|
I've taken some screenshots to show the inconsistencies in the SC2 user interface.
It is a patchwork of mismatched frames, styles and fonts. There is no cohesion, nor any unifying theme. This is highly sloppy UI design.
Here's 4 frames that can be reached from the F10-F12 buttons (click for a larger view):
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CqeBk.jpg)
I've color-coded 5 inconsistencies:
White - The top 2 frames are see-through, the bottom 2 aren't.
Yellow - The side menu uses bold font in the top left frame, but not in the bottom 2 frames.
Pink - The font used in the drag-down menu in the top left frame is different to the font used in the drag-down menu in the bottom-right frame
Green - The buttons on the top left and bottom right frames are in lower-case, while the buttons in the other 2 frames are in upper case
Red - The race-theme has been used for all of these frames. However, in the in-game achievement frame (F9), a Battle.net theme frame is used instead, and this is particularly jarring as seen below. It simply does not fit stylistically with the other frames, and it's solid planet background with metallic borders is disparate and out of place.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XOTvU.jpg)
The same problems persist with some of the out-of-game frames which can be reached on the Battle.net lobby menu. Noticed that in the in-game hotkey frame, "Accept" is used, while in the same frame out-of-game, "OK" is used instead.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hQMOn.jpg)
Blizzard, please fixed this inconsistent mess.
And feel free to add your own if you find something.
|
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.
|
Wow, have I been blind this whole time? Great finds, Blizzard is usually pretty good with this stuff but they clearly dropped the ball on a few of these.
|
Does it really affect your gameplay?
|
Fixing these inconsistencies would be great, but I still think the interface would continue to be downright ugly. I'm actually kind of excited to see what kind of UI improvements we see in HotS, if any.
|
Rofl. Honestly, who gives a crap though? This stuff could stay "broken" for the rest of eternity as long as the gameplay is good(it is).
|
I don´t think it´s that annoying, but we would really like a polished game.
|
lol who cares
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
This is unacceptable! I say we stop playing until blizz fixes this abomination of a UI!
|
The game is still in beta wut?
|
On December 27 2011 21:57 Fiendish wrote:
lol who cares
so much this. lol, you must be rly bored
User was warned for this post
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
My favorite is chronoboosting something then scrolling the mouse wheel to zoom in. Although I suppose that isn't a UI glitch/inconsistency.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
When people complain about parts of the UI being transparent and other parts not in menus that are looked at perhaps once a month, you know the game is balanced decently.
|
On December 27 2011 21:58 nihlon wrote:
The game is still in beta wut?
Sorry, these are the first things that come the my mind. Now post is getting too long
-Why you refuse to add lan? If you go into torrent site you are able to find program that allow you to play lan with SC2.
- Why are you still asking for time for clan functionalities? Are you trying to find a way to gain money even with clan functionalities?
- Why don't you add a lag check at selection screen so games aren't ruined by laggers?
- Why don't you add a selection menu when you join custom melee games where you can choose the league which you wanna play with and which race? It is so boring when people leaves at game start or while game is starting, and I'm not claiming I never did it.
-Why you, as a major competitive industry don't join on making the prize pool higher on tournaments, but instead you drain the events organizers?
.Why can't I change my name without paying? Oh well i can one time, but if I wish to change it again, no, it is impossible.
-why can't I change realm, like in SC1?
-No shared replays views.
|
typical rushed work of blizzard :D
|
I don't mind them taking 4 more years to "fix" this if it means having stuff like watching a replay with a friend on bnet earlier.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On December 27 2011 22:03 bgx wrote:
typical rushed work of blizzard :D
It took people 18 months to notice
|
On December 27 2011 21:52 Kluey wrote:
Does it really affect your gameplay?
No but it just shows that we really got 1/3rd of a full game with WOL. Sucks that the issues you pointed out probably won't be fixed till the void thing.
|
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. .
Starcraft1 and Warcraft3 come to mind. Dota is fun too.
|
On December 27 2011 22:08 ilovelings 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. . Starcraft1 and Warcraft3 come to mind. Dota is fun too.
Wait , these are blizzard alternatives.
|
On December 27 2011 22:06 Cyro wrote:It took people 18 months to notice
I actually noticed this when they patched in hotkey editing. It just took me this long to find some time to take some screenshots and write up a post about it.
|
My enjoyment of Starcraft 2 is completely ruined now. I'm never touching the game again.
|
Well this completly changes the way I view the game. Thanks.
|
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.
|
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.
nice that you like to pay for a rushed\incomplete games. With people like you, I got no doubts about why industry is trying to drain customers as much as possible.
Ah,edit: I never said I would have never paid for these games IF they were complete.
|
On December 27 2011 22:14 Sergio1992 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 22:12 Ryder. wrote: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. nice that you like to pay for a rushed\incomplete games. With people like you, I got no doubts about why industry is trying to drain customers as much as possible.
By 'people like me', you mean people who actually enjoy the game instead of incessantly whining about it? I don't get what you are getting at, of course they are trying to make money, did you expect them to give you the game for free?
Starcraft is by far the best value for money game I've bought. I'm sorry you can't join in the fun.
Edit: Yes I know it has its problems, and I know some of these problems should be very obvious to blizzard and I can't explain why they haven't fixed them. Doesn't mean the game isn't good.
|
-May be they put "Accept" in lowercase so it would fit into that box.
-The frame isn't necessarily race themed. That's a little presumptuous of you.
-There's a difference between "close" and "accept." It says "accept" when there are changes to be made to the game like graphics and hotkeys; "close" when there no changes to be made.
|
I guess you're studying graphic design or something similar, so you notice these little things and get annoyed, but believe me, 99,9% of people don't give a damn xD
|
On December 27 2011 22:17 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 22:14 Sergio1992 wrote:On December 27 2011 22:12 Ryder. wrote: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. nice that you like to pay for a rushed\incomplete games. With people like you, I got no doubts about why industry is trying to drain customers as much as possible. By 'people like me', you mean people who actually enjoy the game instead of incessantly whining about it? I don't get what you are getting at, of course they are trying to make money, did you expect them to give you the game for free? Starcraft is by far the best value for money game I've bought. I'm sorry you can't join in the fun.
One thing, first. We are behind a computer, but that doesn't mean there should be no respects between us. When I said "people like you" I didn't mean to attack you personally. Just the way you think about the game  .
