|
Canada94 Posts
+ Show Spoiler +On October 21 2012 07:15 StreetWise wrote:Looking over the list of changes, it looks like possibly they might be implementing the WC3 ladder system. If you look at this picture: ![[image loading]](http://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/content_folder_media/L0WENI0U9HFX1350606257037.jpg?v=0) you will see numbers by the portrait. Could this be levels similar to WC3? If so, I hope they use the current match making system, but the pre 1.14 WC3 rank system.
This looks really neat. I'm not familiar with how WC3 ranking / matchmaking worked, but Im interested in anything that might attract more players to the game.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 21 2012 22:29 SoniC_eu wrote:
Activision PUMP MORE MONEY into BLIZZ plz. You are killing sc2! I guess they dont care, as long as they can sell something and gain a profit. Its just painful to watch such a epic game get worse and worse, all in the name of profit.
It's not just money or size of the teams.
Blizzard is willing to make the beta as long as required instead of targeting a certain launch date to grab the money. The expansion, in earlier days released about a year after the original game, is now over two years due. They don't just sell out the franchise to make fast profit.
Look at the development of Wol:
- They brought a graphics option for indirect shadows even though this only affects campaign settings.
- They added an option for antialiasing which required changes in the 3D engine.
- They created new low-textures to allow for better detail on low settings.
That means, after purchase, high-end user get better graphics (with indirect shadows) as well as low-end users (with the new textures) and mid-range users (who now can afford to use antialiasing which is way faster than antialiasing forced through the driver.)
Blizzard supports SC2, with no expansion required to buy and no monthly fee to pay. [/quote]
Well blizz seems to be listening to the community. But the changes are coming so slowly, (Could it be bad programming ahem ahem? Ie. Cutting corners in programming originally, just to save money and speed up the release date etc.)that i'm afraid a lotta core/community players will walk away from sc2 by the time ALL the changes have been implemented (which means by the time the Void expansions is ready.)
|
On October 22 2012 16:30 SoniC_eu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 21 2012 22:29 SoniC_eu wrote:
Activision PUMP MORE MONEY into BLIZZ plz. You are killing sc2! I guess they dont care, as long as they can sell something and gain a profit. Its just painful to watch such a epic game get worse and worse, all in the name of profit. Show nested quote +It's not just money or size of the teams.
Blizzard is willing to make the beta as long as required instead of targeting a certain launch date to grab the money. The expansion, in earlier days released about a year after the original game, is now over two years due. They don't just sell out the franchise to make fast profit.
Look at the development of Wol:
- They brought a graphics option for indirect shadows even though this only affects campaign settings.
- They added an option for antialiasing which required changes in the 3D engine.
- They created new low-textures to allow for better detail on low settings.
That means, after purchase, high-end user get better graphics (with indirect shadows) as well as low-end users (with the new textures) and mid-range users (who now can afford to use antialiasing which is way faster than antialiasing forced through the driver.)
Blizzard supports SC2, with no expansion required to buy and no monthly fee to pay. Well blizz seems to be listening to the community. But the changes are coming so slowly, (Could it be bad programming ahem ahem? Ie. Cutting corners in programming originally, just to save money and speed up the release date etc.)that i'm afraid a lotta core/community players will walk away from sc2 by the time ALL the changes have been implemented (which means by the time the Void expansions is ready.)
I think you underestimate the complexity of a project like SC2. There is no point to go into any details because if you programm yourself (and more complex things than a calculator in Delphi) and if you have experience in projects which are programmed by a team, you wouldn't think of "bad programming".
Overall, Blizzard games seems to be quite good programmed. It was possible to include an option to reduce CPU load in Starcraft 1 and to allow different zooms resolutions for D2 many years after the development. This is only possible with a well-documented, readible source code. I guess that Blizzard enforces strict policies to write, document and maintain the source code. If a lead programmer quits, they need to be able to continue the support of the project. It is vital for the success of Blizzard, they are not a bunch of amateurs.
Any Blizzard games runs on a wide range of computers with almost no issues. Other games I have played are often plagued by graphical artifacts, sudden crashes to desktop, freezes when saving a game and so forth. (With the exception of Max Payne 1 and 2, those games are outstandingly stable!)
The Bnet UI was overhauled several times. The WoL Beta UI looked very strange, it was polished several times. Then we had some small changes after the launch, then the big change with 1.5 and now we get an even bigger update with HotS. This would be virtually impossible if the programming was bad.
