gamedevlists-design Mailing List for gamedev (Page 5)
Brought to you by:
vexxed72
Menu
▾
▴
gamedevlists-design — List for discussing game development design
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2001 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(10) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(37) |
Dec
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
(5) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(15) |
Jul
(38) |
Aug
|
Sep
(3) |
Oct
|
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
| 2003 |
Jan
(6) |
Feb
(60) |
Mar
|
Apr
(41) |
May
|
Jun
(3) |
Jul
(19) |
Aug
(15) |
Sep
|
Oct
(11) |
Nov
|
Dec
(12) |
| 2004 |
Jan
(15) |
Feb
|
Mar
(6) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(9) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(2) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2005 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(8) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2006 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2007 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(1) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Jan E. <ch...@in...> - 2003-06-05 08:29:52
|
On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Nalin Savara wrote: >Hi, > >This is Nalin Savara here. > >I"ve just created a network on Ryze.com (see: http://www.ryze.com ) which is >a premier business network site that's called "GameDevPros" or the "Game >Development Professionals Network" to serve as an online meeting place for >game development professionals of all backgrounds to network, meet and >discuss and exchange ideas and opportunities and support each other in >meeting challenges. Pointing my browser to http://www.ryze.com/ I saw nothing that had anything to do with games, not even a single mention of the word "game". Seems to just be some kind of blog. Seems you also *must* register to get anything. Avoid. -- Crowley was in Hell's bad books. Not that Hell has any other kind. -- Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens |
|
From: Nalin S. <ns...@vs...> - 2003-06-05 08:07:40
|
Hi, This is Nalin Savara here. I"ve just created a network on Ryze.com (see: http://www.ryze.com ) = which is a premier business network site that's called "GameDevPros" or the "Game Development Professionals Network" to serve as an online meeting place = for game development professionals of all backgrounds to network, meet and discuss and exchange ideas and opportunities and support each other in meeting challenges. Right now, it's somewhat small, since I've just created it; but your participation I guess is the only thing it's waiting for. Do check it out and become part of it. This network has game designers, programmers, digital artists, = animators, producers, audio engineers, and management & marketing specialists as members. This is where experts feed their minds with ideas, discussions = and contacts and discuss new gaming methods, technologies and business = models. Regards, Nalin Savara CEO and Technical Director, Darksun Technologies Pvt Ltd. http://www.darksuntech.com ns...@da... Ph: +91-9811109407 |
|
From: J C L. <cl...@ka...> - 2003-04-08 17:01:22
|
On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 13:31:57 -0300 Sebastian Uribe <su...@it...> wrote: > J C Lawrence wrote: >> -- Trackball users will likely have a different experience. I >> greatly prefer trackballs ala Mouse-Trak's Evolution (central large >> ball for main finger control) for which small motions (quarter >> screen) and moderate horizontal motions (half screen) are of >> equivalent speed/difficulty. > ... I use a thumb one (those Logitech with the ball on the left side), > and again, it's easier for me to roll it to the sides than up-down. :) I suspect that's due to ball placement. I don't like thumb trackballs and so use trackballs where the balls are under my first three fingers. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. cl...@ka... He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. |
|
From: Sebastian U. <su...@it...> - 2003-04-08 16:29:45
|
J C Lawrence wrote:
> -- Trackball users will likely have a different experience. I greatly
> prefer trackballs ala Mouse-Trak's Evolution (central large ball for
> main finger control) for which small motions (quarter screen) and
> moderate horizontal motions (half screen) are of equivalent
> speed/difficulty.
It's true that it is a different experience, I use a trackball at home
(and find it much better than a mouse for quick pointing once you're
experienced with it, probably better suited for a RTS or FPS). But I use a
thumb one (those Logitech with the ball on the left side), and again, it's
easier for me to roll it to the sides than up-down. :)
--
Sebastián Uribe
ITOCHU Argentina S.A.
su...@it...
|
|
From: Mickael P. <mpo...@ed...> - 2003-04-08 09:54:43
|
>> I think I've spent more time scanning the world than I have shooting
>> at
> its inhabitants. There're also significant exploration /
> puzzle-solving / platforming elements which are almost entirely
> absent from any other first person game I can think of.
>
> Deus Ex? Thief? Hitman?
Can add "No One Live Forever 2" to this list.
