SE5: GUI design discussion..

[Lemmy]

quote:

---

For one example, I'm designing a new 'visual tech-tree' for the 'Research' window. I'm aiming along the lines of a flow-chart type layout, but also have a few 'different' things that I might try. Do you think this might be a good thing?

That would be a bad idea. It would not incorporate tech levels very well, unless it was extremeley long.

---

I am not sure how usefull a graphical tech tree would be, there would be lots of crossing lines, since it is moddable and will have to be generated on the fly based on whatever techtree people want to load in.

*jumps excitedly*
Look at my sig!! Look at my sig!! Look at my sig!! Look at my sig!! Look at my sig!!

The screenshot link!

[ February 22, 2003, 00:25: Message edited by: Lemmy ]

[David E. Gervais]

Originally posted by Will:
David, I know not very much ideas for you there, but if you get the contract, be sure to bug Aaron about the skinnability

I never 'bug' Aaron, but I will mention it. Having the GUI 'skinnable' would be a nice feature. As to weather the actual shape and placement of the different GUI parts can be user defined, I'm not the one to answer that!

Cheers!

[ February 21, 2003, 12:48: Message edited by: David E. Gervais ]

[Ed Kolis]

Looks nice, but maybe some of those long "strings" could be condensed - i.e. instead of

shields 1 -> shields 2 -> shields 3 -> shields 4 -> shields 5 and shield depleting weapons

you could have

shields 1-3 -> shields 4 -> shields 5 and shield depleting weapons

in other words, any time you have a linear progression with no branches, just compress it into one box

[Suicide Junkie]

Alternatively, you could always compress the tech areas into one block, and label the outgoing lines with the level requirement.

For in game, you could have indicators, a bar, or just numbers to tell you how many levels you have so far.

Colour coding things to show whether it is researchable or not (or already done) would be a nice touch.

[Fyron]

I would much rather have it look more like it did in SE3 than anything else. SE3 was good, because you could spend points on every available tech, and choose how much percentage of you want in each tech. SE3 was also good because you could see more info in the same space than you can in SE4, and much more than you would see in what David suggests for SE5.

What SE5 needs is to stay away from those lame graphics-intensive display modes that games often use these days. Nice and simple is always better in this area.

[ February 22, 2003, 02:51: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Instar]

I see what you mean by the ship parts things.

XML skins... that would be great, but I don't know XML very well (other than how its like HTML and stuff, and some basic things in it)
Like I said, I really liked SC4's interface... it had like the 3 overview modes, and each mode opened up different tools, which were broad categories, with their own subsets opened by clicking. It prevents icon buildup (SEIV has this disease) but provides good amounts of accessibility. In this scheme of things, I would like it in the GUI to be able to make a few custom sets of submenus (for example, I could really use a set in SC4 with only heavy roads, high density everything, and water pipes).

[primitive]

David E:
Hope you get the contract.

Some input from me.
Remember KISS (Old Occams razor: Keep It Simple St... ). When it comes to the frames and buttons in games, less is usualy better. Keep the playing surface as big and clean as possible. Also make it scalable so people with big screens actually can use it. Since I started to play SEIV a lot on my home computer I have changed my resolution from 1280 x 1024 to 1152 x 864. By the time SEV is out, I will probably want to run at 1600 x 1200.

Also there should be several "main-screens", as someone already have suggested.
1: Building view (or something). Shows the system (without ships) and have information about all facilities and construction going on ( I especially miss an easy available list of systemwide facilities).
2: Movement view (or something). Shows ships and waypoints ++. Easy access to fleet information, easy navigation between systems.
3: Colonization View
4: ?

primitive

[tesco samoa]

It would be good if you could mod the gui design... So those who want that SE3 look can do it... And those who don't can make their star trek one etc...

[ February 23, 2003, 14:51: Message edited by: tesco samoa ]

[David E. Gervais]

Primitive, don't be afread to say the whole saying.. "Keep it simple, stupid!" I am one of the few remaining people on this earth that still makes extensive use of this philosophy. That's probably why I find it hard to find work in the industry. The current status quo in the industry is "Complicated works!, Dazzle them with an over abundance of useless eye-candy and they will be drawn to it like a moth to flame!" and another phrase that can be extruded from the current industry is "Gameplay is a thing of the past, leave it to the archioligists and retro-gammers." Today a game only has to be good enough to incite people to buy it, having a game good enough to 'play' is secondary and not really necessary to ensure sales. All you need is a game with a little potential and the promise of a patch to make it the best game ever! In support of this theory, I dare you to name a single game that has been released in the past 5 years that has not had a patch released following the release of the game.

But I digress. Like I said I'm a deciple of the KISS philosophy and have been all my computing life!

Oh, and IMHO Malfador Machinations have released game 'upgrades/tweaks' and mistakenly called them 'patches'! So I give them an exemption from any association with the 'evil patches'

Cheers!

[Gryphin]

David,
I agree and I think the other expression that applys is:
“If you can’t blind them with brilliance, baffle the with bull *****, I mean cow manure”
The only other games I have been as satisfyed with are Empire Deluxe and CIV II.
The GUI's on both of those were easyier but the games were less sophisticated / deep / complicated.