[Design?] What to do when given conflicting feedback on controls?

So, recently I have another totally awesome game idea that I've started prototyping.

Controls:
A/D - Move
Space - Jump
Z - Interact
F - Prepare the current spell
LMB - Cast the spell at the selected location

In this prototype, the goal of the short level is to get across the hall of spikes, to the treasure chest. There is a conveniently-placed escape route set up, so that you don't have to do the same thing to get back.

This challenge hinges on the fact that you can Summon Block on top of a spike, which allows you to cross safely. The level itself is a composite action/platformer challenge, in that you have to figure out a way to time your Summon Block spells to consistently have protection from the spikes.

Where the conflicting feedback comes into play, is the controls. Originally, my setup required simply pressing 'F' to prepare the spell, and hitting 'F' again to cast the spell at the given location (or, hit 'X' to cancel.) After some feedback, that it wasn't right, I canned that based on the suggestion that maybe spellcasting mode could only last while 'F' was held down.

So, I did that (that's the current demo), but I've recently gotten feedback that this setup too is unwieldy, specifically that 'there are too many controls going on at the same time.'

I think some of this is based on the fact that the mana regen and block decay timers are on the same interval; some feedback from another source was to increase the amount of time for a block to decay to provide more of a window of error for the player.

But, my question, is how to handle seemingly contradictory feedback? Sure I could introduce a setting for this sort of thing, and I've got a mechanism for customizing keybindings, but I feel I'm missing a higher-level ability to properly judge how to interpret this feedback in a way that helps those trying my prototype.

In what ways should a fledgling designer (me) respond to a situation where it seems like our feedback is going in two different directions at once?

 

When in doubt, go for the more simple answer. The point of controls is to get to the gameplay; right? So, find a method that lets the player do the thing as simply as possible.

Unless I misread, there's only one spell; right? Why make the player charge it at all with the F key? When enough time has passed to cast the spell again, it's ready. Then the player can hit the F key to fire off the spell. No thinking about it, no trying to hold one key down continually while bouncing back and forth with other keys, no having to check a charge bar to see if you remembered to hit F to start the spell charging.

That's my suggestion anyway. You'll still want to playtest any new control scheme with people who've never played the game before so you have fresh eyes and fresh fingers.

 

Even with that description, I don't have any idea what's actually going on when I play that prototype. Sometimes the block appears after I hold F for a while, sometimes it doesn't. I thought it had to do with the blue dot, but it doesn't seem to. I thought it had to do with the blue splash that happens on her, but then there isn't enough time to create more blocks to get across. I always run out on about the fourth or fifth block.

When taking feedback from people, don't forget that they're doing their best to describe the situation as they see it, and the solution they think would solve their problems. They don't always know what's going on, and they don't always know how to fix it even if they do.

Instead of saying, "My players want X", instead say, "My players are having a problem with doing Y" and try to figure out the solution to that, instead.

 

In some cases, my default course of action, when presented with such a decision, would be to do the least destructive option. In non-game programming, this is basically gospel - if the user is about to do something that could destroy information, make absolutely sure that's what they wanted before you do it. In game programming, it is of course a bit fuzzier - because controlling a non-game is about logic and commands, but controlling a game is more about feel and timing and challenge.

I would probably say that the only real course of action is to playtest, and when such a situation comes up, ask yourself (or your playtester) "What did you want your avatar to do when you pressed that combination of buttons?" I suspect you'll find that the desired behavior is actually fairly predictable.

 

I misworded it. Summon Block is a spell that has to be placed; instead of 'preparing the spell', I should have said, 'preparing to cast the spell.' I'll bet the omission of those two words is one thing causing some confusion, but maybe the spell-placing mechanic isn't a good one. I know Trine does it, but just because one game does it well, doesn't mean it's a good idea. Can this setup work, or should I try another way of managing spells?

@wccrawford - The blue dots below the hearts are the mana charges you have to cast spells with. The blue splash effect signifies that you've just regenerated a mana charge. However, the fact that you have to ask means that the artwork is not sufficient to communicate the role of the interface, or the particle effect.