Mickael Pointier
|
|
From: Jamie F. <ja...@qu...> - 2003-04-08 09:41:52
|
Not played those three :) Got myself a copy of Deus Ex, just haven't got round to playing it yet.... Halo and Goldeneye are both shooters (although both occasionally drift into driving games, for some strange reason... neither does it well, as far as i'm concerned), and i've not got a problem with that :) But the pace of MP is really quite different. I don't think i can express it any more clearly than that :) Jamie -----Original Message----- From: gam...@li... [mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of phi...@pl... Sent: 07 April 2003 18:43 To: gam...@li... Subject: RE: RE: [GD-Design] FPS console controls > I think I've spent more time scanning the world than I have shooting at its inhabitants. There're also significant exploration / puzzle-solving / platforming elements which are almost entirely absent from any other first person game I can think of. Deus Ex? Thief? Hitman? > So I disagree with you :) I find myself with a foot in both camps on this one. Cheers, Phil ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-design mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=556 |
|
From: <ge...@ub...> - 2003-04-07 22:11:12
|
sounds more like design decisions that were made in respect to pace and player motivations, compared to simple 'presentation' decisions (first person view, etc) if we create a game where we don't actually REWARD the player with mindless shooting (as if we need more of that these days) and actually let them enjoy these fantastic gameworlds we create... semantics really. i didn't really consider deus ex a fps until the later stages in the game when they just throw impossible badguys at you... the rest was pretty RPG, just happened to be first person... mike w www.uber-geek.ca > > > >> I think I've spent more time scanning the world >than I have shooting at >its inhabitants. There're also significant >exploration / puzzle-solving / >platforming elements which are almost entirely >absent from any other first >person game I can think of. > >Deus Ex? Thief? Hitman? > >> So I disagree with you :) > >I find myself with a foot in both camps on this >one. > >Cheers, >Phil > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: >Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of >bandwidth! >No other company gives more support or power for >your dedicated server >http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ >_______________________________________________ >Gamedevlists-design mailing list >Gam...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design >Archives: >http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=556 > > |
|
From: J C L. <cl...@ka...> - 2003-04-07 20:25:01
|
On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 10:56:00 -0300 Sebastian Uribe <su...@it...> wrote: > I don't know a lot about human factors, but try moving your mouse > left to right and then up to down. I believe it's faster to move it > sideways than up-down, you can let your wrist in the same place and > just rotate your hand. First reactions: -- That depends on how you hold/use a mouse. For me and the way I manipulate a mouse, vertical movement within a moderate range (roughly a third screen) are the easiest and fastest. -- Trackball users will likely have a different experience. I greatly prefer trackballs ala Mouse-Trak's Evolution (central large ball for main finger control) for which small motions (quarter screen) and moderate horizontal motions (half screen) are of equivalent speed/difficulty. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. cl...@ka... He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. |
|
From: Troy G. <Tr...@cs...> - 2003-04-07 20:08:32
|
> I think I've spent more time scanning the world than I have > shooting at its Interestingly, this is exactly what turned me off about the game: scanning. To me, this a "tedium task" that is best left to computers -- and I would imagine computers in MP's world would be sufficiently qualified to scan the room on their own and then let me know about all the interesting stuff. Of course, then it wouldn't be a "game". Hmph. I will gladly except, though, that I may be wrong on this point. The out-pouring of recognition and honours for this title clearly indicate alot of people think it is particularly good. So, I simply consider myself to have "missed that boat." Troy Developer Relations Criterion Software www.csl.com |
|
From: Daniel R. <re...@ce...> - 2003-04-07 19:24:34
|
Hi Brian,
i didn't read all the posts (hell, you guys allways post so many that i
never wade through all of them).
old 2d games, like good'ol dune2 or c&c(1) had their menues on the right
side, was exactly what you talked about: equal distances in the playfield
(displaying it squared).
more modern games, having a lower (than from top birds eye view)
perspective, be it 2d iso or real 3d, do most have about 45 to 60°, which
makes a squared 2d playground fit into a screen res of about 2:1, which
let's games like blizzards craft series use aprox. 1/4 of the screenwidth
(which is one third of the screenheight in pixels) as interface space ...
kind regards,
daniel 'sirleto' renkel
re...@ce...
re...@ma...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Hook" <ho...@py...>
To: <gam...@li...>
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 4:22 AM
Subject: [GD-Design] (GUI) Playfield aspect ratio
Okay, this is one of the more esoteric observations I'll make, but I
have to ask since it's been bugging me.