No, that's the not the problem. I'm whining because I know I could have had more. Don't say me that game is complete. I don't care about portraits\achievement and so on. I would exchange everything they made (but the league system) for the features given by SC1.
|
On December 27 2011 22:06 Cyro wrote:It took people 18 months to notice
because there were other glaring mistakes, like not colored icons, or red flame icon instead of blue flame icon.
|
On December 27 2011 22:14 Sergio1992 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 22:12 Ryder. wrote: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. nice that you like to pay for a rushed\incomplete games. With people like you, I got no doubts about why industry is trying to drain customers as much as possible. Ah,edit: I never said I would have never paid for these games IF they were complete.
Why are you posting in the SC2 section of this forum? If you dont like the game, stay away from it. There is a lot of people here that love the game, even if it have had a few "flaws".
|
On December 27 2011 22:20 aderum wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 22:14 Sergio1992 wrote:On December 27 2011 22:12 Ryder. wrote: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. nice that you like to pay for a rushed\incomplete games. With people like you, I got no doubts about why industry is trying to drain customers as much as possible. Ah,edit: I never said I would have never paid for these games IF they were complete. Why are you posting in the SC2 section of this forum? If you dont like the game, stay away from it. There is a lot of people here that love the game, even if it have had a few "flaws".
I never said I don't like the game. Still flaming me? I'm just saying that game is incomplete. That's ALL. and if you refuse to notice that you are probably blind (on your view about Starcraft)
|
Good OP, things like this irk me.
Blizzard games are usually highly polished. I've not enjoyed Bnet 2.0 + SC2 UI since it's release.
Of course it doesn't affect game play.
|
On December 27 2011 22:18 AndAgain wrote:
-May be they put "Accept" in lowercase so it would fit into that box.
-The frame isn't necessarily race themed. That's a little presumptuous of you.
-There's a difference between "close" and "accept." It says "accept" when there are changes to be made to the game like graphics and hotkeys; "close" when there no changes to be made.
My problem is not the usage of "accept" vs "close". It's the fact the word "CLOSE" is in all upper case, while the word "Accept" isn't. This is inconsistent. Either make all those buttons use upper-case or make them all use lower-case.
When I pointed out the usage of "Accept" it was being compared to the same hotkey screen in the B.net lobby, where "OK" is used instead. Either use "OK" everywhere, or use "Accept" everywhere, it's inconsistent to use "OK" in one version of the hotkey screen, but to use "Accept" in another version of the same screen.
|
This warranted a thread? And the title led me to believe it was the ingame UI that had effects on gameplay, not the Menus, Settings tabs, Fonts and crap...
Thanks for misleading.
|
On December 27 2011 22:09 Sergio1992 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 22:08 ilovelings wrote: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. . Starcraft1 and Warcraft3 come to mind. Dota is fun too. Wait , these are blizzard alternatives.
Not to mention you can't be a pro with those games and make money. I would love to play bw or wc3 all day but it's not logical. Almost everyone moved to starcraft 2. It's actually a very bad thing that sc2 is the only competitive rts atm.
|
On December 27 2011 22:19 Sergio1992 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 22:17 Ryder. wrote:On December 27 2011 22:14 Sergio1992 wrote:On December 27 2011 22:12 Ryder. wrote: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. nice that you like to pay for a rushed\incomplete games. With people like you, I got no doubts about why industry is trying to drain customers as much as possible. By 'people like me', you mean people who actually enjoy the game instead of incessantly whining about it? I don't get what you are getting at, of course they are trying to make money, did you expect them to give you the game for free? Starcraft is by far the best value for money game I've bought. I'm sorry you can't join in the fun. One thing, first. We are behind a computer, but that doesn't mean there should be no respects between us. When I said "people like you" I didn't mean to attack you personally. Just the way you think about the game . No, that's the not the problem. I'm whining because I know I could have had more. Don't say me that game is complete. I don't care about portraits\achievement and so on. I would exchange everything they made (but the league system) for the features given by SC1.
Trust me I know the game isn't complete, and there are a few simple things that Blizzard could do and fix that would go a long way. But everything is relative, you could always 'have more' but IMO I don't understand why your argument is justified when Blizzard do make some of the best quality games out there. Whilst it would be nice for things to be perfect, you need to put things in perspective. And when you compare Blizzard to companies such as Activision and EA, they are miles ahead in terms of quality. But you can't expect them to compete with these companies if they put in all this work and don't ask for money (i.e expansions)
On December 27 2011 22:22 Sergio1992 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 22:20 aderum wrote:On December 27 2011 22:14 Sergio1992 wrote:On December 27 2011 22:12 Ryder. wrote: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. nice that you like to pay for a rushed\incomplete games. With people like you, I got no doubts about why industry is trying to drain customers as much as possible. Ah,edit: I never said I would have never paid for these games IF they were complete. Why are you posting in the SC2 section of this forum? If you dont like the game, stay away from it. There is a lot of people here that love the game, even if it have had a few "flaws". I never said I don't like the game. Still flaming me? I'm just saying that game is incomplete. That's ALL. and if you refuse to notice that you are probably blind (on your view about Starcraft)
Just thought I would quote this, I think you might be mistaking aderum for me lol just wanted to clear it up.
Edit: Also you never know, they might be fixing some of these issues you have a problem with in HOTS
|
On December 27 2011 21:58 KalWarkov wrote:so much this. lol, you must be rly bored
Or the things that are important to him aren't important to you. Crazy notion huh?
As for your complaints I can see them, I also think I can see reasons for some of them. I'm not saying it's good design, but some of this is the way it is, not because they missed it, but because that's the option they chose.
1. When a picture is to be displayed on a frame they seem to add a black frame around that picture. It's possible they felt that a pic from the game sitting directly on top of a faded pic of the game would look messy.
2. The dropdown menu in the bottom right contains the possibility of user generated menu items. You can save and load and delete hotkey profiles and give them different names. It's the same font that they use for your account name and realid name.
These are the things that leap out at me but there might be more. It'd be interesting to hear from someone from Blizzard. Though I guess some of the answers would be "A different team worked on that." or "we didn't have time."
On December 27 2011 21:49 paralleluniverse wrote:
Blizzard, please fixed this inconsistent mess.
