Thread: RE: GameRankings.com was Re: [GD-Design] Re: Gamedevlists-design digest, Vol 1 #38 - 10 msgs
Brought to you by:
vexxed72
Menu
▾
▴
gamedevlists-design
|
From: Tom F. <to...@mu...> - 2003-02-27 19:52:23
|
Apparently, some publishers pay an unhealthy amount of notice to gamerankings.com. Be afraid. Be very afraid. 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: 27 February 2003 19:47 > To: gam...@li...; > gam...@li... > Subject: GameRankings.com was Re: [GD-Design] Re: Gamedevlists-design > digest, Vol 1 #38 - 10 msgs > > > Phil brings up a really good site, gamerankings.com, which I didn't > discover until a week or so ago. > > The main thing I find interesting is how many love some games that I > deplored, although I have yet to find a game I really liked that was > generally derided. > > Brian > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > 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...> - 2003-02-27 20:41:00
|
>Apparently, some publishers pay an unhealthy amount of notice= to >gamerankings.com. Be afraid. Be very afraid. I'd rather be judged on the aggregate opinion of multiple sites= and users than just on a few select sites. Unless the game is selling mad, then I want to be judged on= sales. But if it sells poorly with good reviews, I want them to= concentrate on the positive reviews =3D) Brian |
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-04-07 02:22:43
|
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 |
|
From: Fernando S. <fs...@fi...> - 2003-04-07 03:46:42
|
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 Fer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Hook" <ho...@py...> To: <gam...@li...> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 11:22 PM 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 04:06:03
|
>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 |
|
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: 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: 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: <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: 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. <bri...@py...> - 2003-07-18 16:10:16
|
I've been playing a lot of games recently, and by and large most of them have atrocious user interfaces -- Zelda: Legend of the Wind Waker has come the closest to having a very well done interface + transparent tutorial. I finally got around to reading About Face 2.0, which is a highly recommended book on user interaction design, and I just thought I'd put in my recommendation to those of you interested in doing intuitive interfaces. Brian |
|
From: mitea <mi...@bb...> - 2003-07-18 19:51:27
|
Sure, shoot away! ---------------------------------- Peace and love, Tweety mi...@bb... - twe...@us... YahooID: tweety_04_01 > -----Original Message----- > From: gam...@li... > [mailto:gam...@li...] On > Behalf Of Brian Hook > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 7:10 PM > To: gam...@li... > Subject: [GD-Design] About Face 2.0 > > > I've been playing a lot of games recently, and by and large most of > them have atrocious user interfaces -- Zelda: Legend of the > Wind Waker > has come the closest to having a very well done interface + > transparent tutorial. > > I finally got around to reading About Face 2.0, which is a highly > recommended book on user interaction design, and I just thought I'd > put in my recommendation to those of you interested in doing > intuitive > interfaces. > > Brian > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: VM Ware > With VMware you can run multiple operating systems on a > single machine. > WITHOUT REBOOTING! Mix Linux / Windows / Novell virtual > machines at the > same time. Free trial click here: http://www.vmware.com/wl/offer/345/0 > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-design mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design > Archives: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU6 > |
×
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