The cRPG UI thread (Wiz-clones agenda thread)

[InD_ImaginE]

see, to me wizardry 1 is probably the least shallow RPG ever made. it has zero frills, i.e. almost no story, almost no NPCs to talk to, only 1 shop, and 1 "town" that you access only thru menus: i.e. it is PERFECT. it only features 100% content, and 0% filler.

While some people will see the opposite. All combat and no everything else to me is shallow. To say that one should play adventure instead because they like and have different definition of RPG as you do is awfully ignorant. If you only see your definition of RPG as the best one than all discussion would be moot because anything not oldWiz clones = bad.

Back on topic, Wiz1 and older PC Wiz games in extension have good UI because it suits the game. You can play the game using only your left hand on keyboard and right hand on pen and graph paper because, well, they are the kind of game that allows you to do just that. On the other hand, it is good only in a sense that it is very functional in limitation of Wiz games were. With better art and still keeping (or even adding) the functionality it could be even better when applied to similar(old WizClone/blobbers) modern games. Example being EO series with built in map making tools (due in part of being in NDS, but I couldn't see why similar features can't be made on PC)

On the other hand, trying to apply such simplistic UI design on games that is not oldWiz clones/blobbers is exercise in frustration.

Conclusion: to effectively discuss what game has good UI is almost impossible without limiting the kind game we are discussing in the first place

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

That sure is how you made a UI in 1987.

This is how a UI was made in 1987:

Though not perfect, Dungeon Master's UI was not only extremely innovative for its time but also significantly better than the UI of most RPGs released since then. If anything, UIs have suffered a regression in design in the last decade or so.

 

[aweigh]

That's because it's no auto battle system, you are just mashing through it.

What i mean by content vs UI is this: Enemy animations and the way they are integrated in the world =/= interface. You could very well have a wireframe game with enemies popping out of nowhere and without animations, but use graphical interface instead of text one.
I don't think this is so hard concept to grasp, so I'll assume you don't want to understand anything. Older is better, just because. Either you grew up with them, or you are just being oldschool edgy.

I'm not trying to be edgy at all. In fact almost all of the RPGs I play are exactly what you describe with the words "You could very well have a wireframe game with enemies popping out of nowhere and without animations, but use graphical interface instead of text one."

That description includes pretty much every single turn-based dungeon crawler that I've played and LIKED in the last year or so. For example, right now I am playing Wizardry Empire 3 on PSP and the developrs, Starfish, always include an option to disable the polygonal textures inside dungeons and utilize a wireframe mode. Just because they love Wizardry so much!

but on Wiz-Empire #3 they went ALL OUT. They also included options to play with the original 4 color sprites for monsters! And they also included another option for a less classic 256 color sprite rendering, i.e. when Wizardry 5 jumped to that standard.

So you can play Wiz-Empire 3 in wireframe or in very good quality polygonal graphics and EXCELLENT enemy sprites (or retro ones). It's completely your choice.

In terms of UI it uses the same one as Wizardry 1. And so does every single turn based dungeon crawler that apes Wizardry, or IS a Wizardry title. (The wizardry empire series are canon).

Another series I love is the Elminage series. They love Wizardry so much as well that they throw in a few bonus Wireframe Dungeons. And they're proper dungeons, not the pathetic hogwash that were the dungeons in Wizardry 8. Wizardry 8 is probably the most casual and least complex game in the series. But i've covered that in other topics. To each their own.

BTW, i'm also currently translating Wizardry Empire 3 into english. Soon all 3 of the games will be in english.

in any case what is it we are arguing about? i honestly don't know. btw, i didn't grow up with wizardry, in fact i only played wizardry last year. It was a complete life change. After Wizardry i no longer play anything other than dungeon crawlers! I simply cannot go back to long, boring RPGs full of talking and fed-ex crap and long loading times and bad mechanics and bad writing or whatever. Now that i've experienced the joy that is wizardry and the dungeon crawler i can never accept anything less hard-core.

 

[aweigh]

While some people will see the opposite. All combat and no everything else to me is shallow. To say that one should play adventure instead because they like and have different definition of RPG as you do is awfully ignorant. If you only see your definition of RPG as the best one than all discussion would be moot because anything not oldWiz clones = bad.