SC2 was the first Bnet 2.0 game, so there was a great undiscovered country. Now when they are more experienced with implementing an Bnet 2.0 UI, they can offer a more streamlined, yet powerful UI.
The Bnet 2.0 integration lead to a delayed launch by some months, this is no indication of a rushed programming.
|
In most cases, from what I understand, slow progress is the result of implementing, trying, and ruling out many options internally before announcing a change or pushing it out for testing on beta or PTR servers.
|
On October 22 2012 22:43 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 16:30 SoniC_eu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 21 2012 22:29 SoniC_eu wrote:
Activision PUMP MORE MONEY into BLIZZ plz. You are killing sc2! I guess they dont care, as long as they can sell something and gain a profit. Its just painful to watch such a epic game get worse and worse, all in the name of profit. It's not just money or size of the teams.
Blizzard is willing to make the beta as long as required instead of targeting a certain launch date to grab the money. The expansion, in earlier days released about a year after the original game, is now over two years due. They don't just sell out the franchise to make fast profit.
Look at the development of Wol:
- They brought a graphics option for indirect shadows even though this only affects campaign settings.
- They added an option for antialiasing which required changes in the 3D engine.
- They created new low-textures to allow for better detail on low settings.
That means, after purchase, high-end user get better graphics (with indirect shadows) as well as low-end users (with the new textures) and mid-range users (who now can afford to use antialiasing which is way faster than antialiasing forced through the driver.)
Blizzard supports SC2, with no expansion required to buy and no monthly fee to pay. Well blizz seems to be listening to the community. But the changes are coming so slowly, (Could it be bad programming ahem ahem? Ie. Cutting corners in programming originally, just to save money and speed up the release date etc.)that i'm afraid a lotta core/community players will walk away from sc2 by the time ALL the changes have been implemented (which means by the time the Void expansions is ready.) I think you underestimate the complexity of a project like SC2. There is no point to go into any details because if you programm yourself (and more complex things than a calculator in Delphi) and if you have experience in projects which are programmed by a team, you wouldn't think of "bad programming". Overall, Blizzard games seems to be quite good programmed. It was possible to include an option to reduce CPU load in Starcraft 1 and to allow different zooms resolutions for D2 many years after the development. This is only possible with a well-documented, readible source code. I guess that Blizzard enforces strict policies to write, document and maintain the source code. If a lead programmer quits, they need to be able to continue the support of the project. It is vital for the success of Blizzard, they are not a bunch of amateurs. Any Blizzard games runs on a wide range of computers with almost no issues. Other games I have played are often plagued by graphical artifacts, sudden crashes to desktop, freezes when saving a game and so forth. (With the exception of Max Payne 1 and 2, those games are outstandingly stable!) The Bnet UI was overhauled several times. The WoL Beta UI looked very strange, it was polished several times. Then we had some small changes after the launch, then the big change with 1.5 and now we get an even bigger update with HotS. This would be virtually impossible if the programming was bad. SC2 was the first Bnet 2.0 game, so there was a great undiscovered country. Now when they are more experienced with implementing an Bnet 2.0 UI, they can offer a more streamlined, yet powerful UI. The Bnet 2.0 integration lead to a delayed launch by some months, this is no indication of a rushed programming.
As someone who works on complex UI's for a living this is total nonesense. The changes thus far have been mostly cosmetic and fairly small. If the UI programming was good or the team was of reasonable competance this changing of layouts is at the very most a man-weeks work (even that assumes lots of changing and trying things out). It's still lacking basic features from ye olde battlenet, they've done a whole lot of nothing.
That the engine is relatively stable doesn't change this. (and you only have to look back a few patches to see lots of issues with crappy performance and crashes on different architectures, it used to give <30fps on high end AMD/Radeon based rigs that could max out more demanding games without issues.) A lot of geometry artifacts tend to occur most when things are moving towards the clip plane which isn't really an issue in an RTS, and lets not pretend SC2 looks like cryengine3, its not ugly but its not next generation.
I think the pedestal you choose is too high. SC2 is brilliant but they obviously haven't got much of a team on battlenet.
|
Come on blizz please put in custom army skins we can buy pretty please
|
On October 22 2012 22:43 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 16:30 SoniC_eu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 21 2012 22:29 SoniC_eu wrote:
Activision PUMP MORE MONEY into BLIZZ plz. You are killing sc2! I guess they dont care, as long as they can sell something and gain a profit. Its just painful to watch such a epic game get worse and worse, all in the name of profit. It's not just money or size of the teams.
