DiGRA '11 - Proceedings of the 2011 DiGRA International Conference: Think Design Play
DiGRA/Utrecht School of the Arts, January, 2011
Volume: 6
ISBN / ISNN: ISSN 2342-9666
There has been a trend in recent game user interface design to move system information from windows, icons and overlays into the game-world itself. Along with this trend, the question of whether players prefer interfaces that are integral to the game-world or superimposed onto the screen has become the subject of heated debate in the developer community (Breda 2008, Fagerholt & Lorentzon 2009, Wilson 2006). Those who advocate traditional or superimposed interfaces stress the importance of making the system information explicit and readily visible to the player. The most obvious examples of such interfaces are found in information-heavy genres such as real-time strategy and massively multiplayer online games. The interfaces in these genres focus on functionality, with large portions of screen real-estate devoted to clickable buttons, instrument panels or head-up-displays (HUDs) that are clearly separate from the fictional universe. Proponents of integrated interfaces, on the other hand, express concern that any information channel that is not integrated into the fictional world is a threat to player immersion. These designers strive to convey all system information through features that are part of the game-world, such as character dialogue, animations or particle effects. This trend is most pronounced in games sporting a first-person view. Peter Jackson’s King Kong is an example of a game that takes this philosophy to the extreme. Here animation and dialog replaces even the traditional ammo counter and life bar. Games like Crysis, Metroid Prime: Corruption and Assassin’s Creed take a different approach by grounding the HUD in the fiction by making it a part of the avatar’s high-tech equipment. However, Fagerholt & Lorentzon (2009) present a middle ground philosophy. Whenever possible, they say, system information should be integrated as native to the game-world because it allows the player to reason and make in-game choices based on their knowledge of how things work in the physical world. When this approach is not able to present the appropriate information, however, they emphasize that functionality, clarity and consistency are more important than transparency and world integration. With this approach in mind, this paper investigates how the presentation of system information affects the players’ involvement in the game as system and fictional world. With point of departure in a qualitative study where research interviews with players was carried out, we will present different player attitudes concerning user interface elements. There will be a particular focus on how these elements influence the players’ relationship to the game as fictional world and as a set of game mechanics, and how the players navigate between these two perspectives. We will argue that there is no necessary connection between a transparent interface and involvement, and that in many cases, overlays are preferred due to the clear information they present. The qualitative data material is discussed using Hunicke, Le Blanc & Zubek’s Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics model (2004), as well as Jørgensen’s understanding of gameworlds as different constructs than fictional worlds as they are system-oriented environments (2010, forthcoming). Within this framework we investigate how an understanding of a game’s dynamics and feedback systems relate to the players’ ability to make meaningful choices. We then evaluate how the resulting sense of control affects the player’s engagement with the fictional world. This framework also enables us to discuss user interface design as a balancing act between aesthetics and mechanics, as the choice between transparent or superimposed interface features is a way to represent system information within the game context.