Back on topic, Wiz1 and older PC Wiz games in extension have good UI because it suits the game. You can play the game using only your left hand on keyboard and right hand on pen and graph paper because, well, they are the kind of game that allows you to do just that. On the other hand, it is good only in a sense that it is very functional in limitation of Wiz games were. With better art and still keeping (or even adding) the functionality it could be even better when applied to similar(old WizClone/blobbers) modern games. Example being EO series with built in map making tools (due in part of being in NDS, but I couldn't see why similar features can't be made on PC)

On the other hand, trying to apply such simplistic UI design on games that is not oldWiz clones/blobbers is exercise in frustration.

Conclusion: to effectively discuss what game has good UI is almost impossible without limiting the kind game we are discussing in the first place

I was answering roqua's hyperbole (no content games, etc) with my own hyperbole.

And i completely agree that any sort of UI discussion can't be all encompassing simply because there are many facets of the RPG genre, sub-genres if you will, that have come and gone throughout pc and console interface device revolutions. For example widespread game usage of the mouse on the IBM PC only started becoming an undeniable thing when... motherfucking Wizardry SEVEN!!!! was released. SEVEN! That means the first six Wiz games were conceived and developed WITHOUT A MOUSE IN MIND OR EVEN KNOWNING WHAT IT WAS FOR. Therefore OBVIOUSLY the Wizardry 1-6 UI, which is 100% keyboard driven (my preference, but it is only that, a PREFERENCE) cannot be called "the best".

And also any sort of RPG sub-genre that apes RTS mechanics, that was born from that grime, is OBVIOUSLY a byproduct of the mouse-driven PC click-click GUI. I mean, how exactly would a dev go and make a Baldur's Gate if the mouse hasn't yet become a de facto part of the PC and is still only an "accessory"? It would be very risky releasing a game that required the person to ALSO buy the interface device. (although of course i know this has happened many times, it is only a hypothetical example i am painting here).

It would be nigh impossible to play Pillars of Eternity using only the keyboard. It was not designed for it; and I would never hold it against the game. Where I take issue with such things is:

a) When the game is of a sub-genre that does not require the mouse (dungeon crawlers; specifically Wizardry-clones).
b) When the game would benefit from taking a couple of cues from console UIs, i.e. lists and being able to use wasd/arrows to cycle through menu options instead; instead the game exclusively uses the mouse for everything and therefore it slows the game down when it could be faster. (examples: charles' sword and sorcery, Paper Sorcerer).

However if the game in question was obviously designed for mice usage then i have no problems with that.

it seems a lot of people don't realize that wasd for menu navigation can be much faster than having to click on everything if the game is designed around that. they don't understand the concept of muscle memory; something which cannot be developed as well when using a mouse.

 

[aweigh]

This is how a UI was made in 1987:

Though not perfect, Dungeon Master's UI was not only extremely innovative for its time but also significantly better than the UI of most RPGs released since then. If anything, UIs have suffered a regression in design in the last decade or so.

this is exactly the type of game that doesn't require a mouse

 

[Kaucukovnik]

When using Blender or GIMP, I use keyboard shortcuts constantly. But I don't seek maximum efficiency when playing games. I prefer having options, and also clicking a nicely skinned button, hearing a sound, seeing it animate, all that with some background music... I don't mind my games not being 100% time efficient, I'm happy with comfortable. In the same way you don't mind your games not looking beautiful, but serviceable.

Not requiring X doesn't automatically mean X is redundant and undesirable. If it was true, the best CRPGs were mainframe ones that printed the entire gaming session, and even they still suck compared to CYOA books.

 

[aweigh]

I agree mate. it is why i was advocating so strongly in one of the sword and sorcery threads that while i know i'm in the minority i think charles should implement 100% keyboard driven, "Wizardry-style"-menu navigation into his game AND also give the option to re-map the game hotkeys anywhere one wants to (i currently use an autohotkey script); WITHOUT removing any of the already exiting mousing capabilities.

