Thread: RE: [GD-Design] (GUI) Playfield aspect ratio
Brought to you by:
vexxed72
Menu
▾
▴
gamedevlists-design
|
From: Erin D. <ed...@re...> - 2003-04-07 04:05:09
|
I think one major distinction to make is whether the game requires you = to view the HUD elements, or interact with them using a mouse. In an = FPS, you only need to view your health, ammo count, current weapon, etc. = In an RTS, you need to click on the command icons, the build icons, the = mini-map, etc. I think the reason most RTS's clump all the HUD elements together is for = speed and accessibility. Mouse movements are minimized when the HUD = elements are closer together, and it's arguably easier to locate the = element you need when you have a contained area to search in. Most RTS's will place non-interactive HUD elements in other locations on = screen, such as the resource count / population count which are usually = at the top of the screen. edaly -----Original Message----- From: Brian Hook [mailto:ho...@py...] Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 7:23 PM To: gam...@li... Subject: [GD-Design] (GUI) Playfield aspect ratio Okay, this is one of the more esoteric observations I'll make, but I=20 have to ask since it's been bugging me. For games with HUD elements, the typical choice you see is to either=20 place the elements along the bottom, or possibly along the bottom and=20 one side. To me, placing elements in an L or reverse L makes a lot more sense,=20 since you get a playfield area that is much closer to square than a=20 typical 4:3 or 16:9. This is desirable because it gives you an equal=20 amount of play room in both directions. However I've noticed that some games, such as Warcraft 3, put all the=20 GUI elements along the top and bottom, and this in turn actually=20 accentuates the rectangularity of the playfield. You get an extreme=20 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=20 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=20 I'm missing? 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 |
|
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 |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-04-07 04:08:46
|
>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. Brian |
|
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: 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: 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: 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. |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X