[doodliego]

Solid write-up of the issue. Videogames (among others) are a prime offender with this. Every game has to invent a whole slew of overly designed and difficult to decipher icons, but a game is often something you move on from quickly and on to the next one. Forcing users to learn a whole new language so your art directors can feel special is terrible.

[intertextuality]

> Forcing users to learn a whole new language

Each and every videogame has a lot information to learn about it. Game mechanics, interactions, that sort of thing. Games are wildly different in these aspects, so why would icons of all things be worth nitpicking here?

Since games are so different having unique icons makes total sense, since I can associate them with whatever unique mechanics of the game.

> a game is often something you move on from quickly and on to the next one

For you, maybe. I have 1400 hours in dota, and almost 1500 in tf2. Over time as one gets acclimated to a game, having icons is really helpful for quickly scanning/displaying information, etc.

---

Videogames have the problem of needing to visually display a lot of data, and needing to have good menus to traverse among its information/mechanics. Some games have really bad menus but I can't recall icons being the main issue in any of them. A bad menu is almost always one with options in confusing places or hiding a commonly-used option behind 4+ clicks, etc.

[atoav]

The thing is, you usually _want_ to play the video game just for the video games sake. Understanding it is mentally part of the thing.

With a typical application GUI you usually want to get some stuff done and the program is the thing you chose for the job. This means unless you really plan to learn that thing, every friction that program needlessly puts on reaching your objective is gonna piss you off.

This is btw. the same in Games, if e.g. the graphics settings don’t work as expected etc

[TeMPOraL]

I don't think it's just motivation. Video games are different from regular software also in that they do explain their UI to newcomers, whereas explaining anything is anathema to modern UI design. That's IMO a big problem, and why I find myself liking UIs in video games more than in "work" software.

Some webapps offer videogame-style guides on the first launch - I'm thinking of e.g. UI tours that highlight elements and tell you what they do. It's a good pattern.

[barbecue_sauce]

As a player, having the same iconography in each game sounds terrible and would result in an almost clinical experience.

[atoav]

This is because software in contrast to games is usually meant to get shit done with the least possible friction.

While experimentation will always have a driving force, standardization allows a program to lower the barrier of usage to everyone. Especially to those who are not a typical HN user but rather like your stereotypical parents.

Games are not about getting stuff done, so people enjoy learning how it works, which in its own way reduces friction.

[Groxx]

Also as a player: I'd love more consistency. Especially on mobile - the impossibly vast array of same-but-different is wearying, not interesting.

[kurtisc]

You're right but I've always thought it's a bit sad how many hours must be spent recreating the same similar assets - concrete, grass, clothes, etc. - just so people don't have this clinical moment where they recognise something from another game.

[grenoire]

In view of games as art, these are definitely mandatory stylistic choices involved in creating a unique experience for the players.

[TeMPOraL]

Games are a prime proof that even a slightly motivated user has very little problems learning whatever UI style you created, as long as it's totally not absurd and/or you help them a bit along the way.

[chungleong]

Video games are designed to provide escapism. A different visual language is part of the experience.