there is no reason why a game can't have both. most mouse-driven game use hotkeys, sure, but they don't utilize WASD or need to utilize WASD _specifically_. especially in a dungeon crawler game; just leave WASD/Arrows to work as a "d-pad" that cycles through the game menu options. look at Paper Sorcerer which is a fantastic game but... you are required to use the mouse to click on doors/containers etc, it is the ONLY time in the game, which is otherwize a Wiz-clone, where you HAVE TO use the mouse. there is NO REASON why you you can't just walk to the door, hit ENTER, and have the door open. Instead you have to move the mouse and click on the container or door. It is very weird oversight. Oh, and there is no "loot all" hotkey; there is however a loot all GUI button which you have to move the mouse and click on. i mention this game because other than these specific instances _the game is otherwise completely keyboard driven since it is a Wiz-clone_.

i am all for a better integration of GUI's and mouse + wasd "d-pad" menu cycling + rest of the keyboard keys fair game as user-configurable hotkeys. then no one can complain.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

this is exactly the type of game that doesn't require a mouse

You've evidently been so preoccupied with your Wizaboo games that you've never played Dungeon Master.

 

[aweigh]

Zed Duke of Banville

yeah, i admit it i don't like non-turn based games. i don't enjoy real time dungeon crawlers. i've only tried legend of grimrock and eye of the beholder and and i couldn't understand why they weren't turn-based. they take the most important thing about the blobber, it's ability to foment a complex and meaningful battle system and game mechanics, thanks to the blobber-formats inherent layers of abstraction and... decide to do a children's game with it by making it rela-time!

they keep the dungeon crawling aspect but then ruin it by stealing from adventure genre for content filler "puzzles" as well! i mean they even feature the equivalent of cool-down bars...

it's a complete waste of a sub-genre, and a waste of the blobber

 

[Jaesun]

I too greatly dislike real-time dungeon crawlers, but the original Dungeon Master is fantastic (and has an a really good UI for it).

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

Although it is somewhat 'clicky', I find the UI in W8 to be a near masterpiece.

Also, the inventory in Ultima Underworld is the best I have seen in a single player RPG. I guess with the key ring, UW2 takes it.

 

[Kaucukovnik]

you are required to use the mouse to click on doors/containers etc, it is the ONLY time in the game, which is otherwize a Wiz-clone, where you HAVE TO use the mouse. there is NO REASON why you you can't just walk to the door, hit ENTER, and have the door open. Instead you have to move the mouse and click on the container or door. It is very weird oversight.

Now this I can totally understand. The game basically has a KB-only control scheme, but just fails to realize it.

 

[octavius]

That's how you make a UI. Please keep your mice at home. Real men only use a keyboard.

That sure is how you made a UI in 1987.

No, that is how you made a UI in 1981. By 1987 you made a UI like this:

 

[Bruma Hobo]

That's the WIzardry 3 (1983) GUI. I still prefer the original one, I like to see all relevant information without switching modes or missing the bottom part of the dungeon, and it's not like seeing fullscreen wireframe graphics is much more immersive.

 

[Kaucukovnik]

I would probably prefer this to some fancy UI with click-only movement direction buttons. But why would we still need huge letters in eye-poking colors?
And do I see movement mapped to F/L/R? That's some ergonomics right there.

"The dungeon graphics are ugly anyway, so it's ok to only have a tiny window of that."

I mean, would you say that any book worth anything* benefits from soft instead of hardcover? I can prefer the lower price of softcover ones, I may not mind the lower build quality, but hard cover is simply better. And I would call the above screenshot a preferable compromise at best.

*Crappy softcover books are easier to burn

 

[Siobhan]

But why would we still need huge letters in eye-poking colors?

The colors are not by design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rsycfDliZU

Quite generally, this is yet another instance of developers/publishers being unwilling to do anything that can't be marketed to 90% of their user base. There is a dedicated community of people that prefer keyboard controls over mouse, but it's a minority even in the general software world (think tiling window managers, vim/emacs, mutt, pentadactyl, ncmpcpp, and so on). It wouldn't be as much of a problem if games were developed more like regular software with standardized ways for users to inject their own code (i.e. a plugin API), but in a world where modding capabilities are largely ignored by developers that's not gonna happen either. But not too surprising, the gaming ecosystem rarely fares well in direct comparison to other fields and media (books, movies, software engineering, art design, user interface design, voice acting, community management, journalism).

 

[Bruma Hobo]

I would probably prefer this to some fancy UI with click-only movement direction buttons. But why would we still need huge letters in eye-poking colors?
And do I see movement mapped to F/L/R? That's some ergonomics right there.

