This prototype is very similar to yesterday’s in its general form, the only thing that changes is the graphical appearance of the tolerance. I’ve turned it into a less violent flicker than the “lose” state in order to measure the effect of graphical artifacts. The new systems goes like this:
Maybe it’s just me, but I get the feeling that this version feels less hectic than the previous one. I believe it’s due to the fact that with the tolerance mechanism, you are always catching up to the system, whereas with the warning mechanism you anticipating it. Catching up generates a feeling of urgency or surprise, while anticipating gives a feeling of control.
I’ve assumed that this prototype bears ludicity since it’s just a graphical modification away from the previous one. Nevertheless, this iteration is relevant in the exercise just to show that although cosmetic modifications have no active effect on the system flow, they influence our perception of it in a passive way, giving in this case an impression of urgency or control.
And this is for a simple system… In most modern videogames, the sum of all the small passive influences the varied and detailed graphical objects have upon us often outweigh the strong influences of the game system. In short, this gives credit to the expression stating that graphics can either “make or break” a game.