Your post would be better without the line quoted above. If you want to talk to Blizzard, go to the official forums. If you actually want an answer, try a little more humility and grammar.
|
It is supposed to be so. Avantgard postmodern art you know?
Btw what's wrong with the chronoboosting thing Plexa mentioned?
|
Thanks for pointing these things out OP... Is there some way you can alert Blizzard about them directly? I had noticed a few of them (the caps thing in paticular).
Design stuff like this effects players' enjoyment of the game even if we don't notice it consciously ... so thanks for doing the work of noticing it... And maybe you can send an invoice to Bliz haha
|
On December 27 2011 22:27 Odal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 22:09 Sergio1992 wrote:On December 27 2011 22:08 ilovelings wrote: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. . Starcraft1 and Warcraft3 come to mind. Dota is fun too. Wait , these are blizzard alternatives. Not to mention you can't be a pro with those games and make money. I would love to play bw or wc3 all day but it's not logical. Almost everyone moved to starcraft 2. It's actually a very bad thing that sc2 is the only competitive rts atm.
Unless you're trying to go pro, the fact that it's possible to make money doing something is probably the worst reason to choose a hobby. If you'd rather be playing WC3 or BW all day, you can still find people to give you competetive matches in either of those games.
|
First: I do agree with you that the SC2 UI is pretty bad, and that the flaws you pointed out should be fixed. But you somehow managed to pick the most unimportant parts of the UI to showcase.
Energy should not be spend on fixing those unsignificant things when there are much bigger flaws in the UI: Think about having huge bulk frames limiting your view of the battlefield (like the unit info window in the bottom center of the screen, or the unit ability window in the bottom right), or that almost every window in the SC2 lobby takes far too long to load.
Blizzard could've done a much better job with the UI. I would really like to have the SC2 UI customizable like we have in WoW, where everyone can use or programm addons which customize almost every aspect of the interface to their preference. The results would be pretty interesting I think.
|
oh no, my OCD is running wild, why did you have to point this out 
|
fairly simple to explain, happened when they scrapped and remade the bnet. So not an sc2 problem but an battle net problem. And some of the stuff the op is complaining about is only what the op prefers.
It was fun to read those complaints though lol.
I wonder if the transparency is a point of complaining ... I mean the transparent part is for stuff, where you want to still see whats happening in the game. While the non transparent parts are windows where its more likely you don't want to see the game running in the background, because its disturbing.
That being said i actually find the ui well thought out and made with care, unlike many other games just using the same font and setting all over.
The difference in font and size makes it also easier to orientate. (means you are able to change settings faster, which is something important if you have to do it)
But despite that the op dislikes this, the battlenet info screens should really be in an race themed style. But this might be done with the last expansion, as bnet2 is not sc2. And the bnet2 was not ready when WoL was released, so it lacks behind.
|
Why are you guys even bringing up gameplay? He's not criticizing SC2 as a game only these inconsistencies in the UI. As for who cares, well thats also beside the point, this isn't about who does or doesn't care, it's simply that there are flaws in the UI which should be fixed.
|
Impressive find. Surprised all the detail flaws when one look for them.
|
On December 27 2011 22:28 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 22:19 Sergio1992 wrote:On December 27 2011 22:17 Ryder. wrote:On December 27 2011 22:14 Sergio1992 wrote:On December 27 2011 22:12 Ryder. wrote: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. nice that you like to pay for a rushed\incomplete games. With people like you, I got no doubts about why industry is trying to drain customers as much as possible. By 'people like me', you mean people who actually enjoy the game instead of incessantly whining about it? I don't get what you are getting at, of course they are trying to make money, did you expect them to give you the game for free? Starcraft is by far the best value for money game I've bought. I'm sorry you can't join in the fun. One thing, first. We are behind a computer, but that doesn't mean there should be no respects between us. When I said "people like you" I didn't mean to attack you personally. Just the way you think about the game . No, that's the not the problem. I'm whining because I know I could have had more. Don't say me that game is complete. I don't care about portraits\achievement and so on. I would exchange everything they made (but the league system) for the features given by SC1. Trust me I know the game isn't complete, and there are a few simple things that Blizzard could do and fix that would go a long way. But everything is relative, you could always 'have more' but IMO I don't understand why your argument is justified when Blizzard do make some of the best quality games out there. Whilst it would be nice for things to be perfect, you need to put things in perspective. And when you compare Blizzard to companies such as Activision and EA, they are miles ahead in terms of quality. But you can't expect them to compete with these companies if they put in all this work and don't ask for money (i.e expansions) Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 22:22 Sergio1992 wrote:On December 27 2011 22:20 aderum wrote:On December 27 2011 22:14 Sergio1992 wrote:On December 27 2011 22:12 Ryder. wrote: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. nice that you like to pay for a rushed\incomplete games. With people like you, I got no doubts about why industry is trying to drain customers as much as possible. Ah,edit: I never said I would have never paid for these games IF they were complete. Why are you posting in the SC2 section of this forum? If you dont like the game, stay away from it. There is a lot of people here that love the game, even if it have had a few "flaws". I never said I don't like the game. Still flaming me? I'm just saying that game is incomplete. That's ALL. and if you refuse to notice that you are probably blind (on your view about Starcraft) Just thought I would quote this, I think you might be mistaking aderum for me lol just wanted to clear it up. Edit: Also you never know, they might be fixing some of these issues you have a problem with in HOTS
ok, you are right. But this behaviour is justified just because Blizzard knows to have no rivals on market. And they know you would buy anyway their products, because they are a monopoly.
You can't compare blizzard with Ea or Activision, just because they are society that proved to be way worse than blizzard. You should compare them with a society that is as great as blizzard was (because blizzard isn't good as it was in past)
Also now isn't blizzard called "activision blizzard"?
Question: when Dota will be out, I don't think people will bet on blizzard's dota to be better than Valve. and wanna know why?
Edit 2: that's not what I meant VikingKong.
|
On December 27 2011 22:14 Sergio1992 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 22:12 Ryder. wrote: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. nice that you like to pay for a rushed\incomplete games. With people like you, I got no doubts about why industry is trying to drain customers as much as possible. Ah,edit: I never said I would have never paid for these games IF they were complete.
You can't be serious. How the hell can you possibly consider SC2 rushed when it took the guys at least 6 years to make it?
|
Because Blizzard Dota is pretty much made as a bit of a joke? And it runs in SC2 instead of being it's own client? Because Icefrog is making DotA2? You're grasping at straws a little here...