For games with HUD elements, the typical choice you see is to either
place the elements along the bottom, or possibly along the bottom and
one side.
To me, placing elements in an L or reverse L makes a lot more sense,
since you get a playfield area that is much closer to square than a
typical 4:3 or 16:9. This is desirable because it gives you an equal
amount of play room in both directions.
However I've noticed that some games, such as Warcraft 3, put all the
GUI elements along the top and bottom, and this in turn actually
accentuates the rectangularity of the playfield. You get an extreme
letterbox effect, which I would intuitively find undesirable.
The main reasons I can see for preferring this layout are:
1. Text prefers to be wide, so for chat dialogs, etc. it's better to
have it along the bottom.
2. Letterbox is perceived as more "cinematic".
But I still don't think I like it. Are there other obvious reasons
I'm missing?
Brian
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb:
Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth!
No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server
http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Gamedevlists-design mailing list
Gam...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design
Archives:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU6
|
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-04-07 18:08:20
|
>I thought it was to give a more-square (in physical units) view= of >the world. Since these games are usually around 45-degree= isometric, >one metre on the ground is twice as many pixels if it's= sideways >than it is when it's up and down. So a 2:1 viewport ratio shows= you >the same amount of landscape horizontally as it does= vertically. A-ha, Tom, you're a fricking genius =3D) Most isometric games use= a 2:1 tile size ratio (32x16, etc.) so yes, going to a 2:1 aspect= ratio would preserve the total size horizontally and vertically. I think Sebastian made a good observation as well that flicking= the wrist left/right is much faster than pushing up/down. Brian |
|
From: <phi...@pl...> - 2003-04-07 17:41:02
|
> I think I've spent more time scanning the world than I have shooting at its inhabitants. There're also significant exploration / puzzle-solving / platforming elements which are almost entirely absent from any other first person game I can think of. Deus Ex? Thief? Hitman? > So I disagree with you :) I find myself with a foot in both camps on this one. Cheers, Phil |
|
From: Jamie F. <ja...@qu...> - 2003-04-07 16:45:20
|
I think I've spent more time scanning the world than I have shooting at its inhabitants. There're also significant exploration / puzzle-solving / platforming elements which are almost entirely absent from any other first person game I can think of. So I disagree with you :) Jamie -----Original Message----- From: gam...@li... [mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of phi...@pl... Sent: 07 April 2003 17:39 To: gam...@li... Subject: RE: RE: [GD-Design] FPS console controls Jamie: > I think we should be clear, though, that MP _isn't_ an FPS. It's a first person action adventure, really. Yes, using that control method for a frag session would be awful; but that's not the type of game it is. It's in first person, and your primary interaction with the world, is to shoot it. It's an FPS. Cheers, Phil ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-design mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=556 |
|
From: <phi...@pl...> - 2003-04-07 16:37:15
|
Jamie: > I think we should be clear, though, that MP _isn't_ an FPS. It's a first person action adventure, really. Yes, using that control method for a frag session would be awful; but that's not the type of game it is. It's in first person, and your primary interaction with the world, is to shoot it. It's an FPS. Cheers, Phil |
|
From: <phi...@pl...> - 2003-04-07 16:29:51
|
Brian: > I think it was Tom Forsyth that said (on another list?) something like "the user interface can only ever be considered a hindrance", the gist being that the more of an interface you consciously interact with, the less ideal it is. Hmm. The interface is one of those things that only becomes apparent when it's a problem. Like the camera, or player control, it's bad when it's bad, but when it's good, you don't really notice (unless you're paying a lot of attention). IMHO, natch. Cheers, Phil |
|
From: Tom F. <to...@mu...> - 2003-04-07 14:52:33
|
