Incline Post User Interface Pet Peeves And Gripes In Paradox Or Other [Map & Menu] Games

[Axioms]

So anyone who plays menu heavy games and especially CK2 vs CK3 is aware of the "adaptive/recursive" tooltips in new generation Paradox games, which they absorbed from Jon Shafer during the time he worked there. He really developed and pushed the idea back in 2015-2016 as something new and innovative in At The Gates, his post Civilization personal game project.

The UI in Illwinter games is very basic and workmanlike. Distant Worlds 1-U-2 are games with lots of discussion over the menu and UI. Paradox has been mentioned. Tons of strategy adjacent games like Shadows Of Forbidden Gods, Star Dynasties, Waiting For The Raven, and so forth have negative reviews that are 80% UI complaints.

And of course Dwarf Fortress is a game with a famous UI saga and various mods and tools related to that.

A lot of times you'll think something like: "I wish I had a panel with [insert game data] on the Diplomacy or Befriend or Assassinate screen. Or for DW 1-U-2 maybe some more info about resource availability."

It sucks to click around different menus to get some piece of info before going back to the menu that lets you do the thing you wanted to do.

As many games advance to their second, third, or fourth iteration they grind away a little bit, at the UI complaints. So the remaining complaints can be more interesting and less obvious than basic stuff that everyone is aware.

People love to complain. Please complain about UI pet peeves here. Thanks.

 

[tindrli]

i dont know.. they are all fine. including AURORA

 

[Comte]

Urmom

 

[man-erg]

No Gary Grigsby games? Lists of numbers with no captions. e.g. "AD 4.5 (7*) 3/2 45,878,789++" is typically how his games report info.

Anyway, my current main annoyance in strategy games is annoying noises every time you move the mouse. Burps, farts, rumbles so low the neighbours complain. And all because you moved the mouse over a forest or an tile with a resource.

Oh yeah, the other latest annoying fad - report screens, inventory, info screens that *move*. Like rippling in the wind. Or flicker with static and other weird graphic effects. Stay still when I'm trying to read you! It's not immersive, it's irritating.

 

[thesecret1]

I hate it when these games throw 20 different numbers at me at once, with a vague descriptor next to them and no tooltip/other explanation available other than consulting the manual or playing the tutorial. Of course, after drowning a couple hours in the game, you will have learned what each of them means (and, quite likely, that 18 of those 20 are only relevant once in a blue moon while the remaining two are absolutely crucial for everything... would be great if they were somehow better grouped, but I digress), but it's usually the first hour or two that's the most important – the learning curve tends to be steep, oftentimes needlessly, and makes getting into the game painful. Various smaller studio games are particularly rife with this shit, Paradox has at least learned that there's no reason not to just slap a tooltip onto everything, and have basically the game's whole "manual" present in that form. In general, Paradox seems to have the best UI among those games, clearly putting a lot of focus on it (I particularly like CK2's – it's very clean and doesn't nest too much), while most others tend to treat it as more of an afterthought. Too bad it's the only thing Paradox is good at.

 

[NerevarineKing]

Civ 4's UI is so much better than 5/6's.

 

[Axioms]

I hate it when these games throw 20 different numbers at me at once, with a vague descriptor next to them and no tooltip/other explanation available other than consulting the manual or playing the tutorial. Of course, after drowning a couple hours in the game, you will have learned what each of them means (and, quite likely, that 18 of those 20 are only relevant once in a blue moon while the remaining two are absolutely crucial for everything... would be great if they were somehow better grouped, but I digress), but it's usually the first hour or two that's the most important – the learning curve tends to be steep, oftentimes needlessly, and makes getting into the game painful. Various smaller studio games are particularly rife with this shit, Paradox has at least learned that there's no reason not to just slap a tooltip onto everything, and have basically the game's whole "manual" present in that form. In general, Paradox seems to have the best UI among those games, clearly putting a lot of focus on it (I particularly like CK2's – it's very clean and doesn't nest too much), while most others tend to treat it as more of an afterthought. Too bad it's the only thing Paradox is good at.

