Should a good game have an easy interface, but difficult gameplay? How can we tell the difference between the two, between interface and gameplay?
“Easy to Use and Incredibly Difficult: On the Mythical Border between Interface and Gameplay” is a paper I co-wrote with Marleigh Norton and which we presented at the Foundations of Digital Games Conference in April 2009.
The paper is meant as an in-depth examination of the common argument that the interface of a game should be easy-to-use. We argue that this is not necessarily the case.
In the paper we make the case that first of all, there is no way to clearly distinguish between interface and gameplay. Secondly, even when we can identify the interface in a given game, a difficult-to-use interface may very well be part of the core challenge of the game. In other words, no: good game does not equal easy interface + difficult gameplay.
For example, Street Fighter II has an interface that makes it easier to move your character than the interface of Toribash does, but that does not mean that it is a better game. It simply means that Toribash places part of its challenge in the basic movement of the character.
Street Fighter II
Toribash
Paper abstract:
In video game literature and video game reviews, video games are often divided into two distinct parts: interface and gameplay. Good video games, it is assumed, have easy to use interfaces, but they also provide difficult gameplay challenges to the player. But must a good game follow this pattern, and what is the difference between interface and gameplay? When does the easy-to-use interface stop, and when does the challenging gameplay begin? By analyzing a number of games, the paper argues that it is rare to find a clear-cut border between interface and gameplay and that the fluidity of this border characterizes games in general. While this border is unclear, we also analyze a number of games where the challenge is unambiguously located in the interface, thereby demonstrating that “easy interface and challenging gameplay” is neither universal nor a requirement for game quality. Finally, the paper argues, the lack of a clear distinction between easy interface and challenging gameplay is due to the fact that games are fundamentally designed not to accomplish something through an activity, but to provide an activity that is pleasurable in itself.
You haven’t reached the game until you start peeling the yomi layers.
Wow, this appears to be a very interesting paper. As a dream-to-be game designer in training, I suppose it would be ideal to consider this when developing how the game itself is connects to the player through this.
A nice example would be NetHack. Its completely interface, but that is the gameplay itself.
However, a lot of this is how you define an interface. In my opinion, the interface is the inbuilt menu system and/or the selection features. The gameplay is how you or the game reacts to them.
For example, Toribash’s menu system, camera rotation and joint selection make the interface; the online/single player modes, and how you control your tori within them, is the gameplay.
toribash is a one of its kind game, the community the players everything is good.
the learning curve is meant to be harsh and i remember that it was. i have played it for 2 years. I still love it
This is another one of those ‘hierarchy of logical levels’ issues. q.v. Russell and Whitehead, but much more meaningfully described by Gregory Bateson. Also something about ‘flow’ (Csíkszentmihályi) – i.e. surfing the challenge. Nice work!
Well , there is much to say about Toribash , but much has been said.
It’s a game , that gamers dream of.
You should really try it , all you need is imagination.
The paper is positive towards Toribash in case anyone is in doubt.
Brennan: I wasn’t thinking about the comparison to Bateson, but certainly it is a case where you may for a moment think there is a nice hierarchy and then you realize that there isn’t.
The problem I see is that this article tries to distinguish what makes a game “good,” as opposed to what makes a game profitable, which is generally the purpose for games to exist as products.
Saying a game is “good” is subjective, because there are so many ways to measure a games “goodness.” But to the companies that develop games, I would say that what makes “good” games to them is games that sell many copies. An easy-to-use interface is therefore ideal, because the faster a customer can “master” the game’s controls, the more they are likely to enjoy the game.
Since Toribash is a free, independently developed game, I feel it’s a poor comparison since its creators (presumably) are not concerned with profits. I also would not call it a fighting game, at least in the traditional sense, since such a label usually invokes the idea of fast paced, arcade styled fighting games. Toribash, from what I’ve read on it, requires more strategy and a feel for the game’s physics. So by all means, Toribash’s control scheme is well suited for it and it could be considered by many to be a great game. But would it be profitable? Would it be able to reach a wide gaming audience? We can’t really say until they try selling it.
Nekomancer, we are talking about “good” in a very general sense, but of course different audiences like different things.
However, I think the popularity of Jenga, WarioWare, and other games with difficult-to-use interfaces shows that reaching a broad audiences does not require an easy-to-use interface.
I do agree that you need a short learning curve (short time from picking up the game to performing first successful action) in order to reach a broad audience, but a game can have a short learning curve and a difficult interface at the same time.
Toribash has a long learning curve and a difficult-to-use interface. Jenga has a short learning curve and a difficult-to-use interface.
The emphasis should be on creating the interface that is right for the game. Toribash might be improved with an interface that let’s users control the motions more easily, but let’s assume that Toribash’s interface is perfectly fine. If it had a worse interface, not difficult to imagine, would that make it a better game? Beware, this paper could be used to excuse patently defective interfaces.
I recently ranted that ‘Today I Die’ had a fairly bad interface, and someone claimed that the artist meant to confuse players as part of it’s ‘art’. I’d only agree to that if the artist himself had said it, and then I’d still advise him to fix the problems.
Any designer who gets lazy about this most difficult facet of game design will most likely make awful games.
Keith,
We agree of course that the interface should be right for the game. I think that is the major takeaway of the article: the interface of game is an integral part of the gameplay and design, rather than being something external that is tacked on at the end.
“Today I die” is a good game for discussion: I feel that it is legitimate to make such a game where the player is thrown into the deep end, but on the other hand I think the game could be made more accessible by adding more hints and feedback to the player – and that this could be done without compromising the “confusion” part…
I’m not sure Toribash is a good example, because it is so inordinately difficult to master. But I agree, in essence, with your thesis — and would suggest MINOTAUR CHINA SHOP as an example. The difficulty of navigation, and hence the likelihood of destroying your own inventory, it exactly what makes the game fun.
Greg, Minotaur China Shop is a nice example, but I do think that Toribash also works because it shows how a game has to persuade players to accept its specific emphasis/deemphasis of ease-of-use.
Toribash just happens to be a more divisive game, but it is strongly loved by the players who do accept its interface.
Great article, I really enjoyed this.
Jesper do you think that this misconception about the separation of interface and gameplay comes largely from the player identification with the Avatar in generic games? For a person unable to effectively control that which they identify as themselves within the game seems akin a disability. You pointed out Street Fighter’s convoluted button combinations, but that is only for “special” moves. Movement and standard punches are all executed through simple button combinations. Or equally the removal of feedback mechanisms as a punishment like the concussion grenades in some FPS games that send the screen white and distort noise.
This seems to be something you hinted at throughout the article but never actually said. It’s depressing to think about games as limited to the generic fair but it seemed to me to be where this myth comes from.
Toribash maybe intensely loved by its players, but it doesn’t seem to have become an industry standard – I would suggest because of the lack of identification with the character.
Mike,
Interesting argument. We were not thinking specifically about avatar-based games, but you are right that it is tempting to operate with an interface-gameplay distinction in such games.
I completely agree that there is a sense of otherness when playing Toribash.
But doesn’t the causality go in the other direction? It is difficult to control the character, therefore you do not identify with it?