Re: [GD-Design] gesturing

[Brett B. <res...@ga...>]

Interesting post, and I certainly agree that the interface is elegant =
and nice for some platforms. But given my context is consoles, isn't the =
analog stick a perfect medium to use for a swing in golf on a PS2 or =
other console? IIRC, Tiger Woods Golf PS2 does this now albeit it a =
rubbery way.  It certainly is more intuitive and interactive and rewards =
players with control.  However on a PC I wouldn't want to slide a mouse =
back and then forward to swing; while more interactive and realistic =
that isn't a natural motion and a digital interface would work better.  =
I don't think I would even want to use a joystick (e.g. flightstick) =
either as that is awkward too.  But the thumbstick is perfect.

The point is that just because something works doesn't mean it's the =
best. Instead it means the interface has converged on a solution in its =
local problem space such that all similar solutions are inferior, when =
off in the distance is another space or paradigm with even higher peaked =
(or valleys is you perefer :) solutions.  Digital buttons beget analog =
gauges and it seems silly to use a digital button to do what could be =
directly controlled with tactile hand-eye coordination..

Brett

----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Evan Robinson" <ev...@en...>
To: <gam...@li...>; =
<gam...@li...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [GD-Design] gesturing


> At 11:10 PM 2004.01.05, Brett Bibby wrote:
> >Tom, I like the idea you proposed about the bars because you got it =
back=20
> >to hand-eye coordination, but as you say FPS players may not like it. =

> >Perhaps it can be packaged in a different way. As Chris Crawford (it =
was=20
> >him wasn't it?) pointed out in his design book that the basic golf=20
> >interface hasn't changed in years, certainly there's something better =
that=20
> >can be done.
>=20
> There's a reason that golf interface hasn't change in years -- because =
it's=20
> good :-)  When we developed World Tour Golf for EA in ... 1985?, none =
of=20
> the three of us had any golf experience.  So we took lessons, and the =
basic=20
> mechanic was actually described by our golf pro at the course in=20
> Novato.  He pointed out that the basics of the golf swing are very =
simple:=20
> alignment (which determines the basic direction of club head travel at =
the=20
> moment of impact), backswing (and percentage of backswing relates to =
power=20
> -- to hit half a wedge you backswing less than your normal full =
swing),=20
> pause, downswing, turn the hands over (the timing of turning your =
hands=20
> over is critical to hitting a straight shot, slicing or hooking the =
ball),=20
> and follow through.  Paul Reiche parsed that into a pre-shot alignment =

> (deciding your initial direction of shot), a click to start the =
backswing,=20
> a click to end the backswing and start the downswing (and set power), =
and a=20
> click to represent turning the hands over.  Paul was the first =
designer=20
> that I know of to put this system onto a circular track that mirrored =
the=20
> actual clubhead travel.
>=20
> Is this interface "realistic"?  Not particularly, in that it does not =
give=20
> you nearly the level of control over the clubhead travel and therefore =
the=20
> shot that a golfer has in real life.  In particular, it completely =
ignores=20
> the factor of "in-to-out" or "out-to-in" clubhead travel (which allows =
a=20
> golfer to start the ball traveling either to the right or left of the=20
> alignment track, allowing for deliberate curving around obstacles).  =
Does=20
> it relate directly to the motion of a golfer?  Not really.  In =
particular,=20
> Paul chose to put the "hands turning over" click essentially at the =
point=20
> of impact (it actually starts considerably further back in the =
downswing)=20
> because it aligned nicely and gave better feedback to the user for a =
hook,=20
> slice, or straight hit.  Does it feel "realistic"?  Damn Skippy, it=20
> does.  If you provided a speed control that varied the clubhead travel =
(and=20
> thus the amount of time the player had to make decisions, effectively=20
> increasing player precision at low speed and decreasing it at high =
speed),=20
> you'd have a huge play balance variation, without changing the =
mechanic or=20
> the complexity of the system at all.
>=20
> If you compare Paul's design to that of previous golf games -- in=20
> particular Henry's design in ... was it Pebble Beach Championship =
Golf? A=20
> game produce with Brian Fargo, IIRC -- Henry's design was very =
"sim-like"=20
> in that it gave a huge degree of control through various keystrokes =
and=20
> settings, and used a model of Ben Hogan for animation, and it didn't =
feel=20
> nearly as much like swinging a golf club.  Activision's game (Links?) =
used=20
> a very similar system to Pauls, but it was modelled on a straight line =

> (like a progress bar) instead of the clubhead-travel circle.  IIRC, =
the=20
> original Nintendo golf game on the 8 bit console was similar.
>=20
> I'm not trying to say that Paul's design was or is perfect, but I am =
saying=20
> that it was at conception and remains an excellent design, and the =
fact=20
> that no one has come up with a better one (at least according to =
Brett's=20
> recollection of Chris Crawford's comment) suggests that there's more =
to it=20
> than just simplicity -- there's also elegance.  Which is hard to beat.
>=20
>          Evan
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
> Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills.  Sign up for =
IBM's
> Free Linux Tutorials.  Learn everything from the bash shell to sys =
admin.
> Click now! =
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D1278&alloc_id=3D3371&op=3Dclick
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-design mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design
> Archives:
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=3D556