One of the tricks with deadzones is that you make a fairly large deadzone, but ignore it if the _velocity_ of the stick is above a certain (small) amount. This is because as sticks get older, where they recenter too gets very loose. But if the player makes a small movement, they expect that movement to get through to the game, even if it's inside the deadzone. You need a tiny bit of deadzone on the velocity to cope with signal jitter, but it is very small. This is a really neat trick. It's necessary on the PS2 because the DualShocks really loosen up over time and the centre position is wildly out (which is where I saw this originally), but it's also helpful on the other controllers - small adjustments are really simple to make. Tom Forsyth - Muckyfoot bloke and Microsoft MVP. This email is the product of your deranged imagination, and does not in any way imply existence of the author. > -----Original Message----- > From: Javier Arevalo [mailto:ja...@py...] [snip] > - Stick dead zone (more hardware issue than software, but both can be > involved). I got the feeling that the dead zone for stick > centering was much > larger in MoH/PS2 than in Halo, and that it was annoying in MoH when I > wanted those little adjustments to turns, it just seemed that > I had to turn > the stick too much before turning began, so it took me longer > to perform > little turns. [snip] > Javier Arevalo > Pyro Studios |
|
From: Tom F. <to...@mu...> - 2003-04-07 14:51:03
|
I thought it was to give a more-square (in physical units) view of the world. Since these games are usually around 45-degree isometric, one metre on the ground is twice as many pixels if it's sideways than it is when it's up and down. So a 2:1 viewport ratio shows you the same amount of landscape horizontally as it does vertically. Tom Forsyth - Muckyfoot bloke and Microsoft MVP. This email is the product of your deranged imagination, and does not in any way imply existence of the author. > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Hook [mailto:ho...@py...] > Sent: 07 April 2003 03:23 > To: gam...@li... > Subject: [GD-Design] (GUI) Playfield aspect ratio > > > Okay, this is one of the more esoteric observations I'll make, but I > have to ask since it's been bugging me. > > For games with HUD elements, the typical choice you see is to either > place the elements along the bottom, or possibly along the bottom and > one side. > > To me, placing elements in an L or reverse L makes a lot more sense, > since you get a playfield area that is much closer to square than a > typical 4:3 or 16:9. This is desirable because it gives you an equal > amount of play room in both directions. > > However I've noticed that some games, such as Warcraft 3, put all the > GUI elements along the top and bottom, and this in turn actually > accentuates the rectangularity of the playfield. You get an extreme > letterbox effect, which I would intuitively find undesirable. > > The main reasons I can see for preferring this layout are: > > 1. Text prefers to be wide, so for chat dialogs, etc. it's better to > have it along the bottom. > > 2. Letterbox is perceived as more "cinematic". > > But I still don't think I like it. Are there other obvious reasons > I'm missing? > > Brian > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: > Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! > No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server > http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-design mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design > Archives: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU6 > |
|
From: Sebastian U. <su...@it...> - 2003-04-07 13:53:48
|
I don't know a lot about human factors, but try moving your mouse left
to right and then up to down. I believe it's faster to move it sideways
than up-down, you can let your wrist in the same place and just rotate
your hand.
That would make it more fast and "natural". Obviously you can only
take advantage of that if you place your interface in a horizontal way.
Brian Hook wrote:
> >I think the reason most RTS's clump all the HUD elements together is
> >for speed and accessibility.
>
> Fair enough, but given the choice of a vertical bar that gives you a
> square playfield, or a horizontal bar that gives you a widescreen
> playfield, why choose the widescreen? The screen already starts out
> in a widescreen aspect, and then it gets exacerbated by having HUD
> elements laid out horizontally.
>
> That's what I'm trying to figure out.
--
Sebastián Uribe
ITOCHU Argentina S.A.
su...@it...
