Yes
No
To me it seems that the UI is way to intrusive.
There's way too much around the soldiers and aliens. The UI should be as slim and minimalistic as possible with a layer of distinction between what's in the game and what's the UI.
In some part i really couldn't tell if the soldier had a forcefield around him or is that some UI command.
Vote yes or no.
I completely agree. I'm hoping some of it is either in there for testing purposes, or an option to toggle off.
also agree... should be made to turn it off, or decreases with game difficulty!
I dunno. I disagree. Look at the G4 footage. In their gameplay (maybe its a 'UI turned down option') there are only your weapon icons and the 4 action icons on the bottom. Pretty unobtrusive. And when alien activity occurs, theres really nothing on the screen.
Since we haven't seen the PC's UI yet, I can't comment. All the shots so far have been from the Xbox 360 version have they not?
If there isn't an option to turn it off i'd at least wish they'd make it slender and less imposing on the screen.
Take a look at this thread:
http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...99-Health-Bars
The UI is actually really minimalistic and functional.
Yes, there is quite a lot around the units, but it's all functional. We still know nothing of the PC UI, but the console seems good. If we take an in-depth-analysis of the two views for the console(s), I guess you cycle and zoom between these as you will.
The Overview
http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/...9000904256.jpg
Here it looks like you can cycle through your soldiers, move them around the map.
You also seem to cast grenades in this mode. All the UI is clear and easy to overview.
- Range of movement on the ground.
- Soldier, type, rank, abilities & weaponry in the bottom.
- HP, Cover, Move-Actions & Suppression are displayed on each unit.
The scale of these are a bit large, but remember that they are adapted for TV.
The Soldier view
http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/...9000850694.jpg
Here we zoom in on a soldier. This UI is actually slimmed down a bit from the first Gas-station screenshots.
- Standard soldier info.
- You have a focus point (the circle) to cycle through alien targets.
- Ability menu.
- Stationary actions.
How would you remove this information or make it less "intrusive"?
You could only show it on MouseOver (PC) or on cycle focus (Console), but that would add a lot of unnecessary player-input just to find out the information.
I don't think the PC UI will use this 2-mode interface, it seems encumber-some to have to zoom in on a soldier to make actions. And as said by Jake in the PAX panel, with a mouse and keyboard you click on points of interest rather then cycle through them as with a game-pad.
At the time of PAX, the PC UI did feature a GRID.
In the more recent screenshots it does look better, but if it was my call i'd cut it down in graphical detail. Just basic vector graphics and nothing more. But ok.
I hope they retooled the forcefield thingy from the previous shots.
Excluding the visuals and art design i admit i have no major beef with Xcom EU. The UI from a usefulness standpoint does look decent.
I just hope they didn't cut out too many options to play with.
Last edited by Codex; 04-27-2012 at 04:51 PM.
What do you mean by "cutting down the detail"?, there are no excess detail at all.Originally Posted by AlphaCent
In the bottom screen you have 2 lines and one frame in the same UI theme as the rest of the game (research and so).
You have a corsair at the alien (the two 1/4 circle thing) to show your focus, with a %to-hit. And you have the unit frame with HP, Cover and a slim line to indicate origin. All lines and vector graphics.
The unit frame does stand out due to the scale and the high opacity I think. But that is for the view-ability on TV imo. Also, you seem to be able to turn them off like in the Floater preview.
You're probably going to hate the "German Mode' UI that was mentioned at PAX East, given that it's supposed to resemble the original XCOM: EU UI... I would think that old one that took up a third of the combat screen was more intrusive than what we've seen in the demos.
As long as there's no floating bars or indicators around aliens or soldiers then I'm mostly Ok. Here's to hoping they let people mod the UI eventually.
I can live with it, I suppose. Not gonna be a big deal with me as such.
The UI you're showing in the pictures you linked to are NOT MINIMALISTIC but may well be functional - kinda gotta play to tell about the latter.
