54 réponses à ce sujet

[Schreckstoff]

But grids is too much like spreadsheets! Spreadsheets are bad! -Todd Howard (Paraphrased)

Scrolling's bad and frustrating, if common knowledge is that you learn more from failure than success, Bioware should be the best UI and GUI designers ever, because Mass Effect 1's GUI (especially inventory) was the most catastrophic failure I've ever seen.

One of my personal favorite GUI things was the Thumbnail Grid with equipment-relevant tooltips you could mouse over in Morrowind's PC GUI. I have no idea why Elder Scrolls ever moved away from that. (Inb4 Consoles)

Morrowind was on console

[AlanC9]

Morrowind was on console

Anyone play it on console? How well did it work?

[AlanC9]

Except I can poke holes in that definition all day. By that definition, Tiger Woods, Zelda and Call of Duty are RPGs, while Crono Trigger, Ultima 1-3 and Wizardry are not.

Right. So change "singular character" to "one or more characters."

Of course, this makes your problem even worse since now "RPG" tells us that much less about the game.

[Fast Jimmy]

Right. So change "singular character" to "one or more characters."

 

And we're right back to where we started. Leveling (of some sort), item collection (of some sort) and/or control of one or more characters is practically every game that's come out in the past 10 years. GTA is now an RPG. Modern Warfare is now an RPG. FIFA is now an RPG.

[Deflagratio]

Morrowind was on console

 

I know, but it was eminently a PC game. Actually, I played it on XBOX first so...

 

Anyone play it on console? How well did it work?

 

Not great. But in my opinion, no worse than Oblivion or Skyrim after it. The biggest issue was the journal system, which itself was its own interface trainwreck. That's about the only thing Oblivion and Skyrim improved, and even then... I feel a lot was lost in the translation from a mock-up of a physical "Journal" to more like an app GUI.

 

I'd say Morrowind's GUI on Console was a lot like Dark Souls 2. Except you don't have to worry about Red Phantoms killing you in Morrowind's menus. For the PC they used nice tiled windows that you could resize, drag and drop, and even "Pin" to the HUD, so you could see a detailed character sheet while exploring if you wanted. (Or better, a larger map)

[Fast Jimmy]

I know, but it was eminently a PC game. Actually, I played it on XBOX first so...

 

 

Not great. But in my opinion, no worse than Oblivion or Skyrim after it. The biggest issue was the journal system, which itself was its own interface trainwreck. That's about the only thing Oblivion and Skyrim improved, and even then... I feel a lot was lost in the translation from a mock-up of a physical "Journal" to more like an app GUI.

 

I'd say Morrowind's GUI on Console was a lot like Dark Souls 2. Except you don't have to worry about Red Phantoms killing you in Morrowind's menus. For the PC they used nice tiled windows that you could resize, drag and drop, and even "Pin" to the HUD, so you could see a detailed character sheet while exploring if you wanted. (Or better, a larger map)

 

I'd have to kindly disagree. Dialogue alone was a NIGHTMARE in Morrowind on XBox. I mean... scrolling through that huge long list, trying to find that one item you need, having to sift through all the useless stuff you didn't want to access, was BEYOND annoying. Who would design a system where things were organized that? It was... just... err....

 

[Gamemako]

It really isn't. Diablo works much better with a mouse+keyboard.

I've always felt that Diablo and its ilk suffered for abusing the LMB. It's basically the same everything-button problem that PC players railed against with ME3, except even more integral to play. You click on something to attack, or move, or cast, or pick up an item. Torchlight II had a particular habit of never knowing where you were clicking or whether to run to the opposite side of the screen and attack a pile of angry minotaurs because the game targeted one for you and decided your Outlander needed more melee time. I've not played Diablo 3 on console and cannot comment on how the interface was adapted, but it doesn't strike me as remotely difficult to execute, especially with the MOBA-esque skillbar.

[AlanC9]

And we're right back to where we started. Leveling (of some sort), item collection (of some sort) and/or control of one or more characters is practically every game that's come out in the past 10 years. GTA is now an RPG. Modern Warfare is now an RPG. FIFA is now an RPG.

