< The first part is located here
How do we create a mental model?
Mental
models are, like the word says, entities that live in our minds. They
are created by observing reality and taking away only the important
details, in a cycle that looks something like "Observation ->
Distillation -> Application of the model -> Observation" and so
on.
The observation phase is where our mind fills with all the
necessary details to create the model, or at least the details that
seem important. In fact the same situation can have different models
based on the ultimate goal that we intend to achieve at the time of
examination. Let's think, for example, of a situation in which we want
to find a barber shop in an unknown urban area. The shop windows must
be decoded to find one that matches our idea of a barber shop. If we
were to find a big concert though, the sound cues would be a much
better information compared to the visual signs, to track where the
concert is.
In videogames, the ultimate goal of the game itself
defines the necessary information that the player must get from the
game world. This is why feedback and User Interface is so important in
games: for the player to build a model of the game world, he must have
all the necessary information during play. Because he only has a
limited time to obtain them (he lives in the game world only for some
hours) the vital informations must be presented in the best possible
way, and not cluttered with unuseful bits of knowledge, unless the
target of the game is to confuse the player by purpose with this
information overflow (like in detective games).
Going back to
PES for Wii, the designers devised a great arrows and icons sign system
to provide the player with all the information she needs. For instance,
each time the human player orders a shoot by shaking the nunchuck and
the ball is loose, a red diamond pops on the head of the nearest player
on the field. In defence, the same command orders the nearest player to
clear the ball, and a blue icon pops up. Colors, iconic graphics and
sounds are always the best ally when a designer is creating a model
that he wants to be easy to read.
While the great deal of icons and
arrows on-screen might seem an unnecessary feature, it's actually a
simplified mental models that the developers provided for the player to
better digest the game.
The right way
We
sometimes also see games who add real-life aspects to a game. Sometimes
this is done deliberately, giving frustration because the player has to
keep in mind aspects which are not really related to the goal, or the
ways to achieve it. Other times this is done in an efficient and
effective way.
Let's take Gears of War cover system as an
example. A much praised feature, it's surely a step forward that the
game takes towards reality, but if we look closely to it uses the same
model defined structure that we talked about at the beginning.
In
the game you can't press a button to cover behind everything (like you
would do in real life), instead the developers chose to clearly
emphasize objects which can be used as cover. This is done by
displaying an iconic graphic that is overlayed on the game world.
They
mapped a button to it, to make it easy and secure: you are either under
cover, or not. Besides, you don't have to turn your back to the cover
or duck before. As it was not enough, when you can cover yourself
behind something you see a 'cover icon' that also tells which button to
press.
Going further, they also placed covers in key points, maybe
just before the coming of some enemies. This gives the player the
knowledge that if an enemy is coming, he surely can hide behind
something (90% of the time).
This way, taking cover becomes part of the mental model
of shootings in Gears of War in a very simple and effective manner:
it's a very clear action, you are covered or not, the only thing to do
is to press a button. Reality is here, in a distilled form.
So what?
So
as always in this case there's no dos and don'ts. Adding 'unnecessary'
or out-of-reality features to a game is always a perilous process, but
as you can see it can actually add to a game if done the right way.
Sometimes it can also lead to an entirely new conception of an aging
game genre, bringing some fresh perspective to it.
The message
here is to always try to distill the action that we want to put in the
game, and see if it fits the mental model that a gamer could possibily
build on top of the game itself. Is it ok? How can we rethink the game
instead, to make space for this new action?
The game designer must
always be very wary of the mental model of his game, trying to
anticipate the one made by the player so both can possibly match as
much as possible with each other.
This article was a repost from my blog, Aliasing