Yes there's quite a lot about the units - THEREFORE IT IS NOT MINIMALISTIC - and it may well be functional.
I have no problems with the current UI as long as you can turn off enemy health bars. That's just silly. It's silly to say that I should be able to walk outside and start shooting at aliens from another planet and immediately know exactly how much health they have left until they die. Or you can just suspend disbelief completely, say "it's just a game" and accept any type of magic or psi-powers or gear. Hell, why not include an anti-gravity gun, or soldiers with superpowers, or just a god-mode? I mean, it's just a game, right?
Some people want a "game" with an easy-to-understand UI where they have access to all the information they need right off the bat, at any time. Other people want a simulation, where they have to figure out where the aliens are by keeping a sharp lookout on the screen, and then make sure to watch out and be careful. To each their own. I'm cool with you saying you like the UI.
I'm not cool with you saying it's a minimalistic UI when it clearly is not. You even say it yourself - Yes, there is quite a lot around the units. That is by definition not Minimalistic. If you want a game with massive UI stuff floating around all over the place, like WoW with health bars, or Starcraft with floating bars, then okay - but I personally would prefer not to. It just looks silly and decreases the sense of immersion for me.
I had to look up Minimalism, to check if I had misunderstood the term. And I don't believe I'm mistaking.
The current UI design conforms to the criteria of minimalism, and that each component fills a function. I don't make any claims on it being minimal though. Either you are confusing the two terms, or my English is lacking (it is my second language).
On health bars
Also, I will probably play the game without HP bars if possible. Not because it breaks my immersion with it, but because it's more thrilling to not know if you can kill that alien.
But let's consider what information are displayed en each alien.
- HP, a numerical value of the units vitality. Could be displayed in animated form instead (bleeding, limping and so on). Having the player judge or guess on the HP level, same mechanic, more realistic but this brings a lot of problems with it too (not least to the developers).
- Cover, a clarification on what type and level of cover the unit is using. This could be left to the player to ponder over and guess on "is that high cover or not?"
- %to-hit, this is totally unrealistic. Or is it? I have a really limited experience of firing assault-rifles from my 9 month mandatory military service, but I could make an assessment of my skill to hit a target. And I would not even try and take a shoot at a moving target at 150m.
You may prefer the simulation and realism type of game, I have no problem with it being "gamey", I like both types. It's a matter of taste.
Well hell then, as long as an added UI element fulfills a function, then it's minimalistic, eh? So how about we add an indicator of the enemy unit's morale status, where it's facing (might not be immediately obvious from far away), how many rounds are left in its weapon, how many actions it has left to take that round and so on and so forth ad nauseaum.
Or how about not. Sure it's a matter of taste. Some people like to be able to look at a screen and immediately make an informed decision. Others like to have to think a bit and then make a decision. Still further, there's people who care so much about immersion that it's a simulation they want.
But the point you're missing is that what's functional and minimalistic and fine to you, is not to others. So don't make exaggerated claims that having health indicators or targeting reticules over aliens that are in "plain sight" (i.e., not seen through some sort of techno-wiz Heads Up Display or targeting monitor) are somehow minimalistic. You don't speak for everyone.
Maximal: "Hey, there's an alien there, he has 11 and a half health units left and if I shoot him with this Extra-Damaging .357 Laser Rifle with +2 Damage Scope firing a +9 and 3/4 pulse charge, then I have an 33.33 (repeating, of course) percent chance of taking the target down, with a 14% chance of damaging the structure behind it."
Minimal: "Dude, there's an alien there, shoot it! Aaaargh!"
To me the Interface is already pretty minimalistic. After all it seems that you can turn of the healthbars and without those there isn't relly much else you can cut away without changing the gameplay.
The hit-chance percentage is essential in order to plan your tactics. Without it more elaborate plans would be pretty much impossible to pull off. Same with the cover symbols: Cover strength is not something you can easily judge on your own.
