Posts Tagged ‘usability’

Slipping past powers in Mass Effect 2

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

Shepard uses Shockwave in “Mass Effect 2”

My friend Max and I have been playing Mass Effect 2 on the 360. Though not quite what I expected, it is an interesting mix of action and role-playing and, in many ways, a smoother experience than its prequel.

Unfortunately, there is one thing about it that has gotten to me: the powers screen and the B button. It may not sound like much, but I have been jumping out of the powers screen and into a mission prematurely every time—even after realizing what it is I’m doing wrong. To me, the powers are very important; knowing that I’ve gone in with less than the best Shockwave available to me is aggravating. Worse yet, I get into that situation because of a silly interface oversight.

Powerless to stop it

In the case of Mass Effect 2’s pre-mission setup, the player must first choose two party members, equip them with weapons, and, lastly, upgrade their powers. In most of these screens, the B button is used to go back a step. In the weapons screens, B backs out of screens in which the player equips a certain party member with weapons, to go back to a screen in which she can then select a different party member to equip. To change weapons or check what each member will carry into a mission, the player needs to use the B button several times to navigate the weapons screens.

In the powers screen, however, the B button does not move between party members. Unlike the weapons screens that preceded it, in the powers screen the left and right triggers are used to switch party members. Since the player has just come from a set of screens in which the B button is used to navigate between details and party members (and, perhaps, because she is somewhat distracted by the task of spending upgrade points on powers), it is not unreasonable that she press B to switch to the next party member and spend its upgrade points.

Unfortunately, B doesn’t work that way in the powers screen, and instead exits the party setup screens and begins the mission. From there, the player has to load the pre-mission auto-save and redo her party setup, or play through the mission without the benefit of having spent her hard-earned upgrade points.1

This kind of error is known as a slip: intending to do something but performing the wrong action. In this case, the player intends to switch characters or go back, but presses the button that exits the powers screen instead. Slips often happen when someone acts automatically, doing what she is used to doing in a certain context. The previous setup screens, and Xbox UI convention, cause the player to expect that the B button will go back, not advance. Even though the function of each of the buttons is stated on the screen, the player’s expectations and habit is so strong that, even if she bothers to read them, she may go ahead and press the wrong button anyway.

B consistent

This kind of error could have been avoided. The screens could have used a consistent arrangement and means of navigation. If every screen worked the same way, the player wouldn’t get caught expecting one thing but executing another.

For example, powers setup could have been designed to use the same multi-screen design as the weapons setup: one screen listing the party members, each of which leads to a screen with details of that specific member’s powers; B to go back. Alternatively, it would’ve been possible to have the Start button advance, and B go back2, on every screen.

I don’t mean to take away from Mass Effect 2: it’s a pretty good game, and has improved on its predecessor. Overall, its interface is simpler and easier to use than it was in Mass Effect. The game’s design, generally, seems to be much more consistent and comfortable to play. It’s just a shame that this problem made it into the final release.

  1. It occurs to me that I’ve not fussed with the in-mission pause menu to find another way of upgrading powers. Can the player just pause and upgrade once the mission has started?

  2. There is a Back button the Xbox gamepad, yeah, but it’s not as convenient as B.

Retro Game Challenge avoids retro-game frustration

Saturday, January 9th, 2010

Two kids playing in “Retro Game Challenge”

Retro Game Challenge has been getting some attention in year-end roundups. In a recent episode of The Brainy Gamer Podcast, Retro Game Challenge was praised for being true to the NES-era games it recreates without being as frustrating. While RGC includes a number of familiar retro games, it does not seem to be as punishing to play as the original games or their remakes (Mega Man 9, I’m looking at you).

RGC is not just a collection of retro homages: the player plays as a player that must complete a number of “betcha can’t” challenges across a bunch of old-school games. The design of this meta-game works against much of the frustration of playing otherwise difficult and unforgiving games. It creates a variety of things to do and game types to play, and keeps play sessions short and sweet, not long or repetitive. It also gives the player the ability to help herself out of uncertain, frustrating challenges.

Variety keeps things fresh

There are a variety of challenges in the game. Game Master Arino dares the player to get 250,000 points in Star Prince, or finish first in the third race of Rally King. These challenges are explicit—the player is told what to do and, sometimes, how to do it—and there is no doubt when the player has completed them.

The challenges encourage the player to experiment or play under certain constraints1, something the games do not do themselves. While Rally King only asks the player to come in the top five in a race, RGC asks her to perform a number of boosts, to win while avoiding damage, or to reach a high score—without cheating.

There is also a variety of games to be played: Robot Ninja Haggle Man is an action platformer, Rally King a racing game, Guadia Quest a JRPG, etc. Though some games are repeated (Haggle Man 2, Rally King SP), the shifts in mechanics and genre keep RGC from feeling like a grind.

Game Master Arino from “Retro Game Challenge”

Play is brief

Most of the challenges can be completed in minutes. Each game has five challenges. RGC also allows the player to quickly restart games. This makes it easy for players to retry challenges without having to go through many game menus.

As Adam Saltsman has noted, long play times can discourage a player because she finds it too daunting or the rewards too spread out. RGC does not ask the player to invest hours of her time into completing its challenges, instead asking the player for a few minutes and rewarding her often.2

Help is at hand

In the same podcast, it’s mentioned that Shigeru Miyamoto meant The Legend of Zelda to be played by many players who share tips and discoveries with one another. Sharing was important, often necessary, to play through those older games: without friends or game magazines, I would never have beaten Super Mario Bros. or put up with Battletoads.

