Link:http://myportfolio.usc.edu/mgrattan/2010/02/the_plane_between_worlds_diegesis_in_games.html
There has been discussion lately regarding "diegetic" versus
"non-diegetic" user interfaces, and in this entry I enter into the conversation
with a response to Marcus Andrews' article entitled "Game UI Discoveries: What
Players Want," asserting that immersion is sometimes but not always limited to a
realistic connection between player and avatar.
As discussed in a previous post, exploring what motivates
a player to participate in a game is essential to creating a satisfying
experience; however, the interface through which the player translates
themselves into the game and receives information is just as important a
consideration. While a "good" user interface
provides a user with an intuitive set of commands and necessary information, a
poor one can easily leave a player frustrated, confused, or uninterested.
Currently, one of the debates surrounding user interface design involves the
concepts of "diegetic"
and "non-diegetic" strategies and whether the player is more deeply immersed
as a result of either. 
Some argue that a diegetic approach causes greater
immersion because the player interacts directly within the context of the game,
while others claim that diegetic interfaces are unable to provide the necessary
volume of information that the player needs without becoming overly cryptic.
Although the weight of each argument depends on the given game, there are many
examples of each which demonstrate both their advantages and disadvantages, and
consistency is key.
Additionally, this debate is expected to gain additional attention with upcoming
technologies such as 3D and Natal which will change the way some games are
perceived and played. Therefore, this week I have chosen to address Marcus
Andrews' recent article entitled "Game
UI Discoveries: What Players Want," found at Gamasutra. In it, he describes some of the
terminology used in user interface design and examines some of the pros and cons
of diegetic and non-diegetic interfaces by looking at a few specific examples of
games which implement them, including "Dead
Space" (pictured above) -- a prime example of diegesis. My response to
Andrews' article can be found below as well as on the article
itself.
"Game UI Discoveries: What Players Want"
Comment
As a newer game designer interested in current design trends and exploring today's challenges in the field, I was drawn to your article analyzing the benefits and drawbacks of diegetic user interfaces in specific games. I appreciate the range of genres which are covered by your examples, which goes a long way to highlight how one method may shine in a particular genre and be much less useful in another. I also agree that although diegetic interfaces can create a more direct connection between the player and the respective "organism," the multitude of player commands and abilities in some cases (such as many "massively multiplayer" online games) outnumbers what you refer to as "real estate" within the game world. This idea of the organism is compelling, and although the concept itself is always at the center of decisions regarding a game's user interface, it seems extremely useful to encapsulate it with this metaphor. Furthermore, the comparison of the organism to a human prosthesis is similar to the "mental model" described by Tracy Fullerton and Chris Swain as an extension of the player's perception of their role within a game in their book, Game Design Workshop. According to Fullerton and Swain, this mental model "can either help players to understand your game, or it can cause them to misunderstand it." In relation to the article, I interpret this claim to resemble the patient's understanding of a new prosthesis with preserved functionality versus one which sacrifices such functionality for "authenticity."
The article mentions during the "Far Cry 2" example that the combination of both diegetic and non-diegetic interface elements makes the game feel "conflicted." Do you think that this property holds true as a general rule? For example, would you come to the same conclusion for a game such as "Grand Theft Auto 4" which contains diegetic elements such as the cell phone and non-diegetic elements such as the world map? I certainly agree with your statement which says that a compromise between the two methods is greatest "if a diegetic interface is the goal from the beginning." I believe the same to be true for a non-diegetic interface. However, was this not the goal in "Far Cry 2?" I think one of the main issues of its interface may have been in the non-diegetic elements being "forced in" rather than the diegetic ones as a result of the games "lack of real estate." Perhaps it is also useful to explore this question on a grander scale for upcoming technological advances that are expected to be seen in games such as 3D viewing and Microsoft's Natal. I'm curious about your thoughts on how these technologies will affect both the usefulness and importance of diegesis in game user interfaces.
Some argue that a diegetic approach causes greater
immersion because the player interacts directly within the context of the game,
while others claim that diegetic interfaces are unable to provide the necessary
volume of information that the player needs without becoming overly cryptic.
Although the weight of each argument depends on the given game, there are many
examples of each which demonstrate both their advantages and disadvantages, and
consistency is key.
Additionally, this debate is expected to gain additional attention with upcoming
technologies such as 3D and Natal which will change the way some games are
perceived and played. Therefore, this week I have chosen to address Marcus
Andrews' recent article entitled "Game
UI Discoveries: What Players Want," found at Gamasutra. In it, he describes some of the
terminology used in user interface design and examines some of the pros and cons
of diegetic and non-diegetic interfaces by looking at a few specific examples of
games which implement them, including "Dead
Space" (pictured above) -- a prime example of diegesis. My response to
Andrews' article can be found below as well as on the article
itself."Game UI Discoveries: What Players Want"
Comment
As a newer game designer interested in current design trends and exploring today's challenges in the field, I was drawn to your article analyzing the benefits and drawbacks of diegetic user interfaces in specific games. I appreciate the range of genres which are covered by your examples, which goes a long way to highlight how one method may shine in a particular genre and be much less useful in another. I also agree that although diegetic interfaces can create a more direct connection between the player and the respective "organism," the multitude of player commands and abilities in some cases (such as many "massively multiplayer" online games) outnumbers what you refer to as "real estate" within the game world. This idea of the organism is compelling, and although the concept itself is always at the center of decisions regarding a game's user interface, it seems extremely useful to encapsulate it with this metaphor. Furthermore, the comparison of the organism to a human prosthesis is similar to the "mental model" described by Tracy Fullerton and Chris Swain as an extension of the player's perception of their role within a game in their book, Game Design Workshop. According to Fullerton and Swain, this mental model "can either help players to understand your game, or it can cause them to misunderstand it." In relation to the article, I interpret this claim to resemble the patient's understanding of a new prosthesis with preserved functionality versus one which sacrifices such functionality for "authenticity."
The article mentions during the "Far Cry 2" example that the combination of both diegetic and non-diegetic interface elements makes the game feel "conflicted." Do you think that this property holds true as a general rule? For example, would you come to the same conclusion for a game such as "Grand Theft Auto 4" which contains diegetic elements such as the cell phone and non-diegetic elements such as the world map? I certainly agree with your statement which says that a compromise between the two methods is greatest "if a diegetic interface is the goal from the beginning." I believe the same to be true for a non-diegetic interface. However, was this not the goal in "Far Cry 2?" I think one of the main issues of its interface may have been in the non-diegetic elements being "forced in" rather than the diegetic ones as a result of the games "lack of real estate." Perhaps it is also useful to explore this question on a grander scale for upcoming technological advances that are expected to be seen in games such as 3D viewing and Microsoft's Natal. I'm curious about your thoughts on how these technologies will affect both the usefulness and importance of diegesis in game user interfaces.
No comments:
Post a Comment