All I ask is that the alien health bars go. Everything else is good.
The hit-chance percentage to me isn't even remotely essential - if you go to any average simunition or paintball or live-fire course you'll have learned within minutes whether or not to take a shot at a full profile, half profile or only head-size target. A few weeks of using a weapon in training will have you guesstimate what you can and can not shoot through. This is simple basic soldiering.
A player can just look at the bad guy from the perspective of their soldier and make a basic estimate of their chances to hit the cover, the bad guy or miss completely. This is simple stuff and doesn't require you to make the distinction between 47% chance to hit and 49% chance to hit.
To illustrate:
1. Bad guy in almost full cover at medium distance. Doesn't take having to pause the game to figure out that an elite soldier that's not wounded is going to probably hit the cover, with some chance of hitting the bad guy.
2. Bad guy at long distance with full profile visible. Your chances to miss and hit the area are dependent on if he's running or stationary.
3. Bad guy just appeared in a door opening right in front of you. Even a rookie will make that shot if he's got full auto available.
In no cases do you need to know the exact percentages to hit or miss. That's training wheels stuff for people who can't grasp concepts like line-of-sight and the fact that things are harder to hit if only parts of them are visible.
Cover strength is somewhat similar, except different games treat stuff like this differently and it might not be immediately apparent that this or that is made out of stronger or lighter material. The average gamer probably doesn't know that police officers are taught to take cover behind the engine-block of a car, or the wheels - to avoid ground-skimming rounds, or rounds that just go straight through the very thin skin of a car. I could see how cover strength icons would be a reasonable addition to the UI to make things flow a little smoother and make results like "how come this cover here saved that guy, but that cover there didn't stop the bullet that hit the other guy" a little less common.
In summary - to-hit-percentages Nay, Cover Strength icons Yay.
Amen, brother!
Sorry but: THis is a game!
You can't compare game mechanics to real world examples.
There is a cover system and there are perks and abilities in place.
With all these hidden variables you can't expect players to just "eyeball" it.
Let's say a muton is clearly visible from the player perspective but the underlying game mechanic labels him as "in cover". How is the player supposed to "see" this?
There will always be situations were your game mechanics contradict what a person would expect so giving them some kind of indication ( a percentage, some kind of color code, whatever you want really) makes things alot easier.
When did I claim that? I never did. Minimalism is an design/art style. Also you will have to prove to me why a simulation (something striving for more realism) is more immersive than a constructed experience. With your reasoning, something like Guitar Hero can never be an immersive experience.
Another thing I have never claimed. This is a forum, I speak for me alone. Keep the discussion to the issue and don't bring it down to a personal level.
All I am saying is that HP, Cover & to-hit are visualisations of game mechanics.
This is a matter of visible vs hidden game rules/mechanics. I don't claim visible rules & mechanics is always the best, but I do claim that there have to be some basic information of the underlying game rules/mechanics so it dosen't all seem abstract to the player.
I don't understand your point with this, numbers can be an integral part of strategy.
Sure you can. I just did. You can compare Super Mario Bros to real world examples if you like - doesn't mean you have to agree with the conclusions of the person making the comparisons, though.
If it was just a game and the real world similarities didn't matter, then we could just implement super-mega-laser weapons that ignored Line Of Sight and it would be just fine with you, right? I mean, it's just a game, right? How overpowered or internally consistent the game world is, doesn't really matter after all, right?
Hell, let's just add in magic and wizards and flying dolphins with multiple mini-shark-launchers. The sharks will have lazer beams attached to their foreheads and be rocket-powered. Along with rainbows and unicorns flying on the rainbows.
If it's just a game, then no matter what you add, it doesn't really matter how stupid or out-of-context it seems. Just add an "I win" button to each scenario as well - after all, you don't really need to push it if you don't want to!
