> Video games are a great example of simplified, intuitive interfaces which are often the polar opposite of calm.

Video games are interesting in terms of usability. I thought a lot about this the past couple years after a UX course. A lot of UX principles are about making things easier, like large clickable areas, not moving clickable areas, contrasting colors, proving plenty of time to react or undo, and making things obvious and as easy as possible. But in a game, many of those principles are flipped. In a shooter, the enemies are smaller and move. They may be difficult to see. Solutions are not always obvious, especially if they are extras or hidden power ups.

But at the same time, a lot of the UX principles are very important. An enemy about to attack should telegraph that attack so you have time to react. Menus should be very clear and obvious. Inventory management should not be a chore, the map and HUD should be easy to use.

Valve (in particular) even pioneered UX in level design—if it doesn't improve gameplay, why let the player wander around trying to find the way they're supposed to go (a situation common even in relatively on-rails shooters of the past)? And just putting in HUD arrows sucks, and those can be misleading. Instead, they use lighting, color choices, and level layout to direct the player's attention and direction of movement, while maintaining the illusion that the levels are part of a larger space.

I've heard that Ghost of Tsushima does this well with the direction of the wind. But I don't have a PS4/5 to play.

I've also heard about of platformers giving a couple pixels after walking off a platform to jump, like Celeste. It is very small thing to give better feel to the controls and make up lack of precise timing.

There's also the idea of the tutorial level masquerading as a regular level, so it doesn't feel like a tutorial. Earliest example I know of is Super Mario Brothers 1:1, but it may not be the first. It's distinct from simply ramping up difficulty, because it involves things like deliberately presenting challenges & opportunities in a certain order, and, at first, in isolation.

[EDIT] incidentally, here (many) games have an advantage over other software, because they play linearly rather than presenting a large space of possible actions all at once. Games that are more similar to productivity software (city builders, say, or grand strategy games) have trouble doing this without it being obvious that you're in a tutorial.

Portal was designed so that nearly the entire game was "the tutorial level". The gradual introduction of novel elements such as beams, turrets, and more advanced movement challenges kept up the interest, but it also had the hidden agenda of preparing the user for the climactic finale which brought all of those elements together.

> Video games are interesting in terms of usability. I thought a lot about this the past couple years after a UX course. A lot of UX principles are about making things easier, like large clickable areas, not moving clickable areas, contrasting colors, proving plenty of time to react or undo, and making things obvious and as easy as possible. But in a game, many of those principles are flipped. In a shooter, the enemies are smaller and move. They may be difficult to see. Solutions are not always obvious, especially if they are extras or hidden power ups.

The goal of usability is to be able to accomplish your goal. In a lot of games, the feeling of getting better or overcoming an obstacle is part of the goal. So the UX is not surprising, it's following the goal of the product.

I think "calm" might refer to the user in that context, as the opposite of "frustrated to the brink of violence".

A game UI might be wacky and as twitchy as a rodent dosed with recreational stimulants, but the user feels calm, capable of navigating through it and never doubting they can accomplish what they set out to do.