Blizzard is willing to make the beta as long as required instead of targeting a certain launch date to grab the money. The expansion, in earlier days released about a year after the original game, is now over two years due. They don't just sell out the franchise to make fast profit.
Look at the development of Wol:
- They brought a graphics option for indirect shadows even though this only affects campaign settings.
- They added an option for antialiasing which required changes in the 3D engine.
- They created new low-textures to allow for better detail on low settings.
That means, after purchase, high-end user get better graphics (with indirect shadows) as well as low-end users (with the new textures) and mid-range users (who now can afford to use antialiasing which is way faster than antialiasing forced through the driver.)
Blizzard supports SC2, with no expansion required to buy and no monthly fee to pay. Well blizz seems to be listening to the community. But the changes are coming so slowly, (Could it be bad programming ahem ahem? Ie. Cutting corners in programming originally, just to save money and speed up the release date etc.)that i'm afraid a lotta core/community players will walk away from sc2 by the time ALL the changes have been implemented (which means by the time the Void expansions is ready.) I think you underestimate the complexity of a project like SC2. There is no point to go into any details because if you programm yourself (and more complex things than a calculator in Delphi) and if you have experience in projects which are programmed by a team, you wouldn't think of "bad programming". Overall, Blizzard games seems to be quite good programmed. It was possible to include an option to reduce CPU load in Starcraft 1 and to allow different zooms resolutions for D2 many years after the development. This is only possible with a well-documented, readible source code. I guess that Blizzard enforces strict policies to write, document and maintain the source code. If a lead programmer quits, they need to be able to continue the support of the project. It is vital for the success of Blizzard, they are not a bunch of amateurs. Any Blizzard games runs on a wide range of computers with almost no issues. Other games I have played are often plagued by graphical artifacts, sudden crashes to desktop, freezes when saving a game and so forth. (With the exception of Max Payne 1 and 2, those games are outstandingly stable!) The Bnet UI was overhauled several times. The WoL Beta UI looked very strange, it was polished several times. Then we had some small changes after the launch, then the big change with 1.5 and now we get an even bigger update with HotS. This would be virtually impossible if the programming was bad. SC2 was the first Bnet 2.0 game, so there was a great undiscovered country. Now when they are more experienced with implementing an Bnet 2.0 UI, they can offer a more streamlined, yet powerful UI. The Bnet 2.0 integration lead to a delayed launch by some months, this is no indication of a rushed programming.
This mans speaks the truth. UI is one of the hardest things to create in programming. Look at any major piece of software and you will see how much effort must go into UI. Microsoft word, outlook, IOS, Mac OS all have gone through endless iterations in an effort to make them better. Iteration is the key to good UI and no one can create a great UI in a vacuum. If you look at companies who do great things with UI, they did not create great things out the gate. Apple has released a new version of their Iphone UI every year since release.
Also, UI has only become the focus of the SC2 community since Dota 2 raised the bar with their awesome features, such as tournament tickets, in client viewing, social features and pennant system. Mind you, none of us knew we wanted this stuff until Valve made it. I didn’t know I wanted to buy tickets to tournaments though the client, or pennants. Now we are look at SC2 and wanting the same or more. But we forget that Valve spent 6 months to a year creating these features, all built off the backend of Steam. They got to watch SC2 release, watch Esports grow and then release a UI in their beta after 2 years of growth. During that time, Blizzard released two retail box games that solid millions of units each.
The other parts about SC2 are 100% correct as well. It a stable game, with good net code that rarely lags. Dropping games always causes the player who dropped to get the loss, which was not the case for RTS games I played 1 year before SC2 release. The game runs on a ton of PCs, scales well and has snappy controls and interface in game. SC2 itself is solid from a programming stand points and it is impressive how good it is. When I play other RTS games, I get so mad at how swimmy the controls are.
Blizzard has some big things they need to do, but people need to understand that Valve and Riot are creating features two years after SC2 was released. It’s not a problem in quality, rather than people are being shown awesome stuff and we want that for SC2.
|
Fuck yeah, it looks great! (the visuals too!)
|
In game map win rates and race win rates is much needed.. thank you Blizzard for listening to the community.. and please continue to do so!
|
On October 22 2012 16:30 SoniC_eu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 21 2012 22:29 SoniC_eu wrote:
Activision PUMP MORE MONEY into BLIZZ plz. You are killing sc2! I guess they dont care, as long as they can sell something and gain a profit. Its just painful to watch such a epic game get worse and worse, all in the name of profit. Show nested quote +It's not just money or size of the teams.