The experience of sharing expertise is recreated in RGC. All of RGC’s games have manuals. The player’s in-game buddy drops hints after failed attempts. He also has a shelf of GameFan magazines that the player can browse through to find ways of overcoming challenges and improving her play.

These things help the player help herself. Through the amusing, player-driven help RGC keeps the player from becoming lost and frustrated, without putting her through tutorials or adding anachronistic button prompts to the games.

  1. In a way, RGC offers a series of achievements. These, however, are the foremost goals of RGC (rather than asides, like most Xbox achievements); playing each of the games from start to finish is something to do on the side, once the player has unlocked Freeplay mode.

  2. This is also in part because RGC is a DS game, likely to be played for a few minutes on the bus or during commercial breaks, not in long sessions.

Wishes for Indigo’s wishlists

Saturday, July 21st, 2007

I’m keen on books. I buy a lot of them, ask for them as gifts, and when I can find the time, even read them. I also live in Canada, which means I’m quite familiar with Indigo. Most every bound stack of ink and dead trees on my shelves was purchased at one of Indigo’s mall stores, sprawl superstores, or website.

Indigo wants its customers to know it’s all about Canada. Indigo stores often cover a whole wall or stairwell with the names of Canadian authors and musicians, printed white on red. The cynic in me knows these creators are being used to put a friendly face on a private company. This patriotism isn’t hokey, but it is marketing. It may be tolerable because of the obscurity of Canadian cultural personages; Canadians that do know them are probably eager enough to have these authors recognized, so forgive Indigo for covering itself with their names. Nonetheless, Indigo is using Canadian culture-makers to sponge good will from its customers.

Increasingly, Indigo is the primary provider of Canadian cultural products. Indigo enjoys an almost total lack of competition: it’s “the closest thing to an unregulated monopoly in Canada’s private sector.” Indigo owns Chapters, Coles, Book Company, SmithBooks, and The World’s Biggest Bookstore; only a few, city-centre–type independent booksellers remain. The company also dabbles in censorship through supply: Indigo doesn’t sell Mein Kampf and kept an issue of Harper’s off its shelves because of some cartoons.

This is not a very likable company—but I’m keen on books, so, yeah, I shop at Indigo without much hesitation. I pay to be a part of their iRewards programme (and, in doing so, let them track everything that I buy). I even maintain a list of books I’d like to someday buy using their online wishlist.

This wishlist is where I keep track of interesting books and DVDs. Even if I have no strong desire to own a book, perhaps only to keep an eye out for it at the library, I’ll add it to the wishlist because it’s handy. The wishlist is the first place I’ll direct people who ask me what I’d like for my birthday, Christmas, et cetera. Even when killing time in one of Indigo’s stores, I’ll often look up my wishlist using their self-service terminals to remind myself what I’m interested in.

The wishlist is where I store my book- and DVD-related intentions, which change a couple of times a week. So it’s frustrating when I’m kept from using the wishlist by some of Indigo’s short-sighted design decisions. Far too often, I’m not allowed to add an item. Sometimes, I find that my list has been re-organized. It’s almost like having your pen run out of ink, or have someone shuffle your notes while you weren’t looking.

These may not seem like big problems. I can maintain a list with del.icio.us, right? Sure (that’s where all the books I can’t add end up) but it doesn’t have live prices, pretty cover art, easy to buy links for less technically inclined gift-givers, or the ability to be checked in the store. I would much rather Indigo improve their wishlist service, and I’m pretty sure that Indigo would like that too. After all, other than their ubiquity, it’s the only thing that really keeps me a customer, and it’s at the centre of that business.

So I’ve made a short list of simple design changes that I believe would alleviate my frustration, as well as make the wishlist better for me and consequently for Indigo.

  • Let me add any book in the database. I don’t care if it is “temporarily unavailable to order.” If I can find it in your database, I should be able to wish for it. In the cases where it is unavailable, offer to notify me when it does become available. If the book is out of print, why not provide a quick list of other editions that may be available? In either case, no harm is done by letting me add the item to my list. I may never be able to buy the book from Indigo, but I will continue to use the wishlist, and that’s sure to snare me in a purchase sooner or later.

  • Allow me to sort my list. Me. Indigo should not re-order the list (as it has in the past, for no good reason). Doing so is confusing and off-putting. I can’t trust Indigo to keep my list my way. Oddly, items aren’t even sorted: not by title, author, price, availability, or date added. They should be, and the criterion for sorting should be in the user’s control. It’d be useful to see, say, which DVDs on my list are the cheapest, or which I’ve added most recently.

  • Let me set how much I want something. Right now, there’s no way for me to separate the books I really want from the ones I may pick up sometime. A simple three-level setting would be enough to remind myself and show others which items would make a better purchase.

  • Give my wishlist a friendly URL. I want other people to use the list, but I’m not eager to share it through Indigo’s email service or to cut-and-paste its unwieldy URL. Why not something easy to remember? I could jot down http://indigo.ca/my@email.address/wishlist/ on a Post-it, or read it over the phone without much trouble. It’d make it that much easier for others to buy me something I want.

  • Tidy up the little things. Indigo should put some “Add to cart” and “Check for availability at local store” buttons next to each item, instead of check-boxes and a “Add all selected items to cart” button all the way at the bottom of the page. Further, they should replace the “Most Wished For Items” column with one showing relevant recommendations (items similar to those already on my list, perhaps). While they’re at it, Indigo should fix the page’s <title>.

C’mon, Indigo: let me give you my money.