Or how instead of designing emergent systems, most games just slap modifiers on everything and "balance" that way. +20% bow reload speed and +25% speed, anyone?
Or how instead of designing emergent systems, most games just slap modifiers on everything and "balance" that way. +20% bow reload speed and +25% speed, anyone?
The 16- through 64- bit Zeldas, for their clunkiness, were compellingly immersive. I don't think it's just nostalgia; I've played indie games where the UI is part of a whole that sucks you in. This is true even if the UI has a modern feel, like Hollow Knight, which felt overpolished in its presentation and interface, to me at least, in a way that was off-kilter -- yet something about it sucks you in instead of pulling you out, being part of the world's presentation and in an aesthetically transitive sense part of the world itself. There's something about these modern AAA games where you feel like you're not playing a game but rather a Skinner box containing a game. It's just not the same. I can't exactly put my finger on it.
The game UI should feel part of the game (good examples: SimCity 4 and Sid Meier's Pirates) and not feel out of place.
In-game advertisements are also off-putting unless they fit thematically and stylistically into the game.
edit: your comment was much better when it was more verbose!<3
When I read a book in a modern typeface, it does not remove me from the story in the book. I do not need to read a world war II history book in Fraktur to get into it. Maybe, like typography, it has more to do with what one is used to?
It is debatable what happens in our heads. When we play one of the earlier pixel Zeldas, one might argue our mind is filling in all the details with higher resolution images. I can still agree with this argument, though.
In terms of the UI, the game controller is also a soulless interface, and I guess one could claim it gets in the way of experiencing the game.
My opinion is simply that the UI being disjointed from the game world experience might make it more or less enjoyable, depending on experience.
As an example, I prefer a file > save checkpoint on a game, that gets out of the way, as opposed to one of those games where you have to go to a special place to save. In that case, for me, the immersion is ruined because I am constantly reminded that I cannot save the game state. Other players might think a File > save checkpoint menu is a flat soulless ui and they prefer the in-game integration.
The "soulless UI" effect happens when developers try to use flat design in a game where it doesn't work with the aesthetic. A game set in the future? of course. A game set in 1700? hell no. and also if the game uses too many numbers. If there are many "+20% this, +10% that" that also feels unimmersive so the player is dragged out of the game world.
I do love the idea of being able to go up and down though it feels a little awkward to me as I normally have to go way up to go down into the underground due to a lot of level design. I kinda wish they put some more cliffs nearby to save me the time. I like the underground a lot though and find that part the most fun.
I kind of wonder if something internal happened that the original article is describing. Side NPCs are designed by game designers, so probably written by them or people close to them. The game's concept is probably worked on closely with the top people in charge. But for the main story's execution, one might imagine there's no organizational requirement that the guys in charge have to have a clue how to write or direct a game or even any clue how to write or direct at all.