As far as the spellcasting mode not properly working for you, I think what might be happening is that I have a .25sec lockout on spellcasting mode, which is a holdover from the old control setup. Of course, it might not be an issue since I might be rewriting this completely soon anyhow. (You can enter spellcasting mode if you have insufficient mana, but clicking won't do anything.)

 

So let's say that Joe likes WASD control, but Bob likes arrow keys, Tom likes numpad. Why can't we include all of the above active at the same time?

Action keys on the keyboard face almost never make sense, people are spoiled with touch screens. As much as possible, find ways to do things with the mouse. It's intuitive, feels nice.

For whatever reason, the numeric 0-9 keys are good for spells and skills. Maybe because they are in a line at the top, and it makes sense.

I think the problem of controls is mostly when they seem to be arbitrarily determined. Why is "L" the key for opening a door? Why does "K" activate the shield? Yeah, "F" for a Fire button seems good but what if the player wants to run right while shooting?

Keyboard controls are sort of flawed this way, inherently.

 

While I appreciate that all input modes have drawbacks (my game simply isn't controllable on a mobile device, as virtual controllers are notoriously hard to use, and accelerometers are unreliable for directional input), there's still a concrete problem in my design I need to understand and resolve.

Following the suggestion from @wccrawford, I'll phrase it the way he suggested. Here goes:

My players are having a hard time understanding how to use placeable spells. I implemented a system similar to the 'popular' game Trine, but it does not seem to be clear. What are some methods I can still afford my players control over the placement of a summoned block, that are clear and intuitive?

 

Right now it's hard to tell that mana is actually a thing. The first two blocks can be fired instantly and then you're suddenly wondering why you can't summon any more. Then at that point you are stuck with mana regen and block lifetimes being equal, so you're stuck with only being able to have one block active at a time.

I would be looking at mana as the thing that needs the biggest rework. The way Trine did it was to use limited object pools and mana, but summoning didn't have a huge cost to mana. I would probably just ignore mana as a currency for now and use a charge time, fading the block in with some effect to show it's ready.

I don't think the controls are bad so much as the sudden loss of them working.

 

So I'm playing a magic knight chick.

Ok, so I want to create a block from a projectile. So, I think of a game that allows shooting and objects being placed. First thing that comes to mind, Gunbound. You could fire a shot that would hit, then the player's location would be set to the collision point. It was very intuitive and fun.

In that game, you aim by inputting an angle and power. You don't seem like your shots would follow an arc. So, you can do a line of sight aiming method.

I would try it so you have an active spell, communicated clearly to the player. The RMB down could begin the charge. When the spell is charged, the mouse cursor will become a targeting HUD element. Release of RMB could result in a cast if the charged spell in the direction of the mouse cursor, or cancel if the spell isn't charged.

Edit: LMB should always be reserved for selection/attack/primary actions

Problems?

 

Do usability testing.

Try this: get 2 or 3 people that have never used the game before and get them to try it. Don't say a word, just observe them while they try to figure out the game, resist the urge to explain things. If you can, record them and record the screen. Take notes for how they are trying to use the controls, see where they are getting stuck, take notes on things that behave differently than they expect. If you are concerned about the controls, it might be a good idea to record their hands while they play, and see where they have problems.

Usually you will find usability problems (not only the controls), that you did not even know you had. Fix the problems you find, and repeat the experiment.

Do not rely on feedback for a solution, feedback can tell you there is a problem, but you will get better results if you observe users having problems. Also, users are not usability experts, so they might know something is wrong, but they not necessarily know the best way to resolve the issue.

 

Exactly. Eventually you can only summon one block at a time, and it makes getting across the pit rather annoying. It would make much more sense if you could summons x blocks at a time, and when one fades you can summon another right away. Also, pressing F to toggle the target display would be less cumbersome than holding it, IMO. Holding buttons feels fine for me on a controller, but not so great on a keyboard. Or you could simplify the whole thing by bringing up the targeting system while the left mouse button is held down, then place the block when it is released.

 

One problem - how do I get people to directly observe?