|
|
From: Jamie F. <ja...@qu...> - 2003-04-07 10:25:18
|
I think we should be clear, though, that MP _isn't_ an FPS. It's a first person action adventure, really. Yes, using that control method for a frag session would be awful; but that's not the type of game it is. Jamie -----Original Message----- From: gam...@li... [mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of Dan Thompson Sent: 04 April 2003 23:06 To: gam...@li... Subject: Re: RE: [GD-Design] FPS console controls Judging from the reactions from everyone I talk to who do both, Console FPS controls are adequat(sp?) for playing against other entites bound by the same control scheme. However I have noticed that people who only play FPS on consoles regard themselves as ultimate when they whip everyone on XBox Live or what have you, and those who play with a mouse and keyboard consider themselves ultimate when they mop up in counterstrike. The few times I have seen crossover where the same person plays extensivly with both schemes, they say that the mouse and keyboard wins. However I don't think this thread really meant to go into that debate (even though I added to it). From what I hear the Halo style is the best for a console, its just that a good mousers will in fact mop the floor with the blood of a good console player. -Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Hook" <ho...@py...> To: <gam...@li...> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 12:28 PM Subject: Re: RE: [GD-Design] FPS console controls > >didn't actually play halo, but i can't see how this is any > >different. the fatal flaw is in the control scheme period. console > >manufacturers simply created bad controls... > > Forgive me for sounding harsh, but given that numerous people have > lauded Halo's controls -- including hardcore FPS players -- and you > haven't even seen it, doesn't it seem a little extreme to flat out > blow it off as "simply doesn't work" when, in fact, it does? > > -Hook > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: > Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! > No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server > http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-design mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design > Archives: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU6 > > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-design mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=556 |
|
From: Mickael P. <mpo...@ed...> - 2003-04-07 09:18:11
|
Erin Daly wrote:
> I don't know the real reasons behind Blizzard's choice, but I suspect
> it's because scanning horizontally is easier for the brain than
> scanning vertically (reading left-right and all that).
Please note that WarCraft 1 & 2 had a left sidebar, and thus had a nearly
square playfield. The horizontal menus appeared with StarCraft.
Considering the efficiency of "clicks", I don't think it's the reason,
simply because hardcore RTS player never click on something else than units,
they all use keyboard shortcuts. There is no reason to lose time clicking on
the gui.
> Interestingly, Command and Conquer had a sidebar HUD for many years,
> but recently switched to a horizontal bar with their latest game (C&C
> Generals).
I always considered that C&C was wasting a loot of room on screen with their
design. And forcing the player to scroll down in a list to find what they
wanted to build was simply a non-sense...
Concerning user configurable GUI, I don't really like them.
Games like Diablo (1) that have fixed size panels and dynamically update
game display depending of which panels are displayed work fine. You can
gather things on the ground while still playing and fighting,
activate/deactivate panels with keypressed... it all work fine.
Recently NeverWinterNights have been doing the same, and it works quite
nicely. There are some glitches, but well mostly it worked fine.
An example of reconfigurable/resizable/movable windows scheme can be found
in Morrowind. How it sucks !!! You can almost never find a non overlapping
scheme that work correctly. It uses tabbed selections in the inventory, but
even with this due to clumsy design you still manage to get lot's of items
in each inventory page so you still need slider bars... that takes room in
the windows thus even more reducing the usability of the whole thing.
Generaly speaking, when the GUI system try to be cool, and even to think for
you in general it sucks: just look Word. Some people seems to like the
"intuitive help", the smart assistants, and automatic folding of less used
items, and automatic replacement of :) by real bitmap smileys. A lot of
people seems to first deactivate all these features because they break their
work flow: If the program keep moving things around because you don't use
them, you keep not finding them where they were the last time you use them
:(
So better _design_ a really good interaction system for your particular
game, allow the use of shortcuts to access any particular thing, if you need
a GUI make it nice and usable, but don't try to be very smart. In general it
bites you back.
Mickael Pointier
|
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-04-07 07:36:11
|
>To make it makes sense to let the player choose the layout of=
all
>status windows.
I actually stridently disagree (as a generalization). I think
completely configurable interfaces are a sign of lazy designers,=
because instead of thinking about careful layout and optimal
configuration, they force the player to do this. The player gets=
a
default configuration that's "okay", and they're expected to=
tweak
until it's ideal.
Unfortunately, if not much thought has been put into the GUI=
design,
then achieving an ideal state is extremely difficult. For=
example if
you have collapsible status windows, the player may find=
themselves
with a completely cluttered screen because there isn't much room=
to
place all the status windows they may find relevant on the=
screen.
If, instead, a talented game designer had laid out the=
information in
a manner that makes the game streamlined and accessible then this=
actually reduces the burden on the player. They just play the=
game,
instead of configuring the game constantly in order to play it. =
Games are games, they should not become applications.
In addition, configurable interfaces often don't go far enough,=
or
they have poorly defined semantics when it comes to tasks like
switching between windows, collapsing/minimizing windows, etc.
Console games are the masters of "proper GUI" because they have=
to be
intuitive and approachable to a diverse audience using a limited=
controller. That's not to say all console games have great
interfaces, but in my experience console games tend to have much=
better thought put into their interfaces than PC games.