What's your alternative? Should the developers get together and pick a more specific definition of RPG out of a hat? Asking us fans for one won't get them anywhere, obviously.

[Fast Jimmy]

What's your alternative? Should the developers get together and pick a more specific definition of RPG out of a hat? Asking us fans for one won't get them anywhere, obviously.

Actually, yes. That's exactly what they should do (not asking the fans, but the industry picking a definition - but not out of a hat).

One would think it is COMPLETELY unheard of for industries to define service and product definitions to ensure advertising is accurate and equal. When people talk about "3G," "4G" or "LTE" network speeds for mobile devices, these weren't terms pulled out of thin air - they were terms the industry met on and came to a consensus about, so Sprint couldn't say an LTE network was one speed and AT&T be calling the same service quality 3G.

But that's exactly what is happening in gaming - a company can call a game an RPG without the consumer having any real clue what that entails. It's basically been boiled down to any game that deals with numbers that isn't specifically a strategy/simulation game.

[In Exile]

Actually, yes. That's exactly what they should do (not asking the fans, but the industry picking a definition - but not out of a hat).

One would think it is COMPLETELY unheard of for industries to define service and product definitions to ensure advertising is accurate and equal. When people talk about "3G," "4G" or "LTE" network speeds for mobile devices, these weren't terms pulled out of thin air - they were terms the industry met on and came to a consensus about, so Sprint couldn't say an LTE network was one speed and AT&T be calling the same service quality 3G.

But that's exactly what is happening in gaming - a company can call a game an RPG without the consumer having any real clue what that entails. It's basically been boiled down to any game that deals with numbers that isn't specifically a strategy/simulation game.

 

It's a heuristic. That there isn't an unitary definition doesn't mean that there's no definition at all; and often it is the coverage of the game that gathers the label "RPG" versus the company itself. For example, Bioware insists that it makes action-RPGs, and has taken this stance since at least DA:O. 

 

The simple reality is that we can't get a consensus on what a particular genre in a video-game really should mean because the developers themselves can't ever agree on it, just like gamers can't.

 

Just take Fallout. Is it an RPG? It has more complex stats - and a better ruleset - than DA:O. Is it an FPS? It plays like one, especially in FO:NV, which was made by Obsidian, who actually expanded the dialogue/skill side. It's all too fluid. 

[Galactus_the_Devourer]

Well, Fallout is an isometric, turn-based RPG. It's fairly easily classifiable I'd say.

 

That said, It's not exactly on-topic. I think a lot of the interface issues would apply no matter if the game was a Grand Strategy Game or an FPS. (like never having any information more than two clicks away from any other screen, etc.) 

[Fast Jimmy]

It's a heuristic. That there isn't an unitary definition doesn't mean that there's no definition at all; and often it is the coverage of the game that gathers the label "RPG" versus the company itself. For example, Bioware insists that it makes action-RPGs, and has taken this stance since at least DA:O.

The simple reality is that we can't get a consensus on what a particular genre in a video-game really should mean because the developers themselves can't ever agree on it, just like gamers can't.

Just take Fallout. Is it an RPG? It has more complex stats - and a better ruleset - than DA:O. Is it an FPS? It plays like one, especially in FO:NV, which was made by Obsidian, who actually expanded the dialogue/skill side. It's all too fluid.

Which is why an entire set of RPG subsets should be properly outlined. Because even the term ARPG can span a single character full-action game like Dragon's Dogma, a game that can be played with party pause and play like Dragon Age, a First Person Shooter with stats and equipment like Mass Effect, a top-down dungeon crawler like Diablo and a whole host of games in between. Essentially, it only makes a turn based RPG a "plain" RPG (or, perhaps, something like a dating sim, which is ALL dialogue choices, but that begins to border adventure games with dialogue choices...).

ARPG has been watered down more than the term RPG has, really. If ARPGs are left as broad of a defintion as it currently is, the term "RPG" only has to contend with if JRPGs fall into that category or should be broken off (although into something called anything other than JRPGs - it is not a good idea to give the impression that geography has anything to do with things.