More on topic, I agree that these should be changed, but it's kinda nitpicky. The UI suffers from way worse elements than these relatively minor flaws. The general bulkiness of all the windows, the relatively long time everything takes to load, the absolutely pants-on-head stupid custom game interface, etc. etc. are all bigger issues.
|
On December 27 2011 22:31 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 22:27 Odal wrote:On December 27 2011 22:09 Sergio1992 wrote:On December 27 2011 22:08 ilovelings wrote: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. . Starcraft1 and Warcraft3 come to mind. Dota is fun too. Wait , these are blizzard alternatives. Not to mention you can't be a pro with those games and make money. I would love to play bw or wc3 all day but it's not logical. Almost everyone moved to starcraft 2. It's actually a very bad thing that sc2 is the only competitive rts atm. Unless you're trying to go pro, the fact that it's possible to make money doing something is probably the worst reason to choose a hobby. If you'd rather be playing WC3 or BW all day, you can still find people to give you competetive matches in either of those games.
I am trying to go pro. And I hate the fact that the only possible rts to play to do so is sc2. No competition can lead to them making retarded decisions and getting away with it.
|
On December 27 2011 22:47 Odal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 22:31 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On December 27 2011 22:27 Odal wrote:On December 27 2011 22:09 Sergio1992 wrote:On December 27 2011 22:08 ilovelings wrote: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. . Starcraft1 and Warcraft3 come to mind. Dota is fun too. Wait , these are blizzard alternatives. Not to mention you can't be a pro with those games and make money. I would love to play bw or wc3 all day but it's not logical. Almost everyone moved to starcraft 2. It's actually a very bad thing that sc2 is the only competitive rts atm. Unless you're trying to go pro, the fact that it's possible to make money doing something is probably the worst reason to choose a hobby. If you'd rather be playing WC3 or BW all day, you can still find people to give you competetive matches in either of those games. I am trying to go pro. And I hate the fact that the only possible rts to play to do so is sc2. No competition can lead to them making retarded decisions and getting away with it.
There is still SC:BW in Korea ;D
|
I would be impossible for me to care any less
User was warned for this post
|
On December 27 2011 22:58 Laurence wrote:
I would be impossible for me to care any less
I don't agree. You could have not posted at all.
|
your "seethrough point" is probably invalid.
the top pictures are with a game background
the bottom pictures are fog of war
|
On December 27 2011 22:47 Odal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 22:31 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On December 27 2011 22:27 Odal wrote:On December 27 2011 22:09 Sergio1992 wrote:On December 27 2011 22:08 ilovelings wrote: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. . Starcraft1 and Warcraft3 come to mind. Dota is fun too. Wait , these are blizzard alternatives. Not to mention you can't be a pro with those games and make money. I would love to play bw or wc3 all day but it's not logical. Almost everyone moved to starcraft 2. It's actually a very bad thing that sc2 is the only competitive rts atm. Unless you're trying to go pro, the fact that it's possible to make money doing something is probably the worst reason to choose a hobby. If you'd rather be playing WC3 or BW all day, you can still find people to give you competetive matches in either of those games. I am trying to go pro. And I hate the fact that the only possible rts to play to do so is sc2. No competition can lead to them making retarded decisions and getting away with it.
That makes no sense. Why would you want to professionally play a game that is so bad that you'd rather not be playing it? Playing a video game for a living is the sort of thing you do if you're madly passionate about the game. There are plenty of jobs you can get that are less time consuming and better compensated (on average) than pro gaming, and you'd still have hours and hours a day to devote to a game you enjoy.
|
This is the lamest thing I've ever seen anyone complain about.
|
And feel free to add your own if you find something. Well, I can't help myself. 
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On December 27 2011 23:16 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 22:47 Odal wrote:On December 27 2011 22:31 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On December 27 2011 22:27 Odal wrote:On December 27 2011 22:09 Sergio1992 wrote:On December 27 2011 22:08 ilovelings wrote: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. . Starcraft1 and Warcraft3 come to mind. Dota is fun too. Wait , these are blizzard alternatives. Not to mention you can't be a pro with those games and make money. I would love to play bw or wc3 all day but it's not logical. Almost everyone moved to starcraft 2. It's actually a very bad thing that sc2 is the only competitive rts atm. Unless you're trying to go pro, the fact that it's possible to make money doing something is probably the worst reason to choose a hobby. If you'd rather be playing WC3 or BW all day, you can still find people to give you competetive matches in either of those games. I am trying to go pro. And I hate the fact that the only possible rts to play to do so is sc2. No competition can lead to them making retarded decisions and getting away with it. That makes no sense. Why would you want to professionally play a game that is so bad that you'd rather not be playing it? Playing a video game for a living is the sort of thing you do if you're madly passionate about the game. There are plenty of jobs you can get that are less time consuming and better compensated (on average) than pro gaming, and you'd still have hours and hours a day to devote to a game you enjoy.
you obviously havent spent any time trying to go pro. Having some menu windows transparent and some opaque makes it almost impossible. Dont even get me started on the random use of bold text.
|
interesting find, but Blizzard may just be mixing it up to keep everything fresh 
|
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.
|
Clearly, Blizzard is killing eSports.
|
Anyone who is complaining about this thread doesn't understand how program development works.
You make something, your users complain, you fix it.
Complain louder gentlemen, There shall be no shoddy interfaces in 2012 if we have our way.
|
one thing ill agree on though is that blizzard is excessively slow. Heroes of Newerth (by s2 games) has like 3 guys programming... and they crank out shit so much faster than this (even if it's half broken).
I guess that goes to show you how hard it is to not have a product with any loose ends. I accept the interface in that logic then.
|
I can hardly express the anger I feel after reading the OP. I'm seriously considering not buying HotS now.
|
-why can't I change realm, like in SC1?
You can- all you have to do is call customer support and ask them to switch your account to a different server- it takes like 5 minutes - super easy
|
You didn't provide a single argument as to why it's important that the "in game" interface matches the "out of game" interface. Your conclusion is that because they don't match in certain aesthetic aspects, there is "inconsistency", which must be righted.