I've had a pretty much 180 degree turn on this. Two years ago I=
was
a staunch believer in "ditch the layout tools, just let the=
player
configure it", and now I'm a fairly big believer in the other
direction ("ditch the layout tools, just make it work").
I think it was Tom Forsyth that said (on another list?) something=
like "the user interface can only ever be considered a=
hindrance",
the gist being that the more of an interface you consciously=
interact
with, the less ideal it is.
Brian
|
|
From: Jan E. <ch...@in...> - 2003-04-07 07:16:55
|
On Sun, 6 Apr 2003, Brian Hook wrote: >Okay, this is one of the more esoteric observations I'll make, but I >have to ask since it's been bugging me. > >For games with HUD elements, the typical choice you see is to either >place the elements along the bottom, or possibly along the bottom and >one side. > >To me, placing elements in an L or reverse L makes a lot more sense, >since you get a playfield area that is much closer to square than a >typical 4:3 or 16:9. This is desirable because it gives you an equal >amount of play room in both directions. To make it makes sense to let the player choose the layout of all status windows. The era of static panels should be over a long time ago. Of course I want to be able to show only the data I actually need. In pet projects such as open source games it is understandable that the development resources are spent elsewhere, but for commercial games that people pay a lot of real buckazoids for there is really no excuse. Who cares about that silly extra lens flare effect, instead make the developers do some usability additions. This is a fine example of how it should be done: http://civil.sourceforge.net/screenshots/snapshot64.png All extra info windows can be toggled on/off, minimized and move around. The player can thus choose to see what is needed and put stuff where it is wanted. -- There were no public health laws in Ankh-Morpork. It would be like installing smoke detectors in Hell. -- Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay |
|
From: Fernando S. <fs...@fi...> - 2003-04-07 04:31:11
|
I didn't play w3, but being a 3rd or 1st person play, I think it is the same as with FPS, you move around over a floor mountain etc, being in that case more important to see to left and right than to up and down, because action will be mor eor lees at your same height Fer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Hook" <ho...@py...> To: <gam...@li...> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 1:05 AM Subject: Re: [GD-Design] (GUI) Playfield aspect ratio >I think it depends on games, I think in general FPS games for >example is more important the wide than the height because u usually >fight on almost your same level(as u move horizontally, in other >games an square is preferred, I think it is a matter of what the >game is about Sure, no disagreement there, but then I try to figure out why Warcraft 3 is widescreen. I'm assuming Blizzard put a bunch of thought into it, but I can't for the life figure out why it would be that way. Brian ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-design mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU6 |
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-04-07 04:25:47
|
>Interestingly, Command and Conquer had a sidebar HUD for many= years, >but recently switched to a horizontal bar with their latest= game >(C&C Generals). Right, I've noticed this as a trend in general, which is why I= posted =3D) Basically I'm trying to figure out if it's style or= substance. I don't think Blizzard is the kind of company to make a decision= like that arbitrarily, so I figure there's a reason, but figuring it= out is a pain. Scanning left to right would seem to be more natural to many, but= with a game that's effectively top down, having a full playfield= would seem to make more sense and offer a greater advantage and= it's probably not so unnatural that it would offset the utility of the= format (especially given many early games used the 'L' shaped= HUD). Brian |
|
From: Erin D. <ed...@re...> - 2003-04-07 04:19:36
|
I don't know the real reasons behind Blizzard's choice, but I suspect = it's because scanning horizontally is easier for the brain than scanning = vertically (reading left-right and all that). Interestingly, Command and Conquer had a sidebar HUD for many years, but = recently switched to a horizontal bar with their latest game (C&C = Generals). edaly -----Original Message----- From: Brian Hook [mailto:ho...@py...] Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 9:09 PM To: gam...@li... Subject: RE: [GD-Design] (GUI) Playfield aspect ratio >I think the reason most RTS's clump all the HUD elements together is >for speed and accessibility. =20 Fair enough, but given the choice of a vertical bar that gives you a=20 square playfield, or a horizontal bar that gives you a widescreen=20 playfield, why choose the widescreen? The screen already starts out=20 in a widescreen aspect, and then it gets exacerbated by having HUD=20 elements laid out horizontally. That's what I'm trying to figure out. Brian ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb:=20 Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth!=20 No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-design mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU6 |
8 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
