Oh noes there are 666 posts! I better add one.

I’d like talk about diagetic and non-diagetic in video games. To refresh, here’s the difference:

Diagetic: Something that both the audience and a character is experiencing. For example music that a character is hearing as well as the gamer.

Non-diagetic: Something that only the audience or the character is experiencing. For example music that the gamer can hear but not the character. We are told that all of the things that we are experiencing in a game is diagetic, unless they are things like menus or gui’s that only matter to the gamer but makes no difference to the in-game character or avatar.

So, is non-dagetic bad? Does it distract from the immersiveness of the game when the player is required to go through a non-diagetic part of the game? I think it does. If developers intend to allow the players to form connectedness with their avatars, then shouldn’t the player experience the same things that their character experiences? In-game menus and gui’s force the player to turn and pay attention to buttons, text and other boring stuff. Minimaps are very popular pieces of the GUI for many games, as they allow the gamer to control and see the map from a birds eye view. From my experience they are a very vital and powerful tool for the gamer to make decisions and have a holistic sense of understanding with the environment. However, would the experience be more exciting / intense / unexpected without mini-maps? Imagine in the context of a first-person shooter like call of duty or halo. “radar” maps are often used to give the player a sense of where the action is and where other players are. Is it possible to provide the same benefits of mini-maps with a totally different and diagetic interaction?

No minimap in starcraft concept:
“I’ve heard that people want to be shocked” “having more suspense when an event happens”
-the guy in this youtube video:

Just some thoughts and ramblings. 🙂

Btw my computer keeps changing diagetic to diabetic so sorry if you see a mistake!