Blizzard is willing to make the beta as long as required instead of targeting a certain launch date to grab the money. The expansion, in earlier days released about a year after the original game, is now over two years due. They don't just sell out the franchise to make fast profit.
Look at the development of Wol:
- They brought a graphics option for indirect shadows even though this only affects campaign settings.
- They added an option for antialiasing which required changes in the 3D engine.
- They created new low-textures to allow for better detail on low settings.
That means, after purchase, high-end user get better graphics (with indirect shadows) as well as low-end users (with the new textures) and mid-range users (who now can afford to use antialiasing which is way faster than antialiasing forced through the driver.)
Blizzard supports SC2, with no expansion required to buy and no monthly fee to pay.
Well blizz seems to be listening to the community. But the changes are coming so slowly, (Could it be bad programming ahem ahem? Ie. Cutting corners in programming originally, just to save money and speed up the release date etc.)that i'm afraid a lotta core/community players will walk away from sc2 by the time ALL the changes have been implemented (which means by the time the Void expansions is ready.) [/QUOTE]
From lots of evidence, i think it's clear that they simply don't have a big team working on SC2. Same with D3. They have 2 unnanounced titles coming out, and also WoW to maintain, which gives much more income than SC2.
However, i do think that the people working on SC2 (dustin, david, etc.) are very passionate, as you can see they do communicate often and listen (despite how many times people may ignorantly claim against), but they are just slow because they probably have a very small team.
|
If that's the problem then Blizz should hire me 
I'm an amazing developer and I have the mind of a Grandmasters player (if only my hands could keep up)
|
On October 23 2012 01:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 22:43 [F_]aths wrote:On October 22 2012 16:30 SoniC_eu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 21 2012 22:29 SoniC_eu wrote:
Activision PUMP MORE MONEY into BLIZZ plz. You are killing sc2! I guess they dont care, as long as they can sell something and gain a profit. Its just painful to watch such a epic game get worse and worse, all in the name of profit. It's not just money or size of the teams.
Blizzard is willing to make the beta as long as required instead of targeting a certain launch date to grab the money. The expansion, in earlier days released about a year after the original game, is now over two years due. They don't just sell out the franchise to make fast profit.
Look at the development of Wol:
- They brought a graphics option for indirect shadows even though this only affects campaign settings.
- They added an option for antialiasing which required changes in the 3D engine.
- They created new low-textures to allow for better detail on low settings.
That means, after purchase, high-end user get better graphics (with indirect shadows) as well as low-end users (with the new textures) and mid-range users (who now can afford to use antialiasing which is way faster than antialiasing forced through the driver.)
Blizzard supports SC2, with no expansion required to buy and no monthly fee to pay. Well blizz seems to be listening to the community. But the changes are coming so slowly, (Could it be bad programming ahem ahem? Ie. Cutting corners in programming originally, just to save money and speed up the release date etc.)that i'm afraid a lotta core/community players will walk away from sc2 by the time ALL the changes have been implemented (which means by the time the Void expansions is ready.) I think you underestimate the complexity of a project like SC2. There is no point to go into any details because if you programm yourself (and more complex things than a calculator in Delphi) and if you have experience in projects which are programmed by a team, you wouldn't think of "bad programming". Overall, Blizzard games seems to be quite good programmed. It was possible to include an option to reduce CPU load in Starcraft 1 and to allow different zooms resolutions for D2 many years after the development. This is only possible with a well-documented, readible source code. I guess that Blizzard enforces strict policies to write, document and maintain the source code. If a lead programmer quits, they need to be able to continue the support of the project. It is vital for the success of Blizzard, they are not a bunch of amateurs. Any Blizzard games runs on a wide range of computers with almost no issues. Other games I have played are often plagued by graphical artifacts, sudden crashes to desktop, freezes when saving a game and so forth. (With the exception of Max Payne 1 and 2, those games are outstandingly stable!) The Bnet UI was overhauled several times. The WoL Beta UI looked very strange, it was polished several times. Then we had some small changes after the launch, then the big change with 1.5 and now we get an even bigger update with HotS. This would be virtually impossible if the programming was bad. SC2 was the first Bnet 2.0 game, so there was a great undiscovered country. Now when they are more experienced with implementing an Bnet 2.0 UI, they can offer a more streamlined, yet powerful UI. The Bnet 2.0 integration lead to a delayed launch by some months, this is no indication of a rushed programming. This mans speaks the truth. UI is one of the hardest things to create in programming. Look at any major piece of software and you will see how much effort must go into UI. Microsoft word, outlook, IOS, Mac OS