There's a reason I wind up posting links to my prototypes and soliciting input - it's the best option I've got right now. I'm honestly interested in discovering what methods you use to get direct, observable usability test subjects without having an operating budget (at least, one only measurable in time, and not money.)

 

The fun thing with the mana expansion in the chest is that it lincreases your mana pool to two spell charges - in other words it lets you use two spells before you have to wait for your mana to recharge.

But, that combined with what @RockoDyne said about the mana system either not being a thing, or not being a clear thing, makes me 'think' that maybe my mana mechanic is a bigger problem than the Summon Block spell's control scheme.

I agree with you about the single-mouse button setup, and it seems that that's a direction that resembles what @Misterselmo is suggesting. The only question I ask is, what if you click the LMB, but decide partway through that casting a spell isn't really what you want to do? Maybe you want to try platforming first, or whatever. How would you cancel the spell? Or, is cancelling the spell even a thing that I should concern myself with?

 

Miyamoto says that as long as we can enjoy it, others should also be able to enjoy it. Testing is not a substitute for intuition.

If you can't solve the problem, you don't understand the problem in the first place. The real question is what is it you want the player to be able to do. once you can explain that to a 5 year old you'll be able to design your interface

 

You should already be able to play the game in your mind. You should know what will happen when, why, what you want the player to think and feel while playing. You should tell us what happens when the player wants to cancel a spell.

 

Anything goes: relatives, neighbors, friends. Do you have a day job? ask people in the office. Just 1 person will give you more information than you would think.

Some usability experts, will pay people to volunteer in the mall, but between the rent, equipment, and time, it is a very expensive thing to do especially for us indies.

Keep it simple, keep it informal. Record them with your phone if you want, you don't need expensive equipment. Admittedly it is easier with mobile games, since you have your phone with your game with you at all times and you can just shove it into people's hand at a moments drop.

 

I agree with this. Anytime I rely on feedback, I get a random bunch of nonsense from people. The best thing I have found is to observe people trying to play the game without any explanation. Hand them the game controller, keyboard/mouse, etc and then just silently watch what they do. Take note of all of the random things people did and then ask them afterwards why they did those things. Then build a prototype that would have been completely intuitive for that person.

Next, find another person and repeat the process using the improved prototype. Repeat the process several times.

I've found that standing where I can see their facial expressions and their hands tends to get the most information. Are they frustrated or happy during the initial gameplay interaction? I try not to say anything until after the user has figured out how to operate the game and has had a chance to play it a little bit.

 

The player 'just cancels' the spell. They have some means to halt spell casting, and make no effect happen. That's the reason for the current 'Hold F (Remappable)' scheme; it naturally provides them that escape mechanism.

While I appreciate the rather Zen nature of that remark on a philosophical level, for actually creating something, I don't find it quite as helpful as you seem to believe it is.

This may seem like a really stupid question, but I'm a novice whose lack of understanding could fill books, so I'll ask anyways: just what is the value of my internal/personal concept of how the mechanics should work, when I'm making this for other people? I realize that I have to express my vision, but I've observed a few times now that what I consider intuitive, many other people don't (for instance, see Zombies vs. Knights.) I think this also ties into what @goldbug was saying about usability testing a bit.

 

What about friends, family, neighbors, etc? Pick anybody who has not already played it and do an observation of them the first time they interact with it.

I tried playing your prototype and I got frustrated after placing a few blocks and then stopped. But even in my case, I read the directions before playing and you did not observe me while I played, so the feedback from me is not very useful.

Here is what I did first. I checked the left, right, jump controls. Then I ran to the right to die on the spikes.

Next time, I ran to the right and tried to jump repeatedly to cross the spikes. Died again.

Next time, I re-read your instructions, placed one block and stood on it until it faded away. Dropped on the spikes and died.

Then I tried several times to place additional blocks while standing on a block. The first few are easy enough, but then it seems to take too long to place more blocks. Maybe it is mana related, but I was not sure simply by looking at the screen. Either way, I got frustrated and stopped at this point.

Observing a person doing this would have given you a lot more useful information.

Good luck with the game.