Paradox is good at it primarily because regular indie studios can't afford 10 UI guys per game and because they copied Jon Shafer's UI innovations. Although I think their UIs could be a lot better.

 

[thesecret1]

Paradox is good at it primarily because regular indie studios can't afford 10 UI guys per game and because they copied Jon Shafer's UI innovations. Although I think their UIs could be a lot better.

10 UI guys? It's nothing so drastic. Usually you have a UI designer who takes care of the frontend (positions all the UI widgets, makes sure they work on all supported resolutions, makes them look all nice and change colors when clicked and all that shit) and a programmer doing the backend (makes sure clicking the button actually does anything, connects the displayed numbers to game logic, etc.). For the programmer, it's just one of many tasks, he doesn't need to be 100% dedicated to UI because it's all fairly simple stuff. In a very small studio, it wouldn't be surprising to see the UI designer and programmer be the same guy.

Besides, it's not like Paradox does anything technically harder with the UI than the smaller studios – a couple windows sliding out, buttons... It's really nothing too complicated. Sure, it all gets a lot more stylized, but even if it had zero stylization, it would still be a solid UI. To me it seems more like the smaller studios either don't care, or don't know how to design a good UI.

 

[Axioms]

Paradox is good at it primarily because regular indie studios can't afford 10 UI guys per game and because they copied Jon Shafer's UI innovations. Although I think their UIs could be a lot better.

10 UI guys? It's nothing so drastic. Usually you have a UI designer who takes care of the frontend (positions all the UI widgets, makes sure they work on all supported resolutions, makes them look all nice and change colors when clicked and all that shit) and a programmer doing the backend (makes sure clicking the button actually does anything, connects the displayed numbers to game logic, etc.). For the programmer, it's just one of many tasks, he doesn't need to be 100% dedicated to UI because it's all fairly simple stuff. In a very small studio, it wouldn't be surprising to see the UI designer and programmer be the same guy.

Besides, it's not like Paradox does anything technically harder with the UI than the smaller studios – a couple windows sliding out, buttons... It's really nothing too complicated. Sure, it all gets a lot more stylized, but even if it had zero stylization, it would still be a solid UI. To me it seems more like the smaller studios either don't care, or don't know how to design a good UI.

Having dedicated UI staff, that all have tons of previous UI experience, especially on the same engine over decades, makes a huge different vs a first time indie guy. They have all this data on what players complained about in previous games in the exact same genre/engine also which most people don't have.

 

[thesecret1]

Having dedicated UI staff, that all have tons of previous UI experience, especially on the same engine over decades, makes a huge different vs a first time indie guy. They have all this data on what players complained about in previous games in the exact same genre/engine also which most people don't have.

Well, few of them are "first time indie guys" – many of these studios have made more than one game, and you could argue the exact same with literally any system the game possesses. If they don't have the data, then they should simply copy the design from some other, successful game in the genre rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

Having at least a decent UI is not that hard if you give it enough focus, and is arguably one of the most important things the game has – if you have a shit UI, a lot of your potential customers will say "Wow, that looks like shit" and not buy it, or buy it, go "This controls terribly and I can't make heads or tails of whatever the fuck it's trying to tell me", and refund it. Having a good UI in a game like this should be the paramount focus. Players will of course talk a lot about how what they want the most is deep mechanics, simulationist world, detailed information about economy, etc. but that's because they already ASSUME that the UI is going to be decent. If it's shit, a lot of them won't even give the game a chance, and it's probably the main reason why, despite there obviously being target for such games (just look how many people play Paradox's GSGs), all these smaller games cannot seem to capture it, despite often having deeper, better mechanics than Paradox.

