|
On December 27 2011 22:12 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 21:52 Sergio1992 wrote:
Game is still in beta,even if it is sold as a complete game. There is no alternative to starcraft on rts gaming, or I would surely have taken one. The fact that you gotta pay for three different sets to see a story being developed already explains how much blizzard care about you.And trust me, they will cost 60 bucks each. I don't know what happened to blizzard, but they became different from the society I remember made starcraft 1. I can't believe people are so petty and willing to whine about absolutely everything. The business model for games has seem to evolved to either subscription based games or pumping out new expansions/DLC whenever they can. This also annoys the shit out of me, when the games are bad.. SC2 campaign was much longer than HEAPS of other game's campaigns, PLUS you get unlimited multiplayer with no subscriptions, and a dedicated team who after a year and a half after release still work on bug fixes, balance tweaks as well as more content (GM league, their 3 official custom games, new portraits/achievements). Wings of Liberty is a full, complete game that has given me (and I'm sure plenty of the people on this board) HUNDREDS of hours of entertainment. If you wanted to go and see a movie, takes 2 hours and you pay $15. Yet you pay $60 for hundreds of hours of good entertainment and all you do is bitch cause you are going to have to fork out another $60 (unlikely it will be this high) for an expansion which will provide a new campaign + units? God damn it put shit in perspective. In Australia we pay ~$90 for most games, and I will gladly pay full price for the two upcoming expansions because it is worth my money. You realise why there is no alternative to starcraft in RTS gaming? Because it's the best RTS game around. Yeah the game isn't perfect, but if you think it is barely worth the $60 you paid for it then I am surprised you post on these forums.
You take such offense to someone criticizing a game, that you'll angrily swear at a person in response? That really is some "perspective" you have there.
By the way, how exactly do you expect things to get fixed if people don't complain? The fact is that if people don't make it clear that they're dissatisfied, then Blizzard won't change it. They're not a charity, they respond to the demands of their customers. If anything, you're a free rider simultaneously benefiting from the complaints of other people and criticizing them for complaining.
|
You guys are getting out of point. Yes the UI is sloppy, but what the OP is driving at is that Blizzard seems to have released a rather unpolished game from the looks of it despite its reputation.
Yes, Starcraft 2 is one of the best RTSes out there, but that doesn't mean we cannot expect more. The moment we start to expect less from game developers is the time their products start to decline in quality. The same can be said for every thing in the world: government, education, consumer products, etc.
|
I just wish the resources were in the bottom middle left between the minimap and unit info. Kinda sucks to look at the two far ends of the screen for important info.
Think the UI was designed for 4:3 screens or just replicated from Brood Wars.
|
I've never noticed any of this before, nor will I care at all in the future, it all works perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned.
|
I find that people are completely missing the point that was clearly illustrated in the OP.
It isn't about if you care or not, or if you find it irrelevant. It is about consistency with is what presentation/UI is all about. I just imagine the days when websites didn't use .CSS and some still don't do.
What I would find more interesting is why it came to this which sounds like different teams handled the UI. I honestly don't know how it was overlooked.
|
This isn't what blizzard should be working on anyway imo, as long as it works ^^ very few people are actually bothered by this, no?
|
On December 27 2011 23:47 sevhil wrote:
It isn't about if you care or not, or if you find it irrelevant. It is about consistency with is what presentation/UI is all about. I just imagine the days when websites didn't use .CSS and some still don't do.
But there are consistent features within the items the OP listed. Addressing it by color used by the OP:
WHITE: The Non-See through backgrounds are displaying in-game units or pictures. Transparency would distort those units and make them difficult for players to identify in some cases. It also draws from the artwork that the units were initially created for, and they may not want to diminish that artwork.
The transparent ones are strictly text-based, information menus. No pictures to distract you.
YELLOW: The Bolded font can use hotkeys to navigate each menu tab.
PINK: To be perfectly honest I don't see this font difference. You would have to actually have the same word in both fields to be able to compare them properly. The OPTIONS screen is tighter for space and squished. It may not be a different font at all, just squeezed to fit the space provided.
GREEN: CLOSE vs (Cancel) and (Accept)
There is only 1 CLOSE Button on the bottom right. There is no option. There is no decision to be made other than I don't want to see this message box anymore.
In the 'Lower Case' boxes, you are actively making changes, or at least have the option to. Screaming 'ACCEPT' at the user may have come off a bit harsh so they chose to give the option to: 1) Cancel the current changes or 2) Accept the current changes
RED: In game, you have an assigned race. Out of game, you have a "most played race." Very similar but not quite the same. This actually would be a nice option, to be able to pick your menu frames by race played. However, this may need to be compared to other Bnet 2.0 interfaces to really draw any conclusions.