Why? Why is it important that these two menu/interface styles match? I'm curious. In my opinion, there is no logical reason -- instead it's just something that might annoy people with anxiety disorders like OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder - look into it), which implies it's not something that's important at all. Why should they match/'be consistent"? Why do subtle stylistic features unique to BNET need to be recapitulated perfectly IN GAME, or vice versa? Why can't they remain as they are, as two unique styles of menu?
|
Sergio hasn't play very many games in his lifetime. I can only think of a handful of games that didn't have much worse glitches than what SC2 is pumping out regardless of the UI. If you actually think SC2 is an unfinished game because of these findings, you are nuts.
|
On December 27 2011 21:58 Rokevo wrote:
This is unacceptable! I say we stop playing until blizz fixes this abomination of a UI!
I 2nd this, blizzard what are you doing!?!
|
Pretty minor complaints no doubt, but also totally legitimate. No doubt this is on their "list", or it should be.
Speaking of, has anyone seen them actually do anything on their list in the past. . .oh, I don't know, year? I wonder how much profit they're getting here vs. how many people are still working on fixing problems that the game shouldn't have been sold with.
|
And they want us to pay 180 U$S for the game +2 expansions?Lul.
User was warned for this post
|
On December 27 2011 23:20 whatthefat wrote:Well, I can't help myself. + Show Spoiler +
Aaaaand we have a winner.
|
Wait, because there are inconsistencies with the UI that shows that this is an incomplete game?
What kind of bullshit is this? Would you have preferred to wait another 2 years for this to come out? The game was completed, sold, and then they fixed several issues with it. I don't like how long Blizzard took in fixing some things, but I'm not enough of a whiner to say it's not a complete game. RIdiculous, this is the most value out of $60 I've ever paid.
|
pfft that's nothing. Try Skyrim. So obviously consolized and a big mess I stopped playing it after 2 hours. or how about No paper doll which RPGs have done since like forever. Game is a UI joke.
|
I blame lazy beta testers
|
On December 28 2011 01:09 Figgy wrote:
Sergio hasn't play very many games in his lifetime. I can only think of a handful of games that didn't have much worse glitches than what SC2 is pumping out regardless of the UI. If you actually think SC2 is an unfinished game because of these findings, you are nuts.
I hope you sometimes read the posts people write inside their topics, because actually you seem to be a bit lacking on this part.
|
you sir are very perceptive. I never noticed any of those. I personally see nothing wrong with the race themed unit frames though. I think it adds character.
|
it seems like someone is extremely OCD, lol. Nice find though. Never noticed... :O
|
Good eye. I am sure blizzard will mend these minor details in their future patch.
|
I personally hope they spend no time on anything of this nature and instead continue to focus on the actual play. =)
|
On December 28 2011 02:18 SCJethro wrote:
I personally hope they spend no time on anything of this nature and instead continue to focus on the actual play. =)
its not like this would take a lot of ressources :§
|
The UI has bigger problems than having inconsistent use of caps. Thanks for showing us these differences though it has really hurt my user experience........
(I didn't even know some of those menu's existed)
|
99% of people would never notice or care about these inconsistencies
|
I have bigger problems than some cosmetic garbage to complain about...
|
uh oh, I think they are going need to patch this as a high priority issue !!!
great find!!
=] lol
|
Game is ruined for me
User was warned for this post
|
fix this after we get reps with friends
|
On December 28 2011 02:40 Drazzyo wrote:
fix this after we get reps with friends
5/5 would read again
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
Btw between Mini-Map and unit picture is a load of dead space.
|
BTW TC, I think you would have gotten a much better response if you hadn´t sounded like a complete douchebag. Just in case you are wondering
|
I really hope you posted this on the blizz forums as well. It doesn't seem like it'd be a hard fix on their part.
|
|
|
I don't really know why this matters. It took us, a community of millions, 18 months to notice. That alone shows it shouldn't really matter or affect our gameplay in a meaningful manner.
|
I am not seeing the inconsistency, menus that Blizzard thought you would use in game are transparent stuff like hotkeys are not.
Race themed for in game menus, again, while neutral them for stuff that is independent of the current race you play (again, like hot keys or achievements). Interesting thoughts, but at the end of the day nothing worth complaining about or to demand "fix this now" over.
|
On December 28 2011 03:05 Jampackedeon wrote:
I am not seeing the inconsistency, menus that Blizzard thought you would use in game are transparent stuff like hotkeys are not.
Race themed for in game menus, again, while neutral them for stuff that is independent of the current race you play (again, like hot keys or achievements). Interesting thoughts, but at the end of the day nothing worth complaining about or to demand "fix this now" over.
See-through not see-through maybe can live with but the different fonts and the bold/unbolded text? Plz fix that atleast, fo rela.
|
Edit: nevermind, should have read the thread all the way before posting.
|
Reminds me of how the masters icon isn't symmetrical.
|
Should be behind replays w/ friends, LAN, etc. on their to do list. It should be fixed (I guess, it's such a small thing I couldn't be bothered to give a shit), but it's not nearly as important as many of their other issues.
|
close this useless post
User was warned for this post
|
On December 27 2011 23:20 whatthefat wrote:Well, I can't help myself. + Show Spoiler +
best post in the thread by far, you had me LOLing pretty hard
|
On December 27 2011 23:20 whatthefat wrote:Well, I can't help myself. + Show Spoiler +
too awesome
|
OP made good finds on relatively very unimportant issues but language used is drama bait. Whatever it takes to get responses, I guess.
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.
|
I didn't know what tacky ment, now I do.
|
|
|
It's time to call the guys from that show, uh... "Queer Eye for the Straight UI!"
For serious though, never really noticed before, and now that's all I'm gonna notice. Thanks for that
|
On December 27 2011 22:06 Cyro wrote:It took people 18 months to notice
The same time it took people to realize that Apple had superior industrial design?
|
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.
|
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"
|
On December 28 2011 04:25 adrenaLinG wrote:Show nested quote +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"
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.
|
You guys need to find something better to do if you think this kind of stuff = unfinished game.
|
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.
|
The differences were probably discussed by blizzard and agreed upon to improve clarity and simplicity
|
Frankly, this isn't Blizzard doing this.
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?
|
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:
|
Somehow I know that somebody will eventually use this thread to say that terran is OP in some obscure forum somewhere.
