You don’t need a clock to tell the time
Let’s suppose your player has three minutes to solve the current level. How do you tell her how much time she has left? Oh, I know, we’ll put a nice digital clock on screen. No? How about an analogue one, then.
Still no, I’m afraid. The nicest solution I have seen is in Wik and the Fable of Souls. Instead of a clock, the game has a creature that walks from the left side of the screen to the right side. If it reaches the right side, you were too slow: try again. You can even drop honey in front of the creature to slow him down; the equivalent of a time bonus.
The reason I like this approach so much, is that it is completely integrated into the game. How would you do the same thing with the player’s health bar? Or with the number of lives he has left?
(2 votes, average: 4.5 out of 5)
Loading ...15 Comments
svero said,
Comment • September 30, 2005 @ 11:12
I think this isn’t even a concept that’s stuck to timing. I think its a principal or idea that carries over well to any kind of indicator that can be displayed either numerically or graphically. Graphics beat numbers usually. A progress bar outweighs a “65%” style display. A progress bar that is part of the game’s environment like the walking creature in Wik is often.. but not always (depends on the implementation) better than a simple progress bar.
GBGames said,
Comment • October 1, 2005 @ 18:37
Well, there are times when I wish I had more detail. A bar gives me an idea of the amount of health left in an enemy, but knowing that the enemy has 47 of 57 health left let’s me have more data with which to make a decision.
Of course, if you want to immerse the person in the game world instead of making it a game of numbers, the weakened look of an enemy would be better.
William Willing said,
Comment • October 3, 2005 @ 16:08
A progress bar is a nice way to display health graphically, but it’s not integrated into the game to the extend Wik’s timer is. As a player, you can’t interact with the progress bar, but you can interact with the creature in Wik.
Making a player look weakened is slightly better, although I think it wouldn’t be clear enough to me as a player. It might work in some games, though.
To be honest, I wouldn’t know how to completely integrate health. The only thing I can think of, is to have an actual effect on the player’s behaviour. For example, the more hurt a player is, the slower she walks. When she gets hurt so badly, she can’t walk anymore at all, her health is gone. Of course, this seriously impacts gameplay, but if it works in your game, I think it’s a very nice feature.
Wesley Burchnall said,
Comment • January 29, 2006 @ 14:59
I find the best results come from a combination of both. I personally am one of those people who agrees that I find knowing the enemy has say 47 out of 60 hp gives me a better ability to calculate my situations, whereas the graphical intergrated interface can be more fun =)
I think my choice would be to use graphical interface and include a mouse-over, if pc, option that shows the full-amount or have the option in your gameplay settings to include a numerical version that would appear overtop.
William Willing said,
Comment • January 30, 2006 @ 14:21
I wonder if that’s something we just got used to. RPGs traditionally don’t show just a bar, they show the numbers. So, if you’ve played enough RPGs, that’s what you come to expect. I doubt it’s really necessary, though. “I’m low on health, but I’m a lot stronger than that creature” is probably enough information and you don’t need numbers for that.
The mouse-over suggestion might be a nice way to have your cake and eat it, too. Still, that won’t work for a truly integrated indicator like Wik’s creature.
Game Producer said,
Comment • January 31, 2006 @ 15:35
You could change the “happy running” animation to “crippled walking” in case of “health”. What comes to lives - maybe the player model could have some elements hanging at him? Like maybe a necklace with 5 red hearts… 4 hearts… 3hearts… and the necklace would be animating as you move.
Jan said,
Comment • March 8, 2006 @ 18:15
When you do something like this, it is important not to get so creative with the interface that you actually get in the way of the game. If a fancy interface adds to the immersion of the game and does not get in the way, it is a fine addition. But if you have to mouse-over to find out the information you need, then it may have gone too far. If vital information is hidden, then you are increasing the learning curve for the game. Casual games should have a very shallow learning curve.
William Willing said,
Comment • March 8, 2006 @ 19:05
That’s true, and that could be a problem if you, for example, only show a health bar and not the percentage of health left.
However, my original point is not about health bars or smart interface widgets: it’s about getting rid of a part of the interface by making it part of the game. The creature in Wik isn’t just a funnily drawn clock, nor would anyone want to mouse-over it to see how much time he has left. It’s an integral part of the game.
I recently ran across another example of this principle. In Text Express you have to type words to get your train to move forward. There’s another (computer-controlled) train also moving forward and your goal is to reach the finish line before the other train does. Essentially, the computer-controlled train is a clock, but no-one will ever ask: how much time do I have left? Like Wik’s creature, it’s integrated into the game.
Darius Young said,
Comment • April 20, 2007 @ 8:16
“Progress bars” in certain game downloads make the game a little more interesting to look at as oppose to seeing a lame timer somewhere on the screen.
Angie Clever said,
Comment • August 21, 2007 @ 15:52
Wow, the Wik Game is amazing in more than one way. I like the incorporation of fine art principles into the game design. I’m sure it was an expensive production! I love that the company would take that kind of risk.
Thanks for writing! Keep it up!
http://www.gamedesigncenter.com
Angie Clever
William Willing said,
Comment • September 1, 2007 @ 21:43
Wik really is amazing. Unfortunately, it hasn’t done too well. You can read a post mortem of Wik &The Fable Of Souls over at a Gamasutra.
Capt_Poco said,
Comment • November 26, 2007 @ 5:31
Some light gun shooters have an interesting way of displaying health: The more hurt you are, the more blood splotches or bullet holes obscure your monitor. Some games (Bioshock and Battlefield 1942 in particular) create effects on the monitor that show the player’s state. For example, a tank shell exploding nearby causes the monitor to become blurry and shaky for a few seconds, simulating shell shock.
For games that require manipulating numbers and to-hit ratios (many RPGs and most MMORPGs) obviously such solutions will not work. However, I’m guessing that most people don’t play RPGs for the math.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
GBGames said,
Comment • September 29, 2005 @ 14:16
I haven’t had a chance to play Wik yet, but I remember playing a Ghostbusters game for the NES that had this little orange bug that would crawl from one side of the level to the other. If you were too slow moving through the level yourself, it would jump up and kill you. It sounds like what you are talking about.
It’s definitely good when game elements actually get implemented as part of the game. The health bar could be implemented as rotating shields or balloons, as in Super Mario Kart. Lives could varying signs of weakness as you become faint, although I think I need to be more creative here.