all have gone through endless iterations in an effort to make them better. Iteration is the key to good UI and no one can create a great UI in a vacuum. If you look at companies who do great things with UI, they did not create great things out the gate. Apple has released a new version of their Iphone UI every year since release. Also, UI has only become the focus of the SC2 community since Dota 2 raised the bar with their awesome features, such as tournament tickets, in client viewing, social features and pennant system. Mind you, none of us knew we wanted this stuff until Valve made it. I didn’t know I wanted to buy tickets to tournaments though the client, or pennants. Now we are look at SC2 and wanting the same or more. But we forget that Valve spent 6 months to a year creating these features, all built off the backend of Steam. They got to watch SC2 release, watch Esports grow and then release a UI in their beta after 2 years of growth. During that time, Blizzard released two retail box games that solid millions of units each. The other parts about SC2 are 100% correct as well. It a stable game, with good net code that rarely lags. Dropping games always causes the player who dropped to get the loss, which was not the case for RTS games I played 1 year before SC2 release. The game runs on a ton of PCs, scales well and has snappy controls and interface in game. SC2 itself is solid from a programming stand points and it is impressive how good it is. When I play other RTS games, I get so mad at how swimmy the controls are. Blizzard has some big things they need to do, but people need to understand that Valve and Riot are creating features two years after SC2 was released. It’s not a problem in quality, rather than people are being shown awesome stuff and we want that for SC2.
I don't think anyone doubts the polish that SC2 has in its engine. Its the fact that SC2 has so much untapped potential, and yet Blizzard isn't letting the game live up to what its capable of. As you mentioned the game has great netcode, and even great pathing from a technical standpoint. Its not that it lacks in quality, but in substance.
|
From lots of evidence, i think it's clear that they simply don't have a big team working on SC2. Same with D3. They have 2 unnanounced titles coming out, and also WoW to maintain, which gives much more income than SC2.
However, i do think that the people working on SC2 (dustin, david, etc.) are very passionate, as you can see they do communicate often and listen (despite how many times people may ignorantly claim against), but they are just slow because they probably have a very small team.
I agree that the Blizz dev team is very passionate, but they're often very slow at responding to community requests. This isn't always a bad thing, for example, I think the devs frequently make the right decision by not rushing to implement community balance suggestions. In my opinion, it's better to let the metagame evolve rather than making knee-jerk changes to the race/unit/etc. that the community has deemed the OP flavor of the month.
That said, it's pretty clear that that ARE understaffed and nonresponsive in problematic ways, as evidenced by their failure to respond in a reasonable timeframe to non-balance issues. The extent of this problem is obvious by their failure to implement long-standing and simple community suggestions *cough* paid name changes *cough.* Furthermore, I feel that, unlike balance issues, UI changes are something where Blizzard really couldn't go wrong being overly responsive to community suggestions. If the majority of the community wants a feature, then they'll probably still want it several months from that time -there is no metagame which can change regarding the UI.
I'm very happy with the HOTS UI changes overall, but they're barely scratching the surface of what the community wants. Furthermore, these UI changes may have taken quite a while to implement, Blizz devs have stated elsewhere that the UI changes were NOT in response to the recent community outcry, the release of this information days after everyone complained was mere coincidence.
What is says to me is simple: don't except UI changes for HOTs beyond what was just previewed. Personally, I think that sucks, since some of the major UI concerns are still unaddressed. For example, the UI still looks barren, and still feels empty (although I'm hoping the promised clan support will change that).
|
On October 23 2012 06:51 Series7 wrote:
That said, it's pretty clear that that ARE understaffed and nonresponsive in problematic ways, as evidenced by their failure to respond in a reasonable timeframe to non-balance issues. The extent of this problem is obvious by their failure to implement long-standing and simple community suggestions *cough* paid name changes *cough.* Furthermore, I feel that, unlike balance issues, UI changes are something where Blizzard really couldn't go wrong being overly responsive to community suggestions. If the majority of the community wants a feature, then they'll probably still want it several months from that time -there is no metagame which can change regarding the UI.
SC2 UI and battle.net features like paid name changes (and probably some of the stuff in the OP) are almost certainly more difficult to execute than in-game changes, because there's a separate Battle.net team involved. In the case of paid services like name changes, there are probably other groups involved too, like whoever does billing IT support, whoever handles the web account interface, etc. etc. That kind of thing can make those features a lot more complicated, because no one developer has the knowledge or ability to make all the necessary changes to implement the feature.