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.
|
On December 28 2011 05:36 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +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:
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.
|
I'm sorry, but are a few people actually trying to turn these small difference in the appearance of the menu into a discussion on how activision corrupted Blizzard with their money and greed??
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
|
Great finds :D
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
|
I didn't even notice, but I guess I'm not an aesthetics type of guy. Good finds, but I wouldn't say too big of a deal.
|
Battle.net windows use battle.net themes, buttons to agree to things are visually different from buttons to close things, in game menus are race themed, inside frames to display images aren't seethrough.
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.
|
Looks pretty game breaking to me.
|
On December 28 2011 08:25 Verator wrote:
Battle.net windows use battle.net themes, buttons to agree to things are visually different from buttons to close things, in game menus are race themed, inside frames to display images aren't seethrough.
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.
This. I feel like a majority of these inconsistencie aren't actually inconsistencies. OP just wanted something to bitch at and some attention.
The achievements is Battle.net related, not race related. I don't get what you mean by accept, and the see-through is on everything except where formatted with pictures.
|
Kind of sucks that blizzard's "when it's done" philosophy has been thrown out the door for favor of the oh so typical let's rush out a game as fast as possible. I still love the game, but they could have delayed the release a bit longer if it meant polishing the game a bit more. As for this though.... eh idk how bit of a deal it is.
|
On December 28 2011 08:03 JohnnyBanana wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 05:36 Xeris wrote: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: 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.
A) Shitting on any field in a community that worships pro-gamers is kinda hypocritical.
B) Game design isn't zero sum. We should expect them to get everything right.
|
None of these are really inconsistencies - the Help menu (the bottom images in both sets) is different, it's not see-through, because it has movies with tutorials, and it has its own font settings. The Close buttons are written in caps everywhere unlike the other buttons, in order to be distinguishable. Merry Christmas and be more careful with accusations.
|
I uh, don't see why this has to be a huge deal. These screens don't affect gameplay in the slightest, the menus are still perfectly navigable, and if you spend enough time dicking around in the menus to be bothered by this...well I just don't know why you would do that.
|
A much bigger deal to me are the major inconsistencies. For instance, it's clear that the sc2 team put a lot of effort giving us custom hotkey setups, including developing profiles, and giving us multiple default patterns (grid, standard, left-handed). They even changed their command card to be 3x5 which we've never seen before in Blizzard, clearly chosen for the grid hotkey setup.
However, battle.net doesn't even use hotkeys. There's no keyboard shortcuts. Everything is mouse clicking. There's not even a way to toggle between chat windows easily with a keyboard.
This is much more significant, and gives away that the sc2 team and bnet team are completely separate.
|
This seems like something that would get posted on April 1st or maybe on theonion.com
|
what I hate more is the Zerg overlapping of texture in-game with the UI, just looks cheaply done,
|
This really seems like nitpicking to me. I would've never noticed, nor do I really care now that I see it.
|
On December 28 2011 08:47 holynorth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 08:25 Verator wrote:
Battle.net windows use battle.net themes, buttons to agree to things are visually different from buttons to close things, in game menus are race themed, inside frames to display images aren't seethrough.
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. This. I feel like a majority of these inconsistencie aren't actually inconsistencies. OP just wanted something to bitch at and some attention. The achievements is Battle.net related, not race related. I don't get what you mean by accept, and the see-through is on everything except where formatted with pictures.
Pretty much exactly what was going through my head when reading OP. Thank god Blizzard doesn't actually design UIs like OP wants or you'd have transparent pictures and the entire thing done in one font. The design is actually logical and the font choices appropriate.
|
On December 28 2011 08:03 JohnnyBanana wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 05:36 Xeris wrote: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: 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.
This kind of analogy always puts a smile on my face. Companies have separate departments which juggle various tasks. What does a graphic designer's project have to do with a database/web engineer's project? The design of the user interface is important and having such inconsistencies gives the game an unpolished feel, something you can't have in one of your top titles.
|
a lot of people are saying this is minor etc. i think it's aesthetically important to stick to some kind of coherent style. this is confusing and for a company like blizzard A DISASTER :p
the disaster bit was a joke but i seriously think they should fix it asap.
|
so i have played this game for over a year now and didnt realize it at all
so that probably means that it isnt improtand but good finds anyways^^
|
Always knew it was ugly. Never had it spelled out to me before. It really IS ugly.
|
On December 27 2011 23:26 Vul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 22:12 Ryder. wrote: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.
Sorry please point out where I swore at this person? I would have thought his post was much ruder and more condescending than mine was-
On December 27 2011 22:14 Sergio1992 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 22:12 Ryder. wrote: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. nice that you like to pay for a rushed\incomplete games. With people like you, I got no doubts about why industry is trying to drain customers as much as possible. Ah,edit: I never said I would have never paid for these games IF they were complete.
Also, if you actually read this post that I first quoted, you would notice that it wasn't offering construct criticism anyway. There is a difference between methodically listing your concerns (which probably should be done on the Bnet forums since it is highly unlikely they would see these complaints here) and mindlessly whining with no apparent basis, whilst at the same time making ridiculous accusations like 'the game is still in beta' and implying Blizzard doesn't give a shit about it's customers. You really think Blizzard would take a complaint like this seriously, let alone act on it?
|
Skyrim's UI puts this to shame. And that's not a compliment to either.
I mean, I've sort of gotten used to it being clunky and slow and often irresponsive, but to have these inconsistencies pointed out is quite jarring, but it does make a lot of the navigating the menus quite unintuitive.
|
|
|
SC2's UI is ugly as shit. Looks like something from 10 years ago. : (
|
UI should be considered a professional portfolio. Make it ugly, inconsistent, and you are giving a bad first impression.
|
get a wife
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I don't see how the OP criticisms are important at all. The sc2 UI is functional and easy to learn, which imo, is all that matters
On December 27 2011 22:02 Cyro wrote:
When people complain about parts of the UI being transparent and other parts not in menus that are looked at perhaps once a month, you know the game is balanced decently.
HAHA exactly
|
On December 27 2011 23:20 whatthefat wrote:Well, I can't help myself. + Show Spoiler +
This post recovers the humor a thread like this truly deserves. Thank you whatthefat, thank you from the bottom of my soul.
|
- I think they are themed different so you don't have every single window always the same...adding variety, which is actually really good that they about that small detail and implemented it.