"The dungeon graphics are ugly anyway, so it's ok to only have a tiny window of that."

I mean, would you say that any book worth anything* benefits from soft instead of hardcover? I can prefer the lower price of softcover ones, I may not mind the lower build quality, but hard cover is simply better. And I would call the above screenshot a preferable compromise at best.

*Crappy softcover books are easier to burn

I'm not saying that the original UI was a masterpiece either, but those wireframe graphics only get worse when zoomed in emphasising its lack of detail, and they did it at the expense of the status display, not a great move. Also, there is a WAD alternative for movement (was it the first time in gaming?).

 

[Roqua]

I would probably prefer this to some fancy UI with click-only movement direction buttons. But why would we still need huge letters in eye-poking colors?
And do I see movement mapped to F/L/R? That's some ergonomics right there.

"The dungeon graphics are ugly anyway, so it's ok to only have a tiny window of that."

I mean, would you say that any book worth anything* benefits from soft instead of hardcover? I can prefer the lower price of softcover ones, I may not mind the lower build quality, but hard cover is simply better. And I would call the above screenshot a preferable compromise at best.

*Crappy softcover books are easier to burn

I disagree 100%. Soft covered books are much easier to read while in bed or basically anywhere. Hardcover books are annoying, heavy, and you lose your place often, and are way more expensive. Hard cover books would be like the flashy GUI with little functionality beyond the eye candy. Soft cover books are the great GUI with minimal eye candy but all the functionality and ease of use you could want.

I have a electronic boo thing but I dislike it. By the time I turn it on and get to where I was I'm almost done shitting. Whenever I go read it almost all the time it needs recharging and I am forced to read near my computer while charging and take a real book into the shitter with me.

Ebooks seem to be like the 1982 UIs that suck really bad and use FLRB for movement and hotkeys for everything with no mouse support. They are pretty good if you don't mind using them, but suck if you want that ready when you are without needing to be charged functionality. I don't use my cell phone ever so I am not a slave to plugging anything in so am not used to charging anything. My computers are always plugged in, my desk phone and house phone are always plugged in or go back on the charger when not in use, etc. So ebooks may be better for people used to charging things, but not me.

 

[Severian Silk]

I was impressed with Underrail's GUI. It never got in the way and had a lot of options. Only thing I disliked was the lack of a numerical indicator telling you how many APs you have left.

Also, aweigh is retarded.

 

[Joined on the 4th of July]

Rise from your grave.

What would a modern interface for a turn-based blobber look like? For PC, so big screen and both mouse and keyboard are assumed. No weak adaptations from touch or gamepad interfaces.

 

[CryptRat]

 

[aweigh]

Rise from your grave.

What would a modern interface for a turn-based blobber look like? For PC, so big screen and both mouse and keyboard are assumed. No weak adaptations from touch or gamepad interfaces.

There are lots of modern turn-based blobbers. Why would you ask such a silly question?

In any case as StarCrawlers proved beyond a shadow of a doubt: mouse-only interface does not work for a turn-based blobber. Keyboard is required and preferable. Mouse is optional but since normies and casuals like you don't know shit about anything it's necessary for promotional purposes so other people than just RPG lovers buy the game.

 

[Joined on the 4th of July]

Rise from your grave.

What would a modern interface for a turn-based blobber look like? For PC, so big screen and both mouse and keyboard are assumed. No weak adaptations from touch or gamepad interfaces.

There are lots of modern turn-based blobbers. Why would you ask such a silly question?

Because all those japanese Menu Navigation Simulators just seem to have basic gamepad UI mapped onto keyboard, which is terrible.

In any case as StarCrawlers proved beyond a shadow of a doubt: mouse-only interface does not work for a turn-based blobber. Keyboard is required and preferable. Mouse is optional but since normies and casuals like you don't know shit about anything it's necessary for promotional purposes so other people than just RPG lovers buy the game.

Mouse-only is in practice same as touch interface. Good PC interface should use both keyboard and mouse together.

 

[aweigh]

Why is it the people who don't play blobbers want to talk about blobbers?

Don't talk about shit you don't know about, and keep Wizardry's name out of your mouth.

 

[octavius]

Wizardry...rhymes with misandry.