Three (1/2) months later... The facts about Civ 5's problems

[Atwork]

Do you not see that he's telling us that it's cold and hard objective fact that everything on his list is an outright error, and you CANNOT disagree because that's an objective fact?

I do acknowledge I did not study the OP's statements -- I read them once the day this thread was started and that's it. And I probably was reacting as much to your attitude as anything else. I apologize.

I will agree with you that it is important to distinguish fact from the interpretations of fact; to distinguish fact from opinion

It may be the case that not everyone is clearly able to distinguish a fact from an opinion. However, I think that there is an underlying assumption at work when it comes to the clicking thing. There are mantras of past CIV games that many CIVers accept as golden truth when they interpret certain facts. For example, Sid Meier has often stated that when designing a video game, if something can be accomplished with fewer clicks or fewer flipping between screens and panels, then choose the option that requires less clicking around.

Now, here the fact is that the current design requires some extra clicking. Opinions may vary about whether the extra clicks are a good or bad thing. But, IMO, it would be quite easy to design an interface where more info was available with less clicking around, but still present a clean looking interface -- I believe that to be true because of past designs and because of proposals I've read else where on how to improve the current interface. If such could be accomplished, I believe it would be a superior design and cut down on Repetitive Strain Injury (jp) and such a change would be consistent with Sid's own philosophy.

 

[AfterShafter]

It is not beyond reason to expect a UI that can do both A and B (below). They are not mutually exclusive, and achieving both at the same time would not require watering down any gameplay elements.

A. display all necessary information without clutter
B. make all information accessible without requiring extra actions (not hide stuff)

Therefore, it's a problem and a factual one, because the current UI displays shortcomings that could have been overcome, but weren't.

Perhaps. But, no previous Civ game (which I've noticed you don't like to mention, even when they are obvious, direct comparisons) has displayed "all useful information" with nearly the options for you to choose to show or hide it as per what the gamer decides.

The problem is with A and B, this means the developer is essentially choosing what they think is necessary information that the user wants to see at any given time. You casually write this off, but honestly, who are you to say what's necessary to any given person's playstyle? Specialist allocation for instance are, obviously, important information - but important information that can be completely unimportant for some gamers. Some people might want production queues up just sometimes, sometimes all the time, some people might just want to see base terrain.

What's more, when dealing with variables like comp power and screen resolution which can directy and drastically affect the amount of space the gamer has on the city screen in which to fit menu upon menu, I think placing the power of what to show and what to hide in the gamer's hands is an entirely reasonable solution. For poor computers with low resolution, what would be an uncluttered and informative fixed userface (see: fewer clicks) will be an overbearing mess. But for a high resolution with lots of space to spare, potentially everything can be shown at once and still have it not cluttered. These are variables they had to deal with in designing the game and, go figure, I think they chose a very elegant solution - with just a few clicks, I can show everything or nothing, hide things I don't want or show it all. I *like* what you're outright claiming is a flaw that should be eliminated, and it even makes sense from a design perspective when dealing with some of the variables they would have had to.

And that's even beside this....

"Citizen management requires extra click to activate, and is more cluttered than previous versions. It's harder than before to tell at a glance who is working what, the green citizen circles, gray empty citizen circles, shared tile circles, yield icon circles, and terrain features blend together."

Am I the only one who looked at the big gray and green circles and just thought it was the most simple and obviously intuitive thing in the world? It did not take me a half second to figure out those big empty grey disks were "click here to work this tile" buttons and the citizen head meant a tile that the governor could relocate, and the lock meant something they could. Same deal for shared tiles - what was so hard? And I also have to ask - "harder than before" - for a guy who was so against ME bringing up older games, what "before" are you talking about? And what do you even mean by "terrain features blend together" - I've never noticed this?

This is why I have trouble with you presenting some of these "facts" as facts and considering it more than a way of trying to promote your list - undeservingly - as being special. Some of the issues in your list are CLEARLY matters of opinion, and you're claiming they're objective fact.

I have addressed you, your flaming, and your opinions countless times in this thread. A person can come up with objections for any conceivable statement, including "The sky is blue."

Calling me "self promoting" in an earlier post because I dare to personally ask a question says more about you and your motives than it says about me. It's time for this to stop, you can make your points (which I don't mind debating at all with you) without the unnecessary vitriol. If you can't, then I'll have no choice but to ignore you.

Ok, I can do that. Can you stop trying to pass your opinions off as facts? And that's not why I called you that - I called you that because you're claiming some of your opinions are fact to give your list extra weight. Let it stand on its own merits and stop the "it's all pure fact" routine - it's generally a good list, should be in the complete issues thread, and doesn't need to be peddled as something it's not.

 

[UWHabs]

I actually find 5's city screen to be more cluttered. I can't see at a glance what tile I'm working, all the icons are very large for what they bring, and it's hard to see what's going on at a glance.

But I do agree that it's a matter of taste, and not necessarily a problem. It might just be that we're not used to it yet.

 

[AfterShafter]

Well, in Civ IV's city screen (yeah, I want Civ 4.5 yadah yadah), all those things are there at the same time. It's simpler and easier to use, because instead of having to open a menu, I just have to move my eyes in that direction. If I don't want to look at some info, I just don't, and that's it. What's the point of all those visual attention studies if interface designers think people can't help but to look at everything at once and will get their minds boggled because everything is opened at the same time.

Well