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)
too awesome
SC2's tacky and inconsistant UI - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
LittleAtari
Jordan1090 Posts
too awesome | ||
|
Ansinjunger
United States2451 Posts
If you get Blizzard to fix it, make them add a medic to the main menu. I'd rather not fumble around and potentially get caught doing it the non-legit way, or, more likely, screw something up. | ||
|
Valashu
Netherlands561 Posts
| ||
|
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
| ||
|
AimlessAmoeba
Canada704 Posts
For serious though, never really noticed before, and now that's all I'm gonna notice. Thanks for that  | ||
|
adrenaLinG
Canada676 Posts
The same time it took people to realize that Apple had superior industrial design? | ||
|
ApocAlypsE007
Israel1007 Posts
BUT! 18 months and no one noticed, it doesn't break gameplay, hell if I have not read the OP I might have never known. In fact the opening post reminds me of BSN where they argue about the face texture of one of the characters in Bioware games, the overdramatic tone (Inconsistencies in transperancy of the menus? SC2 RUINED FOREVER!) doesnt fit a respected multiplayer strategy forum like TL. | ||
|
adrenaLinG
Canada676 Posts
On December 28 2011 04:19 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: Kinda rushed from Blizzard who are known for attention for small details. BUT! 18 months and no one noticed, it doesn't break gameplay, hell if I have not read the OP I might have never known. In fact the opening post reminds me of BSN where they argue about the face texture of one of the characters in Bioware games, the overdramatic tone (Inconsistencies in transperancy of the menus? SC2 RUINED FOREVER!) doesnt fit a respected multiplayer strategy forum like TL. I think most people implicitly know these things. You may not see the specific things like the OP pointed out, but you can certainly "feel" whether a UI is sloppy or clean. And you can definitely notice when one is better than another. Even BNet 1.0 had a more intuitive interface than BNet 2.0 -- chat room was the center of the screen, and then you clicked on the game list. In Bnet 2.0, chat is a little button in the corner, join game is hidden in the bottom right, your home page (the first thing you see when you open the game) is relating a single-player game mode that you don't play anymore, you get a page full of social media updates that no one gives a shit about, messaging a friend means going through every single person and trying to find the person you added and you weren't sure whether they were "RealID or character ID" and you can't /f m jgoidasjgdioas There is just so much bad UI and the entire BNet 2.0 is literally garbage just pulled straight from the beta. They spent more time on the Hyperion single player interface that no one plays anymore over the multiplayer UI that was supposed to be "E-sports" | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On December 28 2011 04:25 adrenaLinG wrote: I think most people implicitly know these things. You may not see the specific things like the OP pointed out, but you can certainly "feel" whether a UI is sloppy or clean. And you can definitely notice when one is better than another. Even BNet 1.0 had a more intuitive interface than BNet 2.0 -- chat room was the center of the screen, and then you clicked on the game list. In Bnet 2.0, chat is a little button in the corner, join game is hidden in the bottom right, your home page (the first thing you see when you open the game) is relating a single-player game mode that you don't play anymore, you get a page full of social media updates that no one gives a shit about, messaging a friend means going through every single person and trying to find the person you added and you weren't sure whether they were "RealID or character ID" and you can't /f m jgoidasjgdioas There is just so much bad UI and the entire BNet 2.0 is literally garbage just pulled straight from the beta. They spent more time on the Hyperion single player interface that no one plays anymore over the multiplayer UI that was supposed to be "E-sports" The battle.net UI looks like it was designed for a console. So much wasted space and the oddest button layouts I've seen in a long time. | ||
|
oxxo
988 Posts
| ||
|
Bazzyrick
United Kingdom361 Posts
| ||
|
TheGreenMachine
United States730 Posts
| ||
|
Chronald
United States619 Posts
It is Activision. Look at the history of Activision, they are notorious for eeking each dollar out of a game, and making it as low-budget as possible. Sadly, SC2 suffers from this. Dustin and his team are encouraged to rush things to production in order to improve people's purchase rates. These micro transactions (name change, etc.) are another example of money grubbing Activision. There isn't an end in sight for these types of things, since B/A won't be going back to just B anytime soon. I wish there was a way to converse openly with Dustin about how piss poor this first effort was, and how bad Heart of the Swarm promises to be. I really wish I didn't love RTS gaming so much anymore, because frankly SC2 is nothing more than Activision taking a Blizzard product that bastardizing it in order to 'profit' (even though from what I've read .SC2 wasn't a financial success for the most part, and good riddance in my mind, fuck activision). On December 28 2011 05:24 Tristran wrote: Your a little bit OCD or something to sit and look through all these minor differences. These differences are so small and unimportant that I didn't even notice them. It doesn't affect the game or your game play. Stop thinking about it. Maybe play the game instead, after all it's more fun to kiss a woman than sit and point out her imperfections. But if you paid for that women, wouldn't you want her to be everything you desire? | ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
On December 28 2011 05:24 Tristran wrote: Your a little bit OCD or something to sit and look through all these minor differences. These differences are so small and unimportant that I didn't even notice them. It doesn't affect the game or your game play. Stop thinking about it. Maybe play the game instead, after all it's more fun to kiss a woman than sit and point out her imperfections. That's because you have no eye for design.... someone who studies art or graphic design (like I'm assuming OP has some sort of formal understanding of design concepts) would notice these things immediately, like my gf has pointed these things out to me as well OO: | ||
|
Conquerer67
United States605 Posts
I don't really think that it makes a big difference, but it does show that it was a either a slightly rushed job in the development, or they thought that you wouldn't really care. And we didn't really notice or care until now apparently. As for the Achievement menu not being see-through in-game, ehhhh, I don't think you should be doing that while you're laddering in the first place. And if you're doing single-player, you can just press the pause button. | ||
|
JohnnyBanana
Canada493 Posts
On December 28 2011 05:36 Xeris wrote: That's because you have no eye for design.... someone who studies art or graphic design (like I'm assuming OP has some sort of formal understanding of design concepts) would notice these things immediately, like my gf has pointed these things out to me as well OO: So games should be designed around people that study art/graphic design? Don't be ridiculous. I'd rather Blizzard work on the name change service or replay observing with friends instead of wasting time on something that only future baristas can point out. | ||
|
Cereb
Denmark3388 Posts
This thread just made me realize that no game will ever ever ever be good enough to escape any kind of "critism" from the users On a side note: I can't believe you find these differences. Someone should hire you to spot stuff like this in their games  | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10383 Posts
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. Um then by the definition of beta, it is not beta o.o | ||
|
Dalguno
United States2446 Posts
| ||
|
Verator
United States283 Posts
It looks pretty logical to me. Shockingly, things that have different purposes don't have to be as similar as possible. Its almost like there are people that appreciate variety and visual differences. | ||
| ||