Now if you want a little immersion and internally logical consistency and some halfway believable storyline, then with the humans being underpowered at the start follows logically that most human technology and tactics should be fairly consistent with what's currently available in the real world. There's your real world examples. Then again, what's fun for you might not be for all. Just don't try to speak for everyone and make broad sweeping generalizations that "Everyone knows" or "Everyone thinks that..." ...mmmkay?
Hey, they're already doing that!
Hey player. I know you see that muton right there behind the concrete barricade. He's hunched down and being suppressed but you've got a guy with a sniper rifle on his right flank. Want to shoot him? Great.
79% chance to hit 43% chance to crit. There you go, champ. Have fun!
They give you all that complex information in two succinct and clear statistics. I really think your method adds a ton of complexity with no depth to the overall gameplay. I really don't get your idea because even XCOM Classic does it that way. You have hit percentages, and everything is random number'd. There's no real eyeballing shots in that game either.
Last edited by Inkidu; 04-30-2012 at 04:52 AM. Reason: need to stop posting at late night.
You are taking this pretty far into crazy land. Heniv said that the UI was minimalistic and provided justification for that claim. How did you get that he wanted to remove any realism to the point where you can have "magic and wizards and flying dolphins with multiple mini-shark-launchers"?
Besides, this is just a game. If they wanted to put an "I win button" in they could, but they won't because it would be stupid.
Also, who is using broad sweeping generalizations before you brought it up? Chill.
Going back on topic
The UI is fine, it is as "minimal as it can be and still be useful". Enemy health bars should definitely not be there (or have a toggle off feature). %hit needs to remain in place and is realistic given that this is an abstraction and not reality, and the game system cannot possibly display all the factors at work, and the player is not viewing the situation from an individual soldiers viewpoint.
From what little, and I mean little, I've seen of the game, since there doesn't seem to be squat out there and the incoming info is sparse at best, I can't really judge. I don't think it's a great idea to write thesis like arguments based on glimpses of things in screenshots or videos of a product in development.
The UI seems streamlined to me. There's critical data that needs to be seen and funtionality that needs to be exposed. You can't play a turn-based strategy/tactics game in a vacuum. The whole point (to me) of turn-based is being able to analyze and execute well thought out actions, and they require data (vs the hotkey spaz bonanza of RTS).
Lastly, I think some people go beyond overboard in regards to discussing this game and/or glorifying the past. Ultimately, we're talking about a game, not life or death. I would never want to play a game designed by some people who post here since the game would probably be pure misery that only 3 people would ever enjoy.
Remember, this is the internet. Statements made with as little information as possible is a mark of pride around here.
It's even worse, this is a internet fanbase forum. The grubby harlem of the internet.Remember, this is the internet. Statements made with as little information as possible is a mark of pride around here.
Unless you like bad theoretical discussion that is mostly useless, this is not the place for you.
I could hug you guys right now.
LOL!
This discussion suddenly got pretty meta.
Looks good to me. From the screenshots in this thread, I don't see how the UI could get much more minimal unless you wanted to show less information on the screen. I can't say I've seen any suggestions on how to improve the current set-up (at least none that I'd agree with.)
Personally, I could go either way with knowing how much health the enemies have. I'm coming to strategy games from a tabletop perspective - where (naturally) you're going to know all of the variables anyway. I could see not knowing how close an enemy is to dying (though with modern graphics, there's probably something you could do visually to show that one is nearing death) could possibly add some tension to the mix. But it's not something that's going to bug me either way.
I do hope (at least in the PC version) that we'll have access to all of the variables that might come into play. At the very least I do like to see a % chance for what I'm about to do. And I think it'd be nice to be able to see what factors come into play to arrive that percentage. Probably not as a default function, but say with hovering the mouse over a target you could see an expanded break-down of how much cover, range, etc, are factoring into your chances to hit something.
That's just me, though - I like being able to have access to as much information as possible when I'm planning out my tactics for the round.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote