Oct 21 2008, 11:05 am
In response to SilkWizard
|
|
CaptFalcon33035
 |
What is there that can't be done with BYOND interfaces?
|
CaptFalcon33035 wrote:
What is there that can't be done with BYOND interfaces? Most importantly, none of that could be drawn on the screen. We've already established that placement of interface elements not only impacts aesthetics, but function. Games are not played in frames, and using frames is only appropriate in certain situations. Second, there is no way you could achieve the pixel-perfect layout of the menus, or anywhere near that level of customization when it comes to how they look. Additionally, much of the drag and drop functionality in AA could not be done with a 4.0 interface. But hey, go ahead and forsake screen objects! While you're going on about how you could technically do the same thing with 4.0, my games will look and play better -- because I won't be making them with one hand tied behind my back. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
CaptFalcon33035 wrote: We have windows. We place them over map. We switch off all the titlebars, statusbars etc, and give them a background image. Voila, window effect acheived with actual windows, which can be dragged around by dragging a blank bit. If the player wants to see a bit of map hidden under the window, he can. Plus, they can be put wherever the player wants them. Second, there is no way you could achieve the pixel-perfect layout of the menus, or anywhere near that level of customization when it comes to how they look. Additionally, much of the drag and drop functionality in AA could not be done with a 4.0 interface. We have buttons, we give them images, we set them as flat. Voila, pixel-positionable custom buttons. We have grids, we drag betewen them with MouseDrag or MouseDrop. There is a little extra work involved with grids and getting icon-only representations of objects (unless there's a trick I'm missing) but it's worth it for the freedom from the map space that grids bring. But hey, go ahead and forsake screen objects! While you're going on about how you could technically do the same thing with 4.0, my games will look and play better -- because I won't be making them with one hand tied behind my back. Screen objects can serve their purpose - for example, the frilly transparent bit at the top of your status bar wouldn't work well with interfaces, but restricting your screen space to the map area just doesn't make sense. Also, how is using only client screen and no interface not tieing one hand behind your back? | |
Hazman wrote:
Also, how is using only client screen and no interface not tieing one hand behind your back? I never said to forsake 4.0 interface features; just that screen objects are better for most things (which I proved with screenshots). Proelium II uses both. Everyone in this thread who has been opposed to screen objects shares a common trait; they aren't game designers. You can argue design theory all that you want; but the proven reality is that screen objects are much more versatile than 4.0 interfaces. The games I've made have all been successful because they look and play like real games, not Windows 3.1 relics. | |
Now you're just being a jerk.
SilkWizard wrote: I never said to forsake 4.0 interface features; just that screen objects are better for most things (which I proved with screenshots). Proelium II uses both. You didn't prove anything of the sort. All you proved is that your game uses screen objects, not whether or not they are better than interface elements in any situation. Your only claim so far is that you can't design a perfect HUD with 4.0 interface elements, but anyone who has worked with them knows that's not true. There's nothing about you're windows that can't be done with an interface. Your whole stance boils down to not using interface elements because they're not screen objects. Everyone in this thread who has been opposed to screen objects shares a common trait; they aren't game designers. Riiiight. None of us design games. Are you high? You can argue design theory all that you want; Uh, isn't that the point of DP? Maybe you know something we don't? but the proven reality Um, no, You have yet to prove anything. Shnitz asked for some benchmarks, that would be a start. is that screen objects are much more versatile than 4.0 interfaces. Wrong. If that was the case, then why did we need 4.0 interfaces? The games I've made have all been successful because they look and play like real games, not Windows 3.1 relics. Nice way to insult everyone else round you, again. No wonder people can't stand you. | |
Xooxer wrote:
Riiiight. None of us design games. Are you high? Oh, I'm sorry. Chat programs sure are fun games! If you choose to ignore everything I've written and shown to demonstrate the power of screen objects, that's your choice. My games speak for themselves. This is apparently no longer a discussion about the merits of screen objects, but a d*** measuring contest. You're looking to pick a fight, and I have no interest in wasting my time on someone like you. End of discussion. | |
You're hopeless. You claim that screen objects can do all sorts of things for HUDs that you can't do with interface elements, and when asked to explain, you only provide screenshots of an old game and little more. You then go on to insult everyone in this thread because we wanted to know why you thought that, perhaps you had something in mind we're not seeing. But, nooo. You had to go off on a friggen tirade about how your method is not only doable, but superior over all other methods without even telling us WHY, which was the whole friggen point.
You've ruined this thread with BS by avoiding the question and have chosen instead to label all of Tom and Lummox's hard work on the new 4.0 interface as "windows 3.1" crap, and anyone who utilizes this crap is "not a game designer", as if you're the only measure of game design to be found around here. Just because the rest of us aren't putting out commercial games doesn't mean we don't know a thing or two about design. | |
Silk forgets that his output and input are separate from the map, which draws your eyes away from the action. Oh no!?
Lets see a screenshot of Silk's game that shows the rest of the interface :) Oh? Ugry! Now the map seems out of place being all of a 480x480 square in the corner of your screen. Just wanted to pull you off that high horse that I feel like you're always on. Don't get me wrong, the screen object usage IS awesome. Just wanted to point out that 4.0 interface capabilities could benefit your project. Full screen map anyone? Then all you need is text over the map. [I can has bad grammars] | |
Vermolius wrote:
Just wanted to point out that 4.0 interface capabilities could benefit your project. Read the thread! I'm not condemning the features introduced in 4.0. As I've stated over and over in this thread, I think that they can be useful. To quote myself: "there is no single "best way" to make an interface for a game. Some games are better suited to 4.0 style interfaces, some games aren't." "I never said to forsake 4.0 interface features; just that screen objects are better for most things (which I proved with screenshots). Proelium II uses both" Vermolius wrote: Lets see a screenshot of Silk's game that shows the rest of the interface :) Oh? Ugry! Now the map seems out of place being all of a 480x480 square in the corner of your screen. Proelium II uses interface stuff because it was made with 4.0. AA was made before 4.0. Again, reading the thread might have done you some good: "Apart from compiling the game in 4.0 to make sure that everything still worked, I actually haven't dived in and used any of the new features on Acheron's Awakening yet" Vermolius wrote: Just wanted to pull you off that high horse that I feel like you're always on. Classy. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
Read the thread! I'm not condemning the features introduced in 4.0. As I've stated over and over in this thread, I think that they can be useful. "proven reality is that screen objects are much more versatile than 4.0 interfaces. The games I've made have all been successful because they look and play like real games, not Windows 3.1 relics." Useful if you want a "windows 3.1 relic", huh? Proelium II uses interface stuff because it was made with 4.0. AA was made before 4.0. Again, reading the thread might have done you some good: Again, proving my point that you're only defending an obsolete method, not providing ANY insights into WHY someone would choose to go the hard way, when as far as anyone else here can tell (because you simply refuse to answer the question), you can recreate your system with 4.0 interface elements. Look at these statements: "Creating your own HUD with screen objects allows much more customization and unique functionality. As cool as the interface stuff in 4.0 is, it certainly doesn't come close to replacing what you can do with screen objects." I disagree completely, and in fact will claim the opposite is true. But then again, I wasn't asked to explain my statement, you were. So, again, what makes screen objects so much more functional than interfaces? and if you say distance to the play area, you lose. Interfaces can occupy the same real estate, and to be honest, BYOND games aren't the sort fast-paced action games that would benefit from a displacement of a few pixels. Forget "frames". Nobody is talking about framing the game into blocks or sectioning off anything. Your interface for AA can be replaced almost completely with interface elements. If you say it can't, explain WHY, don't just assume we agree because it came from you. There's a ton of functionality that you can't replicate easily with screen objects, customization of the skin by your fans is a big one. There isn't much, if any, functionality gained from screen objects. Saying having a display over the map is functional is wrong, it's no more functional there than 32 pixels lower. What you're talking about is GUI design as it specifically relates to one very rare type of BYOND game, for which your advice isn't even proven worthy, since you STILL haven't said why anyone should choose your method over the much friendlier and prettier 4.0 interface options available to us. Until you provide something more than "I did it, so it's the obviously better than your way", I'm going to assume your original statement was a lie. | |
I think it's more of opinion than actual fact. client.screen and the 4.0 interface pretty much accomplish the same thing, the only difference being that client.screen operates within a map control, while an interface operates outside of it.