[Fast Jimmy]

Well, Fallout is an isometric, turn-based RPG. It's fairly easily classifiable I'd say.
 
That said, It's not exactly on-topic. I think a lot of the interface issues would apply no matter if the game was a Grand Strategy Game or an FPS. (like never having any information more than two clicks away from any other screen, etc.)

I think Alan was referring to FO3 and NV more than 1 & 2.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

To Bioware and other game developers out there,  

 

When making an interface for a PC version of a game, just use SkyUI as a reference and go from there. That is still the best interface in a game so far. It is concise, clear, has search functions, categorizations,etc.

 

Don't need to do anything else. Just look at SkyUI and build the DA:I interface based on that. PC gamers will be very happy with that. 

 

Sincerely,

PC gamers. 

[AlanC9]

One would think it is COMPLETELY unheard of for industries to define service and product definitions to ensure advertising is accurate and equal. When people talk about "3G," "4G" or "LTE" network speeds for mobile devices, these weren't terms pulled out of thin air - they were terms the industry met on and came to a consensus about, so Sprint couldn't say an LTE network was one speed and AT&T be calling the same service quality 3G.

Didn't the effort to define a 4G standard fall apart when nobody followed the standard?

This is a pretty lousy example anyway. Wireless providers are all trying to do more-or-less the same thing with their systems. RPG developers are not. Come up with a definition of RPG that includes The Witcher, Skyrim, and ME2 and it will be vacuous. Come up with a more-precise definition that excludes one of these games and that developer has a big incentive to ignore the standard.

[Vumba the Wild Elf]

I work with computers, the interface issues will depend on which system you are playing

[Fast Jimmy]

Didn't the effort to define a 4G standard fall apart when nobody followed the standard?
This is a pretty lousy example anyway. Wireless providers are all trying to do more-or-less the same thing with their systems. RPG developers are not.

I actually chose it for this VERY reason. When Sprint ignored the definition and started calling their 3G networks 4G, the industry set the next benchmark and made it more specific (and better named with LTE, since Sprint said that its network speed was 4G, but not neccessarily the Fourth Generation that would need to meet the guidelines provided). Ambiguity was rooted out and now there is a clear understanding of speed and quality.

Come up with a definition of RPG that includes The Witcher, Skyrim, and ME2 and it will be vacuous. Come up with a more-precise definition that excludes one of these games and that developer has a big incentive to ignore the standard.

You're missing what I'm saying - defining RPG as one type would be too vacuous. There needs to be numerous subsets to the genre. Or, at the least, commonly used and clearly defined clarifiers.

I think "single-character combat with reflex skill checks and cinematic story-telling with multiple dialogue choices that result in divergent story lines" accurately describes The Witcher for everything a player would need to know. It is also a huge mouthful. If, instead, that genre (or even the different elements like combat or dialogue) could be spelled out in a quick buzz word or two, that would be immensely helpful.

[AlanC9]

You're missing what I'm saying - defining RPG as one type would be too vacuous. There needs to be numerous subsets to the genre. Or, at the least, commonly used and clearly defined clarifiers.

I think "single-character combat with reflex skill checks and cinematic story-telling with multiple dialogue choices that result in divergent story lines" accurately describes The Witcher for everything a player would need to know. It is also a huge mouthful. If, instead, that genre (or even the different elements like combat or dialogue) could be spelled out in a quick buzz word or two, that would be immensely helpful.

What's the incentive for RPG companies to break up the RPG category, though? How does doing this help them? Again, the incentives for having an LTE standard were different.

I'm not convinced there's a real problem here in the first place. You and I obviously don't have it. Can you point me to someone who did?

[Fast Jimmy]

What's the incentive for RPG companies to break up the RPG category, though? How does doing this help them? Again, the incentives for having an LTE standard were different.

I'm not convinced there's a real problem here in the first place. You and I obviously don't have it. Can you point me to someone who did?

 

I'd say I do have it. Because a company like Bioware can't use straight industry-defined terms to describe the mechanics of their game, I'm still not sure if DA:I is even going to be a game I'm interested in or not. Just as an example.

