UI discussion - Page 2

UI discussion

Discuss game development here, from a distinct game project to an accessible third-party mutator, down to the interaction and design of individual units if you like.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Jools
XTA Developer
Posts: 2804
Joined: 23 Feb 2009, 16:29

Re: UI discussion

Post by Jools » 18 May 2015, 15:08

tzaeru wrote: EDIT: Wait, now I'm super-confused. Wasn't this BAR related in the first place? Now it's just a general UI topic?
The second post was edited by an anonymous moderator, it was likely moved to the general forum.
Last edited by Jools on 18 May 2015, 19:14, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20668
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Re: UI discussion

Post by AF » 18 May 2015, 18:04

Of course you never show off enough Smoth, you're a tease, you even create forum threads about your junk yet I've never seen so much as a hair..
0 x

D2158
Posts: 4
Joined: 08 Apr 2015, 14:14

Re: UI discussion

Post by D2158 » 18 May 2015, 18:50

I don't think the current BAR UI will appeal to BA players and could hinder adoption of BAR

RedUI isn't exactly cosmetically pleasing but it is functional and efficient
if it is to be replaced replace it with something that will be familiar to BA players


I wonder if instead of releasing BAR as a separate game, it could be released to run alongside BA and both versions could connect to the same server
this could be like a transitional period

the loading screens of BA could be changed to advertisements for BAR
an extra column could be added to springlobby showing which game version players are using to connect (BA or BAR)
this could help peak player interest and speed up adoption

but BAR would need to be somewhat familiar to BA players, it is bad enough having to learn new unit models,
a completely different UI could be a step to far

that's not to say these things couldn't be changed in future
but priority one should be getting BA players playing BAR and you need to make the transition as painless as possible
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22295
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: UI discussion

Post by smoth » 18 May 2015, 19:40

D2158 wrote:I don't think the current BAR UI will appeal to BA players and could hinder adoption of BAR
What can be done better?
D2158 wrote:RedUI isn't exactly cosmetically pleasing but it is functional and efficient
if it is to be replaced replace it with something that will be familiar to BA players
redui isn't it's widgets. I keep trying to tell people chili is not the ZK gui widgets. Redui as a framework is limited. What particular Redui gui elements do you like, because of the nature of spring and widgets, it should be possible to port them to chili and then make them available to the community.

D2158 wrote:I wonder if instead of releasing BAR as a separate game, it could be released to run alongside BA and both versions could connect to the same server
this could be like a transitional period
That is an interesting idea but odds are it will depend on the hosts. Normally I would say rip the bandaid off and just outright replace it. HOWEVER, there will be bugs and having both available is a good idea!
D2158 wrote:the loading screens of BA could be changed to advertisements for BAR
an extra column could be added to springlobby showing which game version players are using to connect (BA or BAR)
this could help peak player interest and speed up adoption
Also an EXCELLENT IDEA!

Thank you for the detailed post, kudos!
0 x

raaar
Metal Factions Developer
Posts: 807
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 12:17

Re: UI discussion

Post by raaar » 19 May 2015, 05:59

D2158 wrote: RedUI isn't exactly cosmetically pleasing but it is functional and efficient
if it is to be replaced replace it with something that will be familiar to BA players
I picked it for my game because the BA UI seemed closer to what I wanted, just needed filtering, spacing and facing buttons and a tooltip with more information. Picking a Chilli-based UI and moving back from it seems like lots more trouble (I have other priorities).

My tooltip doesn't even use Red UI..I just set the border and background to match. It's based on a simple text replacement widget from KP, that's why it has limited formatting. But i'd say it's pretty space efficient considering the font size isn't tiny.

One way to improve consistency in sizes is using icons. Icons need a tooltip explaining them (may mean more work). And if you need lots of different ones it can confuse new players (it's much easier to call something by its name than to describe the icon).

Using chili framework, there seem to be either :
A- proofs of concept or widgets for specific purposes (testing, design aid, etc. Smoth's examples look nothing like rts UI)
B- full UI implementations that differ significantly from *A game UI (ZK and EVO)
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14575
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: UI discussion

Post by Forboding Angel » 19 May 2015, 06:15

Lets try this again... viewtopic.php?f=86&t=33404
0 x

gajop
Moderator
Posts: 3022
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 20:42

Re: UI discussion

Post by gajop » 19 May 2015, 06:36

Just to be clear, player feedback on what framework to use it not welcome. They're not technical enough to be making these kind of decisions or suggestions.
It's perfectly fine to complain about particular UIs though, but don't imply that chili has a certain unique look or interface, as you can pretty much do anything with it.
0 x

User avatar
Jools
XTA Developer
Posts: 2804
Joined: 23 Feb 2009, 16:29

Re: UI discussion

Post by Jools » 19 May 2015, 07:06

You expect players to know how to separate the framework from the UI? Maybe you should explain the difference and also why feedback is not welcome for the framework. Imo feedback should always be welcome or you're doing something wrong (there are courses in how to handle non-constructive feedback).

Maybe a lot of the feedback is not constructive but it's also not constructive to shoot the messenger. The UI won't be better just because you kill off everyone who criticises it.
0 x

gajop
Moderator
Posts: 3022
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 20:42

Re: UI discussion

Post by gajop » 19 May 2015, 07:18

Jools wrote:You expect players to know how to separate the framework from the UI?
If you visit these forums, yep.
Jools wrote: Maybe you should explain the difference
Maybe you should google "framework".
Jools wrote: and also why feedback is not welcome for the framework.
See my previous post.
Jools wrote: Imo feedback should always be welcome or you're doing something wrong.
Not really. Players should only comment on the game (product) as they see/use it.
It's none of their concern how it's developed or designed, unless they're interested to participate in it, which doesn't make them just "players" anymore.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22295
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: UI discussion

Post by smoth » 19 May 2015, 07:31

D2158 wrote:bad ui
Useless bullshit like this doesn't help devs make it better
D2158 wrote:replace with red ui please
because why?

No jools, users have zero say in the ui framework. If there is a bug hey great report it but the above 2 posts are the kind of stuff that is worthless.
0 x

User avatar
Jools
XTA Developer
Posts: 2804
Joined: 23 Feb 2009, 16:29

Re: UI discussion

Post by Jools » 19 May 2015, 07:58

gajop wrote: Not really. Players should only comment on the game (product) as they see/use it.
That's what they are doing and that's where you told them to not to give feedback on the 'framework'
0 x

User avatar
PicassoCT
Journeywar Developer & Mapper
Posts: 10207
Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 21:12

Re: UI discussion

Post by PicassoCT » 23 Jul 2015, 10:42

The problem is - you have games with organic growth.. things constantly change. So the classic approach of ui-design as seen in companys would not work in open source. You can do a great stair and benches in a cathedral.. you can do a great stair on a basar- but where it leads too might be in disarray next week, and gone by next month.

So a default gui in a open source project, is something that is auto-generated. Everything else is prone to ghost-townnism and bitter feelings due to wasted work.
0 x

User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5302
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: UI discussion

Post by Jazcash » 23 Jul 2015, 18:48

Image

Cremuss did this a few years ago - Just want to see what people think of it these days.
0 x

User avatar
PicassoCT
Journeywar Developer & Mapper
Posts: 10207
Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 21:12

Re: UI discussion

Post by PicassoCT » 23 Jul 2015, 19:27

Its minimalism done right

There are limitations to number and depth of menues..

Advanced Options must be hidden by default - with a Show advanced options checkbox.
Or they must be selectable via using a existing button as a "hold and move any direction submenue"..

http://www.cremuss.net/UI.html

Basically GUIs are for beginner, so complexity hiding is a art there.. and the standard gui is actually quite good at this. Basics only.. meaning buildoptions and standard orders.
0 x

Orfelius
Posts: 103
Joined: 17 Nov 2014, 20:57

Re: UI discussion

Post by Orfelius » 10 Aug 2015, 03:01

Can I just say that this screenshot is golden Jazcash?
But then it might be just because I have played Starcraft and ZK more than BA so I am more used to their layouts.

And to everybody saying that engine UI is good: yeah it is good for the 90s of the past century.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14575
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: UI discussion

Post by Forboding Angel » 10 Aug 2015, 06:11

Orfelius wrote:Can I just say that this screenshot is golden Jazcash?
But then it might be just because I have played Starcraft and ZK more than BA so I am more used to their layouts.

And to everybody saying that engine UI is good: yeah it is good for the 90s of the past century.
That's not a screenshot. That is a shop that cremuss made when supcom 1 was still a new game.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Game Development”