In fact, let's do a little real world comparison of games in the same genre, using the number of steam reviews as a rudimentary measure of the title's popularity:
Order of Battle: World War II – 2,435 reviews. The game manages to look simple yet pretty enough, the UI is minimal and functional, game's mechanics are super simple that even a complete moron can learn them in 20 minutes tops, and the game gives you all the information you need in a very readable and intuitive format. Mechanically, the game is quite shallow, it's more of a deeper RISK game than a proper wargame
Strategic Command WWII: World at War – 343 reviews. The game looks uglier and the UI is more complicated, but in terms of mechanics, it's really very similar to Order of Battle, just with the mechanics being deeper and a couple added on top. As far as usability goes, the UI is decent – it has this "cheap" feel to it and could be better in a number of ways, but is still perfectly serviceable. You need to read the manual to learn how to play the game (fortunately, it is very well done and very readable), most of the things displayed by UI being self-explanatory, but also some places where the manual's explanation is necessary. Generally, the game manages to be fairly deep despite a simple ruleset, and a joy to play.
Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 – 56 reviews. Game looks worse, but serviceable, UI looks like an autistic, bloated mess. Nothing is self-explanatory, manual is indispensable and will likely need to be consulted numerous times before the knowledge sticks. Mechanically, the game is deeper than either of the two on numerous fronts, yet it doesn't matter, because almost none of the target group will actually give it a chance.

All three games are turn-based wargames that all have the same, shared basics on how combat works (with wildly different levels of complexity, of course) and work on some of the same premises (supply lines are apramount, encircle enemy to easily dispose of him, capture strategical points, terrain matters, etc. etc.). The target group for all of them is thus the same, or almost the same, and marketing-wise, only Order of Battle got some serious marketing push (and even that was rather negligible. I mean this is Slytherine we're talking about). Yet, there is such massive gap in terms of popularity between all of them. Why? The answer is the barrier of entry. If the game looks unappealing, and especially if it seems like a confusing mess or is difficult to control, it's a deal breaker for a lot of people, even if they might have greatly appreciated the underlying mechanics.

 

[Axioms]

Having dedicated UI staff, that all have tons of previous UI experience, especially on the same engine over decades, makes a huge different vs a first time indie guy. They have all this data on what players complained about in previous games in the exact same genre/engine also which most people don't have.

Well, few of them are "first time indie guys" – many of these studios have made more than one game, and you could argue the exact same with literally any system the game possesses. If they don't have the data, then they should simply copy the design from some other, successful game in the genre rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

Having at least a decent UI is not that hard if you give it enough focus, and is arguably one of the most important things the game has – if you have a shit UI, a lot of your potential customers will say "Wow, that looks like shit" and not buy it, or buy it, go "This controls terribly and I can't make heads or tails of whatever the fuck it's trying to tell me", and refund it. Having a good UI in a game like this should be the paramount focus. Players will of course talk a lot about how what they want the most is deep mechanics, simulationist world, detailed information about economy, etc. but that's because they already ASSUME that the UI is going to be decent. If it's shit, a lot of them won't even give the game a chance, and it's probably the main reason why, despite there obviously being target for such games (just look how many people play Paradox's GSGs), all these smaller games cannot seem to capture it, despite often having deeper, better mechanics than Paradox.

In fact, let's do a little real world comparison of games in the same genre, using the number of steam reviews as a rudimentary measure of the title's popularity:
Order of Battle: World War II – 2,435 reviews. The game manages to look simple yet pretty enough, the UI is minimal and functional, game's mechanics are super simple that even a complete moron can learn them in 20 minutes tops, and the game gives you all the information you need in a very readable and intuitive format. Mechanically, the game is quite shallow, it's more of a deeper RISK game than a proper wargame
Strategic Command WWII: World at War – 343 reviews. The game looks uglier and the UI is more complicated, but in terms of mechanics, it's really very similar to Order of Battle, just with the mechanics being deeper and a couple added on top. As far as usability goes, the UI is decent – it has this "cheap" feel to it and could be better in a number of ways, but is still perfectly serviceable. You need to read the manual to learn how to play the game (fortunately, it is very well done and very readable), most of the things displayed by UI being self-explanatory, but also some places where the manual's explanation is necessary. Generally, the game manages to be fairly deep despite a simple ruleset, and a joy to play.
Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 – 56 reviews. Game looks worse, but serviceable, UI looks like an autistic, bloated mess. Nothing is self-explanatory, manual is indispensable and will likely need to be consulted numerous times before the knowledge sticks. Mechanically, the game is deeper than either of the two on numerous fronts, yet it doesn't matter, because almost none of the target group will actually give it a chance.