 

Option 1: The player moves the pointer to an invalid location and lets go, no spell is cast
Option 2: The player presses escape or the right mouse button to cancel
Option 3: The player casts the spell anyway, but it doesn't matter because the objects aren't permanent and they get the mana back

Just some quick ideas...

 

What are some methods I can still afford my players control over the placement of a summoned block, that are clear and intuitive?​

Either way works if there is a short tutorial explaining it.

There could be more feedback on what's happening. If LMB-Down prepares and LMB-Up places, you could play some audio, make the mana bar light up, etc. Text could appear the first few times you try it.

If you're going for multiple keys, then maybe blocks shouldn't disappear if you can't place them, because then you have to jump in and out of prepare mode trying to place it the millisecond after you mana has recharged. You are spamming F/LMB constantly. It could remain ghostly while Prepare is held down, and some "denied" sound could play on Casting, so you're only spamming Cast. If you go with a single key for Prepare and Cast then it would be easier.

The mana icons don't give an accurate visual. You can place 2 blocks when you have 1 bar, and 3 blocks when you have 2. If it doesn't relate to the count then maybe it should be a progress bar.

It seems a good game idea, but then again I don't really play puzzle platformers.

 

No, I see what you're saying. I usually can't get the quality of feedback you just gave me, and as you and @goldbug have said, being able to gauge emotions and observe play would be better.

Are there any other ways to get testers? I have next to no family, I live in a large city and as a result am not close to any of my neighbors, and few friends because I really don't know where to go where I live. I also don't want to get coworkers in on anything I'm doing, to prevent the possibility of any 'friendly' visits from HR.

 

I currently find the f-key switching kinda clunky. My suggestions:

- while pressing f-key freeze the time or make it slower so your user has more control and time to do stuff. I think this is vital because your loosing the control of movement in this moment and this key combination is "complex", so give the player time. This freeze time setup could also possibly use some kind of mechanics where you build your self a way vertically.

- other option would be: hold mouse button down to charge the spell and when finally charged, cast it. This could be combined with slower movement speed for the character or what you like.

For me it was pretty dificult to place a cube jump on it place another, jump etc. I think since it is some kind of jump and run you have to keep control of your movement. Else it isn't fluid and a bit frustrating.

And I can second that we get too easily used to our gameplay mechanics and don't notice when something is out of place.

 

Thinking a bit out of the box here: Are there other unity developers in your area, or game developers in general? You could arrange to meet them and ask. Are there any tech conferences? those people would be willing to give you 10 minutes of their time to test your game. Ideally you would not test with techies, but those are just easier to approach since you can relate.

If all of that fails, go to the nearest starbucks, pick a random hipster and ask him if he would like to test your game.

 

I'll consider that my game design homework, then. (All of it. Possibly even the Starbucks bit. You wouldn't take me seriously under the influence of caffeine.)

 

By the way have you made the music yourself? sounds cool!

 

Yes, I did - it's all MIDI rendered into OGG using soundfonts. And, you haven't heard my most recent track yet, either.

Specifically, I dropped $25 for a set of soundfonts (here), which replaced key parts of my crappier soundfont set I was using up to this point. While some things didn't really change, I'm very happy with the improved strings, percussion sets, brass ensemble, flutes, clarinets, and basses. So far, Bassoons are actually a little out of tune with the string ensembles, and they don't seem to have any pizzicato strings included, but my original soundfont provides those pretty well. It's a pretty fair soundfont pack, I recommend it.

 

I was one of the testers giving you feedback about control difficulty. I think you can probably just continue to update and post requesting feedback in the WIP section. Ask people to video record their play testing and make notes if you think it will be helpful. Anyway as soon as you update I'll test again and give a detailed description of the experience.

 

And you give great feedback! Names were omitted to protect the innocent.

 

Someone may have already said something to this effect, but in case they haven't...

Consider:

Don't just blindly follow what the feedback tells you to do. Examine the feedback and try to identify the problem that it originated from. Just because people want faster horses doesn't mean that the problem is "my horse isn't fast enough". The actual problem was "we want a faster way to travel". Horses weren't the solution, some kind of new travelling machine was, but that wouldn't have been discovered if Ford put his time into breeding horses rather than inventing the car.