But, if we get into usual casual gaming, we usually don't see menus and such outside of the map view we're looking at. This way, you can focus both on the menu you're navigating, and the gameplay that's happening. With an external map interface, your focus is split between that interface, and the gameplay that's happening. This is mainly why I lean more towards client.screen than to the interface. It falls within my idea of keeping absolute focus on the game. I really hate it when I have to break my focus from a game, which is what the 4.0 interface does to some extent. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
Everyone in this thread who has been opposed to screen objects shares a common trait; they aren't game designers. You can argue design theory all that you want; but the proven reality is that screen objects are much more versatile than 4.0 interfaces. The games I've made have all been successful because they look and play like real games, not Windows 3.1 relics. You're smarter than this, Silk. The only one picking a fight here is you. I've supported what you've said in this thread up until now, but this is just another ridiculous way to try and flaunt success or advertise your games. The proven reality is in fact not that screen objects are much more versatile; both screen objects and interface elements are versatile. I can see several situations where the screenshots you provided would benefit from interface elements. Your screenshots show me two things: 1) You've designed a drag and drop trade / inventory system. Very neat! 2) Your players screen real-estate is totally ruined if they're trading, purchasing or putting on items. Assuming that a player putting on equipment won't be moving at the same time is a mistake. Age of Conan had this same problem - Opening your player stats window at the same time as your inventory, blocked about 60% of the view - That made it impossible to easily see the differences in stats when you switched between two items. Thats not okay by modern standards, it was literally one of the top items that were continually brought up. This is EXACTLY the type of situation where, in order to give back screen real-estate for things that don't benefit a great deal by being over the map, you can use interface elements. In any case, this is subjective and not something anyone can pass off as factual. The technical limitations and possibilities within screen objects and interface elements? Fact. The practical applications ? Opinion. If hosting a game that a few dozen people at most have been on simultaneously is suddenly a 'game designers badge' that makes you better than everyone else, well then my opinion carries more weight than yours - I've administrated and been head programmer for a MUD that had a peaktime userbase of over 200 players. See how ridiculous that is? Eventually see Raph Kosters failures to produce any well thought-out games, or many other 'famous' game designers or producers who have failed utterly in trying again: Gaute Godager comes to mind. | |
You're biggest flaw in this argument is that you're talking about games that are designed to take up the full screen, which a lot of BYOND games aren't, for varying reasons, the most common being chat sections. Looking at what other games are doing isn't a good reference point for BYOND.
| |
I wish you guys would stop fighting. There are situations where both of these styles are useful, and I'm glad to have them both be a part of the system.
