Ubiquitous Ambient Gaming - Brainstorming on the visual interface

From EQUIS Lab Wiki

May 19th, 2010

Context

A first implementation of the game allowed users to play and therefore to test the visual interface. The visual interface was made very simple, displaying the information that seemed relevant without much concern on the ways of displaying it. The goal was to have people play the game completely so that they would have a better idea of what is important to be shown, what isn’t, and how to do it.

When users played the game, several problems appeared concerning the visual interface. The main issues were :

• the user doesn’t have the information displayed all the time, he has to change of window using a button
• it is complicated to buy supply : the user has to go to the good window, then press the button of the supply he wants, while figuring out when he can buy it or not

This brainstorming was done with 3 persons who played the game before. When they played it, I asked them to focus on the visual interface and interactions, and not on the audio interactions. We generated ideas concerning the visual interface, trying to focus on the main problems addressed above. All the ideas generated do not take in account the audio part.

Results

A unique visual interface

Very quick, the discussion oriented in finding a way to have all the information displayed on or around the map, so that the player wouldn’t have to change of window.

• The remaining entities could be displayed on a bar on a side of the map.
• The player can see which animals are following him, so he doesn’t need a text reminder.
• The money he has does not interest him until he decides to buy things, so it doesn’t need to be displayed when he is not buying anything
• To buy supplies :
  • When the player puts animals in their cage, a small pop-up window opens displaying how much money he has, and the supplies he can or can’t buy (with the price of each supply indicated). This window could be called ‘STORE’.
  • There are 3 types of supplies : supply the player already has, supply he hasn’t and can buy, supply he hasn’t and can’t buy. We thought of ways to differentiate them :
    • supply the player already has : can not be displayed, or be displayed as inactive and with a green check (either big and transparent on all the button, or small on a corner)
    • supply he hasn’t and can buy : displayed as an active button the player can press
    • supply he hasn’t and can’t buy : displayed as an inactive button with a red cross (either big and transparent on all the button, or small on a corner)

• Another idea would be to represent the entities with dots, and when the player gets close, the dot is linked to a bigger picture of the animal.

Then the brainstormers proposed that there would be an automatic way of buying the supply : when the player goes over a cage and has enough money, he will acquire automatically the less expensive supply he can get. There would be ‘mode button’ to choose how to play : automatically or by pressing a button.

This idea led to another proposition on the game : forget about the money idea, where the player buys supply, and think of it as an experience game.

Modifications on the game to improve the game-play

The idea is, each time the player brings animals to their shelters, he gains experience, and with the experience he acquires supply.

We generated some ideas around the experience idea :

• The experience could be represented as a bar, so that the player can see how far from the end of the game he is.
• When animals are left at a shelter, a person appears with a small speech : ‘Thank you for bringing 2 cats’, or ‘It’s good you came, we just had 5 dogs escaping, here is some bones to catch them’.
• The bar with the remaining entities would contain : the animals the player can catch, the tigers, and a number indicating how many other animals (of unknown type) are left (this one could be represented by a ghost with a question mark on it)

I asked the 3 participants to draw a quick draft of how they saw the visual interface.

// pictures

One proposed to mix the progress bar and the info bar. One proposed to add information to the progress bar like how far you are from getting a new supply.

Analysis, paper prototype of the visual interface

The modifications proposed for the game were interesting, for the type of game we are doing (relying on ambient audio and trying not to have to use the visual interface too much). Indeed, the experience idea implies that the player will not have to press a button to progress in the game (ie to buy supply) and therefore will not have to use the visual interface.

Moreover, the new stuff such as the progress bar can also be displayed in ambient sound.

Game

The goal of the game would stay the same : to bring back wandering animals to their shelters. Even the sequencing of the game would stay (add new animals after several have been caught). The player would know how much animals are left to be caught, but not the types, or how much types, which, according to the participants of the brainstorming, is very important because it adds a discovery touch to the game.

Visual

I prototyped the visions of the 3 participants.

Sound

• Sounds concerning the animals, cages and tigers are mostly not modified, except for :
  • when a type of animal is gone or can’t be caught yet, the cage could not be heard nor seen (since it is useless)
  • when an animal is left at a cage :
    • there will not be money sound
    • there could be the human talking or just a sound indication
• When the player acquire new supply, there could be the human talking or just a sound indication, or nothing since the player will notice he can hear a new type of animals
• Progress bar :
  • could be only heard when the user is on a cage, as a way of saying that animals were left (a sound volume and/or pitch increasing and lasting longer or shorter according to the player’s progression)
  • or the player could hear it when he presses a hardware button.

Collaborative game, orchestrated in real time by a third party

• Orchestrated in real time:
  • there is a total of animals to catch, but a third party could decide when and what to add, or to add tigers