Clive Thompson over at Wired sees things differently. In a piece entitled "Tunnel Vision," Thompson argues that HUDs are "a deeply impressive achievement--gaming's contribution to the art of information delivery." He cites King Kong as a title where he was irritated not knowing how much ammo he had left in his pistol--a scenario where having a HUD would have actually, he feels, contributed to a more immersive game. Stephen Totilo of MTV concurs, using the recent hot-seller Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter as an example of next-generation HUD at its finest. In GRAW, Ubisoft developers implemented what they call "multi-windowing," where a character's screen will display multiple views of the battle (and other videos of information) during your missions.
We are not taking sides on the issue. The intrusiveness (or even the presence) of a heads-up display should be dependent upon the game itself. A science fiction game like GRAW or Metroid Prime can (and should) get away with a massive heads-up display because your character actually has a visor that includes all that information. In the absence of contextual appropriateness, we tend to side with Wilson's suggestion of an 'optional' HUD--a system where the player is allowed to change (via menu options) the extent which the HUD is visible on screen. Many games have cleverly pulled off a hidden health bar, or one that shows up only when appropriate (e.g. Goldeneye for Nintendo 64). It's a give-and-take struggle between the need for a game to be immersive and for a game to be fun and not frustrating.
Can you think of some games that have effectively used the heads-up display? How bouts some titles in which the HUD has hindered the enjoyment?
[via GameSetWatch]
Read [Off with their HUDs!]
Read [Tunnel Vision]
