New account registration is temporarily disabled.

HIDING THE HUD

Posts

Pages: 1
Ocean
Resident foodmonster
11991
Not like this is a really new trend that no one has noticed, but I was playing Fable 3 and got me to thinking more about this and how it applies to RPGs. Granted, that one is more an action RPG, but getting rid of the HUD seems to be something more developers are interested in nowadays, especially for immersions sake.

What do you think about this move? For those of you who haven't played Fable 3: Instead of a menu, it has a sanctuary where you can go in the dressing room to pick out your clothes, in the armory to pick out your weapons, and stuff like that. Or instead of HP, like most FPS games nowadays, it has no health display and the screen gets greyer and a red tint when you're low on health (and it allows you to use a potion if you're low on health).

Not saying you should be doing this or that this is the future of all games, just wanted to discuss the general topic, and I gotta run so I'll be back to this later. Not sure if that's the right topic title for this but I think you get the idea.
Information, information, information. Huds provide that.

FPSes can do such things because they don't have much number crunching, unlike turn-based RPGs. This system is fine.

Being hudless also means that there is something to look at. This requires the graphics to draw the player in, especially. Of course, the existence of HUDs in a game make the game feel more "gamey."

But a game feeling "gamey" isn't necessarily a bad thing. Rather, it draws the creativity out of people to win the metagame, if allowed to a great extent of customization and abilities- which many *indie RPGs lack.

Boring or bad graphics are inexcusable when the game has few to little HUDs. Desolate places are fine, however, for desolate games. But graphics which provide no aesthetic appeal will ultimately fail. I'm mostly talking about indie games here, since commercial products often have realistic and often ceaselessly amazing graphics.
Well... like you said, I think there's no right way to do it. Hiding HUDs will indeed help with immersion, and sometimes too much information on the screen is annoying. When there are too many bars and numbers on the screen, I tend to ignore most of them, automatically.

On the other hand, HUDs are... you know... information. And I also think some HUDs are pretty, like .
Some hidden HUDs, like the one in Dead Space are really sort of weird though. I've never minded HUDs though it's also a bit dependent on what you're making. A game like Football Manager is nothing but HUD. Turn based games generally can provide you with lots of useful information without your mind being blown. In real time games however the amount of information needs to be very streamlined.

Of course it's good to streamline information in turn based games too. I think I saw a video about Civ5 on this. Where they had all the most commonly used commands there on the screen and hid the more rare ones in a submenu. Instead of having all the icons around all the time. Having it all around all the time increases the risk of someone accidentally pushing the wrong button.

I also have to admit that certain "in world" HUDs or GUIs annoy me a bit. Mostly because they tend to use an insane amount of wasted space for immersions sake. Just look at the Fallout 3 pipboy. Compare it with the Fallout pipboy (or even the streamlined Fallout Tactics pipboy+inventory screen) Sure maybe the old Fallouts had a bit of an information overload (there are certain numbers there I never looked at and never really knew how they affected things) but it's better than having to press fifteen buttons to get to what you want. (which the old Fallout also had because the inventory was really a pain in the butt)

But again. Things like First or Third Person Shooters (or other action games) can benefit a lot from having as little stuff around as possible. They've streamlined a lot of action games to require as little thinking as possible. Such as having the same ammunition for all weapons, auto-regenerating and other things. All to make the experience as seamless as possible.
Hudless systems can also take more work. Fable III's sanctuary was not as easy as making a listed menu for stuff. They had to draw upon more art assets: mannequins, pedestals, and adornments that make the sanctuary a reality. However, a listed menu will have to suffer game state management, whereas a sanctuary would not need to.

I think there's no real answer here. HUD or not, it just depends on the style of the game. People want to know which is faster and which is more effective (or efficient), but they all seem to agree that neither method does any better. The sanctuary in Fable III can take just as long or longer to equip the player, it is also going to be just as cluttered.

When it comes to health bars, I think that for RPG's there must be some indication. Health is easy enough with screen tinting, but what about mana? If there's a texture (say mana lines on a Fable character), they could get hard to see or are not always easily representable. What about stats like speed agility (Oblivion like stats) that get damaged? A Menu is just about necessary. Otherwise a real-world implementation would have you going to a doctor to see what's wrong with you. And that's just not feasible in the context of a battle.

HUD's indeed make games feel more "gamey" by streamlining the process and gifting you with info that would otherwise be harder to obtain on a perfectly realistic and hudless system.
The HUD should not be to obstructive. Beyond that however, it will depend on what you're going for. The main point of hiding the HUD is immersion, but I don't think full immersion is always the answer. Sometimes I'm happy to be reminded that it's a game, like when the game has an item crafting system that allows me to customize my own killer combo. In other times, the immersion is lost anyway due to other circumstances and it would be a really bad trade if you hide information for practically nothing.
Pages: 1