- The whole thing with the one page being 'see-through', as you put it, is because that is the page has shows units, information, and charts. It is so it makes all the writing easier to see and not harder to see over what is going on in the background.
- The fact that the fonts in the menu are different, I have no idea. But, if that is all how menu's are....then I am sure that it isn't a bug. They obviously picked DIFFERENT font's, and if it went a 'Default' then it would look like the font you are reading right now.
|
Go try some game development guys. Graphical consistency is probably harder than broodwar when working in a team
Edit: that second picture was just hilarious ^^
|
Sounds like the end of the world.
|
On December 28 2011 00:01 Hopeless1der wrote:Show nested quote +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.
White: I don't see how having a semi-transparent background like the one used in the option menu, will prevent unit models and icons from being shown clearly. The background is transparent, not the fields, models, icon or movie. If they wanted a non-see-through background, then why aren't all those frames non-see-through?
Yellow: And why don't they have hotkeys? Why should only the tabs on the side with hotkeys be bold?
Green: I'm saying to change "CLOSE" to "Close" so that it matches "Accept" and "Cancel". Consistent capitalization.
Pink: They are different font. Look at the "d", or look in game. All drop-down menus should use the same font.
Red: Inside the game, the achievement frame (F9) uses a B.net frame style, and not race specific frames like the other frames (F10-F12). The planet background is obtrusive and out of place.
|
On December 28 2011 08:47 holynorth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 08:25 Verator wrote:
Battle.net windows use battle.net themes, buttons to agree to things are visually different from buttons to close things, in game menus are race themed, inside frames to display images aren't seethrough.
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. This. I feel like a majority of these inconsistencie aren't actually inconsistencies. OP just wanted something to bitch at and some attention. The achievements is Battle.net related, not race related. I don't get what you mean by accept, and the see-through is on everything except where formatted with pictures.
So is the in-game achievement frame (F9) a B.net window?
Maybe it is because it uses a B.net style instead of a race-specific style.
But then again maybe it shouldn't because F10-F12 uses race specific frames.
But if it is a B.net window, and should use the same B.net frame in and out of game, then how do you explain the hotkey frame, which uses the B.net style out of game, but the race-specific style in game?
Why shouldn't the achievement frame use B.net style out of game and race-specific in-game, when the hotkey frame does?
|
On December 28 2011 09:42 Parlortricks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 08:03 JohnnyBanana wrote:On December 28 2011 05:36 Xeris wrote: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: 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. This kind of analogy always puts a smile on my face. Companies have separate departments which juggle various tasks. What does a graphic designer's project have to do with a database/web engineer's project? The design of the user interface is important and having such inconsistencies gives the game an unpolished feel, something you can't have in one of your top titles.
There's nothing wrong with different styles of fonts, as long as they are used consistently.
For example, having drop down menus using one font in some windows, and another font in other windows is inconsistent. It's OK that the font used in drop down menus is different from the font used for in-game chat, and they are, because drop down menus are different from in-game chat, but drop down menus are not different from drop down menus.
Likewise, I can think of no good reason why in the B.net lobby, the option frame is see-through, but the hotkey frame isn't. Note that I'm not asking for the icon's to be see-through, just as how the drop-down menus in the option frame are not see-through, only that the background be see-through. Or not be see-through in all cases.
|
It's telling that these inconsistencies had a chance to happen at all. A well designed program would usually have a unified system for menus and popups and the like, where you would probably change universal variables to change the fonts, window styles, etc. for any menus used in the game.
|
Yea...It's such a shame that a great game like this isn't perfect. It shows how much Blizzard really doesn't care. How dare they waste this past year fixing the unimportant things in the game like balance and glitches Instead of the UI.
Ps- I'm being sarcastic. This game is great and so what if theres some flaws like this. I personally don't give a shit about it really and no one should either. If you're going to be this nit-picky then why bother play any game at all because they will all have some flaws here and there.
|
On December 28 2011 12:50 nakedsurfer wrote:
Yea...It's such a shame that a great game like this isn't perfect. It shows how much Blizzard really doesn't care. How dare they waste this past year fixing the unimportant things in the game like balance and glitches Instead of the UI.
Ps- I'm being sarcastic. This game is great and so what if theres some flaws like this. I personally don't give a shit about it really and no one should either. If you're going to be this nit-picky then why bother play any game at all because they will all have some flaws here and there.
Oh wow, you were being sarcastic? Thanks man, I wouldn't have gleaned that from the first paragraph at all.
They're functionally insignificant errors but they are errors and shouldn't be in the game. They aren't the end of the world when it comes to fixing them either so just chill. Also to add to it, somebody pointed out that the star on the Masters icon is off centre. Can't unsee it now
|
On December 27 2011 22:02 Sergio1992 wrote:Sorry, these are the first things that come the my mind. Now post is getting too long - Why don't you add a selection menu when you join custom melee games where you can choose the league which you wanna play with and which race? It is so boring when people leaves at game start or while game is starting, and I'm not claiming I never did it. .
Man that would be so nice, trying to practice a PvZ build without a practice partner, and its a pain in the ass.
Your other points were good too though, but i'd love to see this implemented the most
|
i havent read all 9 pages of replies, but im guessing someone else has said the same as me.
The different winds you've brought up, with the 4 shots together? the reason 2 say close and 2 say accept are that you can change things in the ones that say 'accept' and therefore you have to accept the changes. If that makes sense.
the rest, well,does it really matter? wouldnt you prefer if they spent more timebalancing the game or something?
good eye to notice these things though
|
Hmm....well I cant say that any of this information matters to me at all. There's always 'that guy' that tries to find every single mistake. However, none of these "mistakes" that you claim to have found actually cause any problems or issues with the game at all. However, I am glad you didnt make a thread about BM on the ladder. At least this is something different lol.
|
Seems like a lot of posters here wouldn't even care if the UI was made with Comic Sans Serif and used every colour in the rainbow so long as Blizzard cares about their "balance".
|
+ Show Spoiler +I wonder why there are so many people in this thread that do not get satire! o.o
To me this inconsistency problem is unacceptable and should never happen! This makes me less likely to open up those menus! I REFUSE TO!!!! xD
|
On December 31 2011 08:27 adrenaLinG wrote:
Seems like a lot of posters here wouldn't even care if the UI was made with Comic Sans Serif and used every colour in the rainbow so long as Blizzard cares about their "balance".