Just because something isnt EXACTLY as you would like it doesn't mean its wrong. I could very well be wrong in everything I posted, but I consider my post to have reasonable and logical explanations for the 'flaws' that you pointed out.
|
This. Is. Ridiculous.
Blizzard please nerf this solution, I'm pretty sure I lost a game due to this flaws.
|
Im pretty sure this means SC2 is amazing if you're looking this hard for mistakes.
|
On December 27 2011 21:52 Sergio1992 wrote:
Game is still in beta,even if it is sold as a complete game. There is no alternative to starcraft on rts gaming, or I would surely have taken one. The fact that you gotta pay for three different sets to see a story being developed already explains how much blizzard care about you.And trust me, they will cost 60 bucks each. I don't know what happened to blizzard, but they became different from the society I remember made starcraft 1.
Warcraft III crushes Starcraft 2. It just looks icky cause the graphics are old and it's not the badass esport that SC2 is. It's also fantasy based and I know a lot of people prefer Sci-fi.
But if you're looking for sheer depth of mechanics, Warcraft III still wins.
Also, yes, that UI is very sloppy. It shouldn't have made it past review. But I'm not bothered enough by to whine outside of this single post so I'll move on. Unless it's one of those things that cannot be unseen. OH GOD OP WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!
|
uhm.. you dont happen to be autistic do you`?
|
I like the OP. Presentation is important and a sign of professionalism is taking care of the small details. Bringing it to the attention of Blizzard will allow them to consider these issues and maybe make the game a bit more polished.
You could probably also hand in an essay with a few misspellings and it wouldn't detract from the overall message. However, it's a sign of poor form and laziness.
|
They should have their D3 UI team have a look at sc2 UI.
|
i'm glad i'm not the only one who get's pissed off by blizzard's 'sloppy'/careless design flaws...
|
On December 27 2011 23:20 whatthefat wrote:Well, I can't help myself.  + Show Spoiler +
I thought this was hilarious. I was thinking the same thing while reading.
Either way, good finds by the OP. It's pretty nit-picky, but the UI is a bit inconsistent.
|
interesting find, and i can say that i'm not surprised. it honestly seems like blizzard was so concerned about their money situation in the creation of starcraft 2 that they just threw this project to someone who threw b.net 2.0 together so quickly and just went with it. when in reality blizzard could easily have a dev team working on b.net 2.0 releasing patches atleast once a month making improvments and changes to the map pool keeping the game fresh and consumers interested, instead they go for the cheap route and release b.net improvment patches once every... year? oh wait... uhm i'm not quite sure.
this isn't a huge issue honestly, i'd just like to be able to play a custom regular game of starcraft on a map besides the shattered temple without having to have a practice partner... after what two years now and this hasn't changed... yea we'll be seeing these frames like this for a while... nice find
|
I'm not really surprised considering the battle.net interface and features were what delayed the game in the first place. Not to be mean or anything but .. who gives a shit? They do this with Firefox as well. (http://areweprettyyet.com/4/mainWindow/) UIs have inconsistencies and I always laughed when someone linked Mozilla's site about the ones in firefox. It's a browser and it's a good one, I can honestly say I don't care if something is 1px off as far as alignment goes as long as the browser is good. Same with StarCraft. So the corners are inconsistent on some of the windows - The game works, the balance is fine, actual gameplay stuff is getting updated, Blizzard is doing a good job. That's pretty evident if people are complaining about cosmetic issues in the UI rather than the game itself. I'm not defending bnet 2.0 or anything, I'm not really a fan of the downgrade, but this is just nitpicky.
Sometimes the Blizzard hate baffles me. Like with the price of the expansions and the game itself. 10 years ago or whatever when WarCraft 3 came out, it was also $60, but people seem to forget that and the expansion was $40 iirc. Every Blizzard game that's ever come out has had people whine about quality and shout that blizzard is greedy and money hungry and every one of those games has been high quality. I can't see why SC2 or it's expansions are any different. Blizzard is most definitely not as greedy as people say they are. People are lined up with cash in hand to pay Blizzard for name changes, a simple service, and Blizzard isn't listening. If Blizzard was all that greedy paid name changes would have been here a year ago.
|
Oh, well, I'm going to call Blizzard and voice my disgust and then symbolically burn my SC2 case before retreating to the wilds to live my days out as a hermit, away from where Blizzard's heinous crimes can hurt me. Unacceptable.
+ Show Spoiler +I find it difficult to care and nor do I find any of them to be glaringly bad.
|
rofl.. :D you bad blizzard you.. make sure to keep the opacity of every window the exact same...or your ruining esports!
Edit: never even knew inconsistencies were a bad thing.
What if I were to say I'd rather the interface this way?
|
sO, guessing like no school or work today hmm?
Dont rly care about those things, dont influence my gameplay at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bphIb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RZrgK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zUdr7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MJN3O.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MJfS8.jpg)