All three games are turn-based wargames that all have the same, shared basics on how combat works (with wildly different levels of complexity, of course) and work on some of the same premises (supply lines are apramount, encircle enemy to easily dispose of him, capture strategical points, terrain matters, etc. etc.). The target group for all of them is thus the same, or almost the same, and marketing-wise, only Order of Battle got some serious marketing push (and even that was rather negligible. I mean this is Slytherine we're talking about). Yet, there is such massive gap in terms of popularity between all of them. Why? The answer is the barrier of entry. If the game looks unappealing, and especially if it seems like a confusing mess or is difficult to control, it's a deal breaker for a lot of people, even if they might have greatly appreciated the underlying mechanics.

Okay well I wouldn't classify these as the same as Paradox games. You just mean grognard wargames? I was talking about the competition for the iconic Paradox games. I guess this is for Hearts Of Iron? HoI4 is ugly, shitty, and has terrible mechanics and I got it cheap on sale and couldn't be bothered. Of course I'm not a big WW2 guy so that doesn't help. I agree most wargames look like shit. Though part of that is the aesthetic.

 

[thesecret1]

You just mean grognard wargames?

There's a large overlap between players of GSGs and wargames. I used these as an example because it was one that most readily came to mind.

I guess this is for Hearts Of Iron? HoI4 is ugly, shitty, and has terrible mechanics and I got it cheap on sale and couldn't be bothered. Of course I'm not a big WW2 guy so that doesn't help. I agree most wargames look like shit. Though part of that is the aesthetic.

HoI4 looks like shit because the frontend is plain ugly (I don't know WTF is going on with their graphics designers that they think this look is acceptable), but the UI itself, in terms of architecture rather than visuals, isn't bad.

Anyway, the point of my post was that the UI plays a large role in determining whether the player will even give the game a chance, and that it's not something hard to get right if one gives it the focus it deserves.

 

[man-erg]

Having dedicated UI staff, that all have tons of previous UI experience, especially on the same engine over decades, makes a huge different vs a first time indie guy. They have all this data on what players complained about in previous games in the exact same genre/engine also which most people don't have.

Hardly needs dedicated UI staff. Just hire someone who knows what they are doing for a week or two. Or just look at good UI's in the genre.

Possibly straying off the topic, going into the "Serious Strategy Games", but they do exist in some strange world where the worse the UI, the more their little niche will call it a "masterpiece". And some of these studios spend months researching orders of battle, turret rotation speeds of tanks. Yet have no time to even select a readable font! Or avoid horrific colour clashes. Weird how people who can list all 214 variants of the Panzer , haven't realised that white text on a light background is poor.

TBF to Paradox, their UI has steadily improved over time. They are now "playable by ordinary people" at least, hence their increasing fan base. The typical Matrix/Slitherine/Tiller game, though, is still stuck with UIs' that would have been bad in the 1990's. It's a shame as some, maybe many, of the games do have good, interesting underlying designs. But they are virtually unplayable by "normal" people due to the game being hidden behind a mess of garbage UI, barely readable maps, click fests more than an RTS, confusing reporting, slow performance. Just poor production values in general.

For me, if your game is based around a map that you expect a player to spend dozens of hours staring at, make it a NICE map! Make it scroll smooth , not lurch like bucking bronco. Zoom in and out. MAke it so you can scan the map and in seconds, see whats going on. Not have to decipher heiroglyphs on a map that looks like a piece of used toilet paper.

 

[Axioms]

Having dedicated UI staff, that all have tons of previous UI experience, especially on the same engine over decades, makes a huge different vs a first time indie guy. They have all this data on what players complained about in previous games in the exact same genre/engine also which most people don't have.