Please don't exaggerate. Rainbow colors may be OK, but Comic Sans is imbalanced.
|
stop hurting e-sports blizzard!
|
I have a feeling that the main UI guy for the dev team got the sack. I remember seeing a posting on the forum for a new UI designer, cant give any reference though.
I know for a fact that in HOTS the custom game UI will get an overhaul, we all know that was a catastrophe. Whether or not they will overhaul the entire games UI to be more consistent and not so massive and cluttered, we will have to wait and see.
I think blizzard has a tendency to hide the big problems under the rug (like the UI) until the expansions. For example, they are revamping the talent tree for the panda expansion in wow, since they realise how flawed the system is, they could have done it in a patch, but they chose not too.
In this case the UI doesn't really effect game balance so it may not be so apparent to blizzard. Whatever UI enhancements we can eeak out of the expansion and beta will most likely be all we will get.
|
I don't know if this has been pointed out but I accidentally discovered it.
If you uncheck the option to display tooltips it should not display them, right?
Well, it works, unless you press enter to chat. If you do, the tooltip will come up anyway.
Pretty annoying IMO, i don't want the tooltips when typing my BM thing!! <-- just kidding
|
I can see why you'd get upset over spending $60 on this slop, but really?
I don't care about it. I love the game all the same.
|
Anything that can be complained about, will be complained about.
To me this seems like the most pointless and insignificant rant on SC2 I have ever seen. If this makes you annoyed then I feel sorry for you.
|
Typical blizzard not caring about a game they make you pay 60$ for. Theres also a really annoying bug making it so that when i play on ladder, sometimes I can't even select my units. I find that it happens when I start searching for an opponent immediatly after opeining sc2, and you can tell its happening when it says searching for opponent, but there is no yellow icon. You would think that since blizzard releases games at a snail's pace (Diablo III...), they would have the games polished when they come out, but thats far from the truth...
|
I think this is just a design team issue, you have many team members working on the project for so long you get this sort of blindness to change.
I don't think this really affects gameplay in any way, shape or form; I feel a designer might sit down and be like well this isn't consistent, but is it really noticeable to someone who isn't looking for it?
If it really bothers you, my suggestion would be message Blizzard as a design studio that revels in feedback from fans, if you brought this up to them, they would say, 'hey! we never noticed that! we can tighten that up!'
Sign of a good designer is how well they take constructive criticism
|
On December 27 2011 23:20 whatthefat wrote:Well, I can't help myself. + Show Spoiler +
What the fat! You just made my day twice! Rofl!!
|
On January 16 2012 15:53 kofman wrote:
Typical blizzard not caring about a game they make you pay 60$ for. Theres also a really annoying bug making it so that when i play on ladder, sometimes I can't even select my units. I find that it happens when I start searching for an opponent immediatly after opeining sc2, and you can tell its happening when it says searching for opponent, but there is no yellow icon. You would think that since blizzard releases games at a snail's pace (Diablo III...), they would have the games polished when they come out, but thats far from the truth...
Oh shut up. Did you work 8 hours to buy this game? The stress must have been like a Nazi camp! Gosh, almost would have been easier to just make your own game!
Folks. I thought it was agreed here that this game is worth having. Otherwise what is the point of posting on tl. Especially if like most $60 is really one fill up for your car, if it lasts more than a week, and therefore is chump change. Or if you're 12 (plenty of life left to wait for game releases!) and $ is hard to come by why don't you look before you leap next time instead of smoldering about mountains not dumping themselves into the sea for you. "blizzard doesn't care" WTF man. WTF officially means what the fat now roflrofl! :p
|
Wow these critiques are certainly very nit picky, I wouldn't have noticed any of these if the pictures didn't highlight them. I want a high quality game as much as the next guy but I think it's a little far to call it an "inconsistent mess".
|
On December 27 2011 23:20 whatthefat wrote:Well, I can't help myself. + Show Spoiler +
Oh god, I just can't stop laughing.
|
The game should already be finished in my whole opinion. The same goes for balance. Balance has progressed as such an infantile rate starting at something that is a disappointing mess with a development time of well since Starcraft 1 came out which is 1998, with a leeway of 3-4 years, they still should have had at least 5 years to work on it which is a considerably lengthier amount of time than SC1.
|
i find that the OP illustrates nitpicking at its finest
while i do find that some choices betray a more low brow approach (with a decent result none the less) the examples listed can be traced to either technical limitations (for the help screens) or a result of the progression and refinement process you can see in blizzard products over the course of time (menus and icons come to mind)
as someone pointed out as a product you're getting your money's worth and then some by the constant work that continues to be put in ... i certainly appreciate the reactiveness of the developer in putting in certain options more then i mind the inperfections that arise because of the process...
added later: such obervations however can be constructive and can imho only be viewed as complaints in a finnnished type of product - such as a single player game or finite experience .. with an end and a start...
|
You make a lot of confusing typos for a guy who nitpicks like a 12 year old autistic boy who's out of his favorite ice cream
|
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.
True, but they could still have easily had a consistent plan for the menu's that are opened while you are in-game. It also isn't an excuse to dumb down the custom game system. They could clean it up a bit, maybe have the popularity system optional, but they really screwed up their UI on this one. No doubt about that.
|
the game is still very young. I don't think we should expect the best of it just yet.
|
"you're tacky and i hate you."
|
I did graphical UI design and programming for house automation for about 3 years. It is tacky and unprofessional to have an inconsistent UI. Basically what happens, is that different elements are finished at different points in time. When you are just starting you choose elements quickly just so you can start finishing individual parts. Later on (after looking at the same style 20 times a day) you might change the fonts and graphical themes for the program to one you decide works better. What Blizzard didn't do is go back and update old assets that were probably already 'completed'. Obviously not a huge deal (apologists will even jump to in to defend blizzard amusingly enough), but it does show a decided lack of polish in a blockbuster game.
|
are you fucking kidding me? this is some first day video game tester bullshit, Class C, not a bug
|
wow just wow, i can't believe they dropped the ball on this one, thats just sad -_-
|
They may be inconsistencies, but honestly did even 99% of the people reading this even notice these slight differences or even care about them? I would think not. I do feel as though the UI could be better overall, but the main thing Blizzard should be worried about is the actual GAMEPLAY. This is just my opinion though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