Plus, you know, the SC2 game dev team might say to all the other parties "hey we need paid name changes" but they all have to fit a tiny piece of that implementation into their otherwise full schedules, not all may assign it the same priority, and it relies on having someone really standing up for that feature to drive getting it done with everyone involved. It's an organizational challenge more than a development challenge.
|
On October 23 2012 06:51 Series7 wrote:Show nested quote +From lots of evidence, i think it's clear that they simply don't have a big team working on SC2. Same with D3. They have 2 unnanounced titles coming out, and also WoW to maintain, which gives much more income than SC2.
However, i do think that the people working on SC2 (dustin, david, etc.) are very passionate, as you can see they do communicate often and listen (despite how many times people may ignorantly claim against), but they are just slow because they probably have a very small team. I agree that the Blizz dev team is very passionate, but they're often very slow at responding to community requests. This isn't always a bad thing, for example, I think the devs frequently make the right decision by not rushing to implement community balance suggestions. In my opinion, it's better to let the metagame evolve rather than making knee-jerk changes to the race/unit/etc. that the community has deemed the OP flavor of the month. That said, it's pretty clear that that ARE understaffed and nonresponsive in problematic ways, as evidenced by their failure to respond in a reasonable timeframe to non-balance issues. The extent of this problem is obvious by their failure to implement long-standing and simple community suggestions *cough* paid name changes *cough.* Furthermore, I feel that, unlike balance issues, UI changes are something where Blizzard really couldn't go wrong being overly responsive to community suggestions. If the majority of the community wants a feature, then they'll probably still want it several months from that time -there is no metagame which can change regarding the UI. I'm very happy with the HOTS UI changes overall, but they're barely scratching the surface of what the community wants. Furthermore, these UI changes may have taken quite a while to implement, Blizz devs have stated elsewhere that the UI changes were NOT in response to the recent community outcry, the release of this information days after everyone complained was mere coincidence. What is says to me is simple: don't except UI changes for HOTs beyond what was just previewed. Personally, I think that sucks, since some of the major UI concerns are still unaddressed. For example, the UI still looks barren, and still feels empty (although I'm hoping the promised clan support will change that).
Nice point regarding the UI, that it's something that will make everyone happy (the only negative part is taken away now with unranked matches, so that you have a way to practice without worrying about stats).
I wonder if it really was a coincidence, but either way I'm happy.
Also, wow, i totally forgot about the paid name changes X).
I agree that they can take a long time to talk back to the community about things (like the recent statement regarding the oracle), but I also understand why (especially if they are understaffed), since constantly posting public statements (in which they are pressured to write with exceptional quality to prevent misconceptions and such) can be very time consuming, while simply reading feedback is much faster and still benefits them the same way.
|
I think it has more to do with the fact the project manager for bnet 0.2 was original group leader for xbox live, ex popcap games designer.
xbox live arcade ... battle.net arcade?
|
On October 23 2012 07:23 a176 wrote:
I think it has more to do with the fact the project manager for bnet 0.2 was original group leader for xbox live, ex popcap games designer.
xbox live arcade ... battle.net arcade?
Really? That coupled with a game designer from command and conquer... Makes me think whoever put this team together has made some questionable decisions.
All the authorititively stated "you don't understand, programming UI's is really hard" posts are making me sad in my little programmers heart. The mechanisms for the UI are there and work fine. All the "hard" work is done. Unless its a software design clusterfuck moving and adding content around on them isn't that difficult.
|
On October 23 2012 22:33 mostevil wrote:
All the authorititively stated "you don't understand, programming UI's is really hard" posts are making me sad in my little programmers heart. The mechanisms for the UI are there and work fine. All the "hard" work is done. Unless its a software design clusterfuck moving and adding content around on them isn't that difficult.
The disconnect between you and the people saying that is that the programming for a good UI (particularly a flashy, responsive UI like Blizzard wants for SC2) is not the hard part. What's hard is the specification, and to a lesser degree the art production.
Edit: The difference between a good UI and a horrible UI is a subtle one, and the code used to make it is usually not the problem. This is why people make entire careers out of being human interface designers with only limited coding.
|
This guy is right, my wife is currently getting a masters in user interface and usability design and doesn't know shit about coding
|
Wait does this mean that we can have more than 5 people parties now? I fuckin hope so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