The suggestions might conflict, but do they stem from a common problem? Remember that you're the game designer, you probably have a better understanding of how to fix a problem than your players do. Where you need help from them is identifying the problem.

 

This helps...and, I think you're right, maybe I've been trying to respond to criticism too much, instead of looking at it as data towards my engineering process.

The thing both sets of suggestions had, was that the character didn't do what the players expected, and that said behavior prevented them from doing the simple task of crossing the Hall of Spikes.

Some players didn't understand how mana works, in conjunction with the Summon Block spell. Other players were hampered by the control scheme. Still other players suggested slowing the physics to be better able to react to problems. Another bit of advice was to make the blocks last longer, or mana regenerate more quickly (this was one of the players who did understand that mana was a thing.)

Following these clues to their logical conclusion, this means I have two problems - my spell system controls need further refinement, they're too intrusive. Also, the mana system needs additional pieces of feedback, so the player knows exactly what's going on. All of which lines up well with what I've been told in this thread.

 

Yes! But, your problem statements there are already assuming solutions. "My spell system controls need further refinement" is a (partial) solution, not a problem. "They're too intrusive" is a problem. But why are they too intrusive?

Edit: you've actually got better problem definitions earlier in the post. "Some players didn't understand how mana works" is a great one. That's a really clear problem that you can investigate and propose and test solutions to.

 

@angrypenguin - Now I think I see clearly, and I see where I strayed. I was putting the game in front of people to find action items, when I forgot that the point was to find problems that I could devise solutions for. I confused 'asking for feedback' with 'asking for features/solutions to problems.'

In other words, I got everything bass ackwards, and have probably wasted the greater part of the week thinking of the problem from the wrong direction entirely.

Still, now I know, and as G.I. Joe always said: "Knowing is half the battle!" G.I.Joe!!!!!!

Now that I know players find the controls intrusive I can investigate, and now that I know the mana system isn't descriptive I can look back at my feedback and start figuring out why.* I'm not downplaying any of the other awesome advice I've gotten in this thread, but this is probably the most helpful in here.

Thanks angrypenguin!

*: I know you just said this, this is me reiterating for my own benefit. I'm trying to remind myself not to goof/lose perspective like this in the future. As a note, if anyone ever sees me losing perspective, I would just ask you to say two words to me: "Summon Block". After this, I think I'll get the point to ask different questions.

 

Short version: If you don't have a solid internal/personal concept of how the mechanics should work already in your mind, you're never going to get them down in code and working in the game.

Find a local gaming shop or meetup place where people hang out, drink sodas or coffee, and where the type of audience for your video game might exist. Bring your laptop and your current prototype. Either approach people who look like the type who play games, or if you aren't the type capable of that, put up a sign like, "Independent Video Game Developer asking for people to do a three minute playtest, please." (Make sure the shop is okay with that first. And make sure you buy a tea or something so the shop doesn't see you as a freeloader.)

I'm going to play to stereotypes here, but I know from personal experience that shops that cater to roleplaying and miniatures often have people who just hang out there hoping for someone to talk to. (Or talking to the clerk.) Some may not have the highest social skills on the planet, but sooner or later you're going to find some who think the idea of testing an early prototype is cool.

Since you're in a big city, you should also start looking for groups that already exist who are game makers. Not only does that give you like-minded and interesting people to meet up with and talk to and maybe even test your prototypes, they may have suggestions on places to find local testers. Plus you'll learn more about game design by testing their prototypes for them.

 

The value of your personal concept of how your game works is best reflected by asking the question: Who is responsible for making your game? Beyond that, though, you need to consider the value of having a vision and a direction. When I'm creating graphics for a HUD, is that a good time to be debating how many elements I need to display? Should I be considering what attacks my character is going to have as I'm programming his attack states and logic? Why would you ever want to have to go back and redo anything that you've already done? When you don't know the answer to the questions before they come up, you ensure two things:
1) You are going to do it wrong.
2) You are going to have to do it right later.

