Post

(BEEF JERKY BEEF JERKY)

Some discussion of the different game modes requiring different front ends. If the mode is different, the way to get there was split up, so it's clear where the player is (This makes me think of the COD launcher right away. In my experience it has been very confusing to have everything in one place)

A large part of this talk is the indication of UX being very cross-discipline and holistic. The game design, the VFX, the art, the story, the UX, it all intertwines. So you have to treat it as intertwineable within your company. For example how low health has animations, audio, and VFX. Not just UI

They want to innovate more in the future for The Long Dark, for example to change the usual grid based inventory to be much more hands-on. Again, holistically using the UX to support the feel of the rest of the game. Integrating the UX to the game design, narrative, and so much else.

They are also considering co-op for The Long Dark, and this comes with a lot of potential UX considerations. E.g. if you're in your inventory, what do you look like to others? Do you rummage through a bag? What does that animation look like? Etc. Again, UX being holistically part of the game.

(The biggest takeaway I'm seeing is that you need to really actively consider how you can achieve your goals in-game without using flat 2D UI? What can the game do otherwise to achieve the same goals?)

The speaker is @jss.bsky.social here on Bluesky!

Next up Morgane Ruiz! (I like hearing the word Ludology. It feels so classical.)

Discussing the game design affecting the user's decisions, with Child Labour in Frostpunk as an example. It is mechanically very good for you, but morally a much more difficult decision to make. So the meaning of the decision is very clear. You get what you are being asked as a player.

But the ask has to be fair. Otherwise, especially if you lose, it feels very unfair. So a method called Ethical Dissonance Probing can help map if it is fair or not.

With a core principal making sure not to just ask "Why?", but to map deeper on the interpretation of the player to the game's choices. Creating a fuller and more nuanced picture.

The limitation is that this process is very intensive. It can help give you the data you need to make a right decision on a game's design, but only if you have that time and effort available.

Next we have Pecha Kucha micro talks, with automatic slide changes. I cannot live post these as they're so fast! They will be on the Game UX Summit youtube channel in the future.

One quick slide, by Coco Rath: Adjusting the mouse icon to be character-specific is a UX/UI choice, but a big narrative and immersion boon that makes you feel much more like you are the character itself. (Big agree. I love a good gauntlet mouse icon in any medieval fantasy game)

Next the ever cool @atokma.bsky.social is talking about Object Oriented UX Design!

Alex used to work in corporate UX, and then moved over to game development.

The scope of games keep getting bigger, so where and how do you start UX-ing? Usually you have the common UX pipeline. How do you decide what to work on first? What players prefer? What has the most value? So it depends on how players use it, and then we adjust to do that. We iterate. Etc.

However, this is a trap. You first imagine how users use it, what actions they take, etc. And so you design based on those actions. But how often is this confusing to players when they are told to take actions, but not yet know how to do those things?

Instead, with OOUX, you base the user's experience on objects. So first you design the objects, and then you design the action to the verb using those objects. So it provides a foundation before the actions and verbs. So instead of actions first, objects first.

So, not verbing, but nouning when you look at the GDD. So instead of 'commenting', you select 'comment'. So that is the object.

Then you add metadata necessary for that object, and you expand to more and more objects. The core elements are necessary for the objects to exist. With them, the object is meaningless.

So you focus on the objects, instead of how they are used. Then you take a look at how the various objects can be nested. So you link objects to objects. Then you add cardinality, and intentionality, to know how much an object is used in another object, and what a player should be able to do.

Then you force rank, for must haves, nice to haves etc. So you move the more important things upwards in the list.