Gaming

Game designers try to always telegraph game state to the player to guide them.

Design (UX) conventions can be useful, because players recognize patterns. Green means good, red means bad etc

But these can sometimes be a trap. It’s too easy to follow them blindly.

Example: 🧵

Game Director / Tokenomics Team @AnimocaBrands. Previously: Star Wars, Far Cry 6. Member @WolvesDAO

When a player is playing as a character they are often playing with the mindset of the character, not the player.

That’s not to say they’re dumb and they believe they are the character, but it’s the best gaming experience to roleplay.

So what does it mean when you’re trying to implement a convention such as green = good and red = bad?

You sometimes get ludo-narrative dissonance. That is, the game design and the narrative are telling you different things.

On Far Cry 6 we had a team of amazing level designers. Their sole job was to implement missions and design amazing gameplay experiences for players.

These folks care so much about the player having a clear and concise journey through the game.

But there’s the issue, the were designing for a player who is A) constantly looking for clues on how to “solve” the game rather than B) getting caught up in the clues that signal how the game world works.

This is really important because in A) players are reactionary and defensive (“get me out of here”) and in B) they are curious (“what does this do”) and solving these challenges makes them feel smart

In FC6 we added new mechanics around alarms including cameras and control boxes (manual override) for the camera systems. These needed new designs.

So when you’re working through a design for this kind of system you’re thinking about how to telegraph it to the player.

95% of all designers would immediately jump to the conclusion that you need:
✅ a light that the player can see
And
✅ The colour of the light should tell the player whether the camera is dangerous or in an alarmed state.

So the next logical leap is… 
🟢 = safe (disarmed)
🔴 = dangerous (armed)

But that assumption is assuming that players aren’t role playing. 

AND that they want to cheat their way to the solution through out of game world (cheap) signals

So one of my many roles on the project was to oversee a bunch of systems and their coherence in the game. Everyone was so close to the game that they weren’t thinking about the context that players are actually playing in (reading clues from the world, not from level designers)

So I set out on a mission to convince the team that this commonly established convention should not be followed. ❌

My rationale was:
- You are playing as the good guy (or girl)
- Your enemies set these systems to thwart you
- The care a lot about whether they’re working or not

- To them, 

🟢 = “all good”
🔴 = “uh oh”.

So in the months before shipping we went ahead and painstakingly changed each and every electronic system ingredient to telegraph its status not from the player’s perspective, but from the enemy’s perspective.

Sure, we confused some players on their 1st encounter. After all they are used to being spoon-feed hot / cold signals

But what remained was a world where the gameplay and narrative sent a strong and coherent signal.

The best UX Designs are always the ones that are invisible

Thanks for coming to my TED talk. 

Would love to know situations where you’ve broken design convention for the better.

Please give this a Like / ReCast if you liked the thread

An established mechanic in Far Cry games is having enemy “outposts”, which are heavily guarded and alarmed. If an enemy spots you they go and sound the alarm.