What I'm proposing is that you already know what you're trying to do before you're stuck in a situation where your back is against the wall and stress is welling up because development is halted around a seemingly simple issue like, oh I dunno, how the most important control aspect of the game works?

You can dismiss high concepts as philosophical, and that's fine. Call it "Zen", the things that people have been doing for 30 years have finally arrived at in their thinking and decided it was important to share with others who are just starting out. All they are, ultimately, are shortcuts to success. You can figure it out for yourself from scratch, though, too. One day you'll have some kind of enlightened thought pop into your head and when you tell it to someone, they'll roll their eyes and explain how "helpful" it is. XD

 

It was less a matter of dismissal and more that I didn't see its true value; I never thought you were just sort of saying things, you don't come off that way. I couldn't understand what you were trying to say, though it was obvious you were saying something...thus why I asked for more details.

In light of what angrypenguin said it makes sense (it also occurs to me you were trying to tell me nearly the same thing, that I briefly fell into the bad habit of overreacting to criticism instead of analyzing it to find ways to my goal.)

But, you're also right that I need to flesh out my vision. I started with the 'Summon Stuff through magic', and 'Mana charges limit the number of spells they can cast' mechanics, but just that isn't enough to create an enjoyable game. I do have more thinking to do, thanks for helping me to understand that.

 

Maybe the feedback isn't conflicting. If you look beyond the specific suggestions, the common thread is that the controls are confusing, which is exactly how I felt. Even once I figured out how to hold F and click, I still failed to ever successfully create a block that lasted longer than 3 seconds..

MODES are bad - google "NO MODES" and GDC for historical goodness. In this case, pressing F and clicking is creating a mode, and it's a mental block that's confusing. Simplify, simplify, simplify.

PS - Like the music and the look/feel.

Gigi

 

Thanks - the look isn't finalized yet, I'm probably going to chuck it out at some point (when I get to my polishing phases, certainly.)

 

The big problem right now is that there are variables at play that aren't readily apparent. This is pretty much guaranteed to cascade to sounding like a thousand other issues that aren't necessarily an issue.

You've got controls at the behest of these not substantially overt variables, so naturally people are turning to the controls as the thing that doesn't feel right.

I'm going to contradict this by going iron sights. In fact you might even want to put charge to rmb. I'm also looking to make easy depth, in this case allowing charging have its own function and properties so it isn't just this thing you wait through.

 

I think of you use colored graphics to clearly show which spell is currently selected, making the cursor the same color as the spell icon even, that would reduce complexity. And as I said before, make the charge and fire and aiming input all mouse controlled. How would that be complex?

And if you need to show if the spell is currently powered up and usable, gray out spells if there's no mana available. If mana comes from blocks, make the blocks glow the same way as the spell icon glows when you're near it.

This is all about getting the user to make connections. For that end, make it easy to see the connections.

 

As to how you get to observe players directly, I would still encourage you to put your game on a mobile device. The feedback I get from looking at players trying our games is invaluable.

Rumours of virtual controllers being hard to use are greatly exaggerated.

However designing and implementing quality virtual controls is time consuming (Maybe a decent store asset would take care of this?).
You may be able to purchase physical controllers for most smartphones/tablets nowadays? (less distracting than designing controls for a platform you aren't targeting?)

Back to your original question, I don't think you have conflicting feedback since you re-designed controls in between.

A couple of tips about control issues:

- Game control pains. These can be relieved by improving the software, or re-designing your control scheme, or reviewing level design, or changing the game design. Forgetting that game controls are inherently limited is a bad idea.
- Bad controls at level 0 may be a good challenge at level 32.
- Some players will never like your game, let alone the controls. Direct feedback is invaluable but no, not everybody's feedback is valuable.

 

* ONE LINER INCOMING! *

Isn't that whole question the reason why rebindable keys are there?

Some player like to have few keys that change depending on the situations, other want to map every action to its key, using the whole keyboard, maybe using the modifier keys too.

 

There's a more fundamental question about how the control system works, though, that goes further than what actions are bound to what buttons.

Furthermore, rebinding is really only an option for desktop PC platforms, and even there designers should do their best to come up with a useful default. Offering customisation isn't an excuse to skip an important design task.