Hardly needs dedicated UI staff. Just hire someone who knows what they are doing for a week or two. Or just look at good UI's in the genre. Possibly straying off the topic, going into the "Serious Strategy Games", but they do exist in some strange world where the worse the UI, the more their little niche will call it a "masterpiece". And some of these studios spend months researching orders of battle, turret rotation speeds of tanks. Yet have no time to even select a readable font! Or avoid horrific colour clashes. Weird how people who can list all 214 variants of the Panzer , haven't realised that white text on a light background is poor. TBF to Paradox, their UI has steadily improved over time. They are now "playable by ordinary people" at least, hence their increasing fan base. The typical Matrix/Slitherine/Tiller game, though, is still stuck with UIs' that would have been bad in the 1990's. It's a shame as some, maybe many, of the games do have good, interesting underlying designs. But they are virtually unplayable by "normal" people due to the game being hidden behind a mess of garbage UI, barely readable maps, click fests more than an RTS, confusing reporting, slow performance. Just poor production values in general. For me, if your game is based around a map that you expect a player to spend dozens of hours staring at, make it a NICE map! Make it scroll smooth , not lurch like bucking bronco. Zoom in and out. MAke it so you can scan the map and in seconds, see whats going on. Not have to decipher heiroglyphs on a map that looks like a piece of used toilet paper.

You absolutely need a dedicated UI guy for very complicated strategy games. Basic stuff might be fine but your average dev is not gonna be able to even get Paradox levels of UI, which are still pretty mediocre and were built up over a dozen successive games on the same engine anyways. Having an optimized AI with so many potential things going on is just super hard to do. Cause you can't predict in most cases what all the most important things are and the best way to combine them. And even making an AI that users can modify in game to fit preferences still flys over the head of most normie users.

 

[man-erg]

You absolutely need a dedicated UI guy for very complicated strategy games. Basic stuff might be fine but your average dev is not gonna be able to even get Paradox levels of UI, which are still pretty mediocre and were built up over a dozen successive games on the same engine anyways. Having an optimized AI with so many potential things going on is just super hard to do. Cause you can't predict in most cases what all the most important things are and the best way to combine them. And even making an AI that users can modify in game to fit preferences still flys over the head of most normie users.

If a developer can't manage to do a decent UI for their complex strategy game, then perhaps they are wasting their time and effort on the game? If anything the more complex the game, the more attention needs to be paid to the UI, not less. Perhaps they should consider eliminating the inevitable gratuitous fluff and focussing on what matters. Perhaps they they would even sell enough to hire a UI designer for a week, instead of peaking at 20 players on Steam.

Many of the map-based strategy games that are not that complex, that actually have an interesting design, but the complexity is actually created mostly by the appalling UI. Looking at you AGEOD, and about 80% of the complete Matrix catalog. Exactly as the OP said, the game may have thousands of numbers, but only a handful are really important and ecventually you figured out some simple heuristic e.g. that as long as you can keep statistic A larger than Y + Z, you will win. The catch is that A, Y and Z will be on different screens, buried in a thousand other numbers, in different units in different places. A clean UI and it would be obvious that there isn't that much difference in complexity between, say, Into The Breach, a typical Paradox game and a Gary Grigsby monster. The big difference is in accessibility, not strategic complexity. Eventually, you have to wonder that for some who buy all these games, actuallly battling the UI is part of the feeling of eliteness they get. Makes them feel superior to other gamers.

 

[Joined on the 4th of July]

Are "adaptive/recursive" tooltips ones where you have buttons and other shit inside the tooltip? If they are, they are really annoying. Popping up and covering the UI element I was actually looking for because my approach vector and velocity with mouse cursor were not right and now I pressed completely wrong button. Hopefully there's undo at least. They shouldn't even be called tooltips, more like dropdown or popup menus scattered all over in weird and funny places.

 

[Axioms]

Are "adaptive/recursive" tooltips ones where you have buttons and other shit inside the tooltip? If they are, they are really annoying. Popping up and covering the UI element I was actually looking for because my approach vector and velocity with mouse cursor were not right and now I pressed completely wrong button. Hopefully there's undo at least. They shouldn't even be called tooltips, more like dropdown or popup menus scattered all over in weird and funny places.

You generally don't have *buttons* in tooltips, adaptive or otherwise. Also typically it takes more than an errant mouse move to trigger a second level of tooltip or a change. You need a sustained hover or something.