 

If needing to be shown something in a demo to truly understand it were a requirement just to under every product on earth, the entire commerce system would cease to function. If I have to see someone eat a fruit to know if I'm buying a grape or an avocado, there's a problem.

[Glaso]

A reminder to the devs: a pc has a friggin' mouse with at least two clicks and a wheel, it can be used to control the interface efficiently, quit f*cking around with consoles and get a real UI designer, the lists and scrolling are not going to cut it.

[AlanC9]

I'd say I do have it. Because a company like Bioware can't use straight industry-defined terms to describe the mechanics of their game, I'm still not sure if DA:I is even going to be a game I'm interested in or not. Just as an example..

Hmm. What do you need to know that you don't know?

[Fast Jimmy]

Hmm. What do you need to know that you don't know?

 

Combat, in general. Laidlaw can't go more than three seconds into a combat demo without hopping down right into the action-style third person view, button mashing and skill spamming. That's how he rolls - he likes action combat and controlling one character a lot of the time. But anyone who has seen fifteen seconds of any demo of the game so far has seen exactly what they keep showing over and over again. We've gotten a little more on the camera and other things recently, but at this point, I'd like a real demo of someone who'd play the game even remotely like I do, not someone who pauses, gives three commands, and then goes back to action gameplay.

 

Secondly, we've gotten next to no discussion about the Tactics system. One of my biggest complaints about the DA games was the need to go in and manually re-set up tactics every level up. It is a huge pain. The pre-defined templates that would auto-assign skills (which could then be tweaked if needed) do not include anything about potion usage. So in order to have any character I have use a potion if their health gets dangerously low (what should be natural instinct, at the very least) is to set up custom tactics and manually update every new skill I unlock. Things like this make me wonder what they are doing (if anything) with the Tactics system, since they definitely aren't talking about it.

 

Lastly, dialogue. We hear statements about the different wheels, the improved paraphrasing, the banter that lets us choose responses... yet we've seen only very scripted dialogue, where our responses are still barreling down towards one outcome (you mean we're going to fight the evil Mage in this discussion?! I'm BLOWN AWAY). Why not show some less flashy discussion, like someone in a market or part of a companion dialogue? I have no idea how any of these new mechanics will actually appear in game, let alone if they might actually work to give some agency to me as a player in how I roleplay my character.

 

 

 

 

Clear definitions might not answer all of these questions for me... but, by the same token, if Bioware said this was a "Furble dibble RPG" I'd know what the bar was set at, because Bioware's track record making Furble dibble RPGs (as opposed to Rio Damio RPGs) was good/bad/indifferent, or that other developers had released Furble Dibble RPGs and Bioware would know they would be compared or measured against these.

 

 

Point being, the current definition of an RPG lets any game be an RPG while, simultaneously, not making any RPG alike at all, where drawing clear comparisons between, say, The Witcher And DA is impossible because we can't even compare what aspects make up an RPG.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Jimmy's right.  Two people can both claim to like RPGs, and yet never both enjoy the same game.

 

I don't think the Final Fantasy games are RPGs.  For some, though, Final Fantasy defines the genre, and everything is an RPG only insofar as it resembles Final Fantasy.

 

I'll concede that The Witcher in an RPG, but I don't like it for reasons that have little to do with its RPG-ness.  But I dislike DA2 largely because of its lack of RPG-ness (in my eyes), though other posters here both enjoy it and think it's a good RPG.

 

Some will argue that no computer game is a proper RPG.  Some will argue that a computer game can only be an RPG to the extent that it mimics a tabletop RPG.

 

But without some agreed upon definition, the label is effectively meaningless.

[Zhijn]

For a game that has that medieval type of setting the UI is kinda "annoying" me, its so arcade like with some very bright colors that really stands out when you seem them enter combat during the gameplay demo. And it feels so squar like, almost futuristic.

 

... Yeah thats probably my biggest beef with what iv seen so fare of DAI. Considering it just the UI heres to hoping it can actually be modded.