can change in frequency or in subject through an environment. The type of shops or their names can change in style and tone.
Even audio can lead players. The roar of a waterfall or pounding of waves can gradually rise in volume as the player nears them. Likewise, the sounds of animals, the firing of weapons, the chatter and laughter or shouts of NPCs, or a thousand other things.
Animations and even environmental A.I. can guide players. As a player nears a battlefield, he might increasing notice NPCs crouched over and weeping. Or NPCs might be increasingly erratic and skittish... increasingly distressed as the player nears the source of that distress. The NPCs might pace, look around fearfully, or chatter to themselves. Think of the A.I. in Batman: Arkham Asylum and how the Joker's men act differently as they become more aware of Batman's presence and are afraid.
There are countless forms gradual indicators can take. The goal is to help players navigate environments without having to take their eyes off the gameworld or see anything that takes their attention off the story they're experiencing.
Labels:
AI,
art,
audio,
environment,
maps,
NPCs and story
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.
Labels:
controls,
difficulty,
focus,
maps,
navigation,
UI
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
avoiding multiplayer maps
I've played both Frontlines and Modern Warfare on my 360 this past week, and the differences between them are staggering. Each game has advantages over the other. Many of the differences are of style, rather than quality.
One key difference is serving hosting. In Modern Warfare, players host the games, so games are often interrupted or ended before they even really begin. It's very annoying, but that's not what I want to talk about. What quickly becomes clear is that hosts often end a game short because they do not like a particular map. In any competitive multiplayer game that moves automatically from one map to another, players complain about maps. But that people cut games short, knowing they'll get an earful from those their playing with, shows just how much a map can be disliked. That begs the question:
Is it not possible to give players complete freedom in which maps they play?
Of course, a player can simply leave a current host when a bad map comes up, but he'll have to leave again with whatever host he finds next. It's annoying. That would also mean abandoning the fellow players who he has hopefully been building a rapport or rivalry with (a skilled enemy player can be similar to a "hero" or "boss" enemy in single-player gameplay). The ideal would be to enable a player to have an unbroken play-session without any content that player dislikes.
With a game as popular as Modern Warfare, the solution seems simple. Allow hosts to customize a map series by simply selecting checkboxes, then allow other players to see that customized list before joining. With eight or ten maps, there are many possible combinations... and that significantly divides the player population. But with a player population of over a hundred thousand at any given time and fewer than twenty players per map, I doubt it's a problem even with matchmaking dividing players further. That's something Infinity Ward should consider for MW2.
But most games don't have such massive player populations. Even MW will get old and its populations will dwindle. So what's a solution for them?
One key difference is serving hosting. In Modern Warfare, players host the games, so games are often interrupted or ended before they even really begin. It's very annoying, but that's not what I want to talk about. What quickly becomes clear is that hosts often end a game short because they do not like a particular map. In any competitive multiplayer game that moves automatically from one map to another, players complain about maps. But that people cut games short, knowing they'll get an earful from those their playing with, shows just how much a map can be disliked. That begs the question:
Is it not possible to give players complete freedom in which maps they play?
Of course, a player can simply leave a current host when a bad map comes up, but he'll have to leave again with whatever host he finds next. It's annoying. That would also mean abandoning the fellow players who he has hopefully been building a rapport or rivalry with (a skilled enemy player can be similar to a "hero" or "boss" enemy in single-player gameplay). The ideal would be to enable a player to have an unbroken play-session without any content that player dislikes.
With a game as popular as Modern Warfare, the solution seems simple. Allow hosts to customize a map series by simply selecting checkboxes, then allow other players to see that customized list before joining. With eight or ten maps, there are many possible combinations... and that significantly divides the player population. But with a player population of over a hundred thousand at any given time and fewer than twenty players per map, I doubt it's a problem even with matchmaking dividing players further. That's something Infinity Ward should consider for MW2.
But most games don't have such massive player populations. Even MW will get old and its populations will dwindle. So what's a solution for them?
Labels:
maps,
multiplayer,
setting
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