Even those that believe in map-only displays (which is very much the standard in today's games) can benefit from the skin interface-- since it actually makes map-only games possible! Time (and refinements) will tell if the other components-- like the buttons and labels-- have real value. I personally think we have a ways to go to make these components truly usable in a game setting, particularly glitzy stuff like transparency. That said, there are still plenty of places where the current stuff is an improvement over the old, and, more importantly, there are still lots of areas that haven't been all that explored. Take the browser component: extremely versatile and powerful, but rarely used. I strongly recommend Unknown Person's excellent article on this topic (it even mentions using browsers as an alternative to map HUDs). This was mostly written before 4.0, but realize with the skin interface each of the browser operations can be applied to individual controls, effectively making it possible to model any UI element anywhere on the screen (the article presents some great examples). Again, with a bit of added glitz (ideally making transparent browser components), this could go a long way. On the flip side, by no means do I consider the skin to be a replacement to the screen-object interface, and I'm shocked that some of the users here feel that way. Like I said above, map-only displays are fairly standard for casual games (think Flash), as they provide the consistent look and feel of custom graphics. Another user referred to windowed games as feeling a bit like a "database application", and while I think a well-constructed skin can avoid that, I do see the point. Some of the things that make skins a functional choice over screen objects (eg, scrolling panes) also make games feel a bit clunky (eg, a mismatched scrollbar). We're always working to improve on this stuff (eg, customizing scrollbar colors). I think Silk has illustrated some very nice uses of screen-objects (which is why I'm pushing so hard for a tutorial!) and moreover he might be able to benefit from another 4.0 feature-- alpha transparency-- to eliminate this issue with the UI blocking the map. I don't see why he'd change his style up on account of 4.0. In fact, I want to do all we can to counter the limitations of screen objects, as they are a great feature of BYOND. | |
Tom wrote:
On the flip side, by no means do I consider the skin to be a replacement to the screen-object interface, and I'm shocked that some of the users here feel that way. Like I said above, map-only displays are fairly standard for casual games (think Flash), as they provide the consistent look and feel of custom graphics. There's no such thing as a map-only display outside of BYOND. That whole line of reasoning is flawed, and is leading to confusion that somehow interface elements aren't a "real" part of the game because they aren't in the map element. As far as the players know, it is part of the map element. There's no reason why a 4.0 interface can't function like a single interface display. The only reason to use screen objects now is if you need to overlay the map element, there's no sane reason to encourage people to continue using hacks, bad practices and softcode solutions to problems that don't exist, like a windowed inventory system with drag and drop. :/ Another user referred to windowed games as feeling a bit like a "database application", and while I think a well-constructed skin can avoid that, I do see the point. I don't. If the skin looks bad, it's the fault of the designer, not the skin feature. There's nothing inherently "windowy" about skins, aside from the fact that the whole game is a window, and a few minor limits that in no way should be taken as faults, or reasons NOT to use elements over a clunky system you rolled yourself. Some of the things that make skins a functional choice over screen objects (eg, scrolling panes) also make games feel a bit clunky (eg, a mismatched scrollbar). We're always working to improve on this stuff (eg, customizing scrollbar colors). And here we are again. Have you tried making a scrolling text display with screen objects? It's a headache. The scrollbar my not be pretty right now, but it's a heck of a lot easier, and far more functional than using screen objects. I don't see why he'd change his style up on account of 4.0. In fact, I want to do all we can to counter the limitations of screen objects, as they are a great feature of BYOND. He'd change it only if he thought doing so would add to the game. AA isn't a spring chicken, recoding all that would take lot of effort. Nobody is telling him to change his design, we just wanted to know why he thought it was more powerful than interface elements. | |
Alathon wrote:
I've supported what you've said in this thread up until now, but this is just another ridiculous way to try and flaunt success or advertise your games. If that's what you think, then you've totally missed the point of me using my games as an example. Based upon every other BYOND game I've seen, I've had more experience working with screen objects than any other developer. I've done things with screen objects that no one else has done. My games are playable examples of the power of screen objects. Furthermore, the use of screen objects makes them look a hell of a lot better than most other BYOND games. I certainly don't need to toot my own horn, as I'm happy to let my games speak for themselves. Alathon wrote: If hosting a game that a few dozen people at most have been on simultaneously is suddenly a 'game designers badge' that makes you better than everyone else, well then my opinion carries more weight than yours My point was this: the people in this thread criticizing the use of screen objects aren't the types of people who would be using them anyway. My intention was not to claim that "I'm better than everyone else". Frankly, the title of "Best Game Developer on BYOND!" would be about as meaningful as a gold medal at the Special Olympics. One last thing: I'm not going to sit back and pretend like I don't make quality games, or feign modesty for the sake of others. The fact that so many people are threatened by my pride in my games isn't my problem; it's theirs. The only reason certain individuals suddenly care about screen objects vs. 4.0 interfaces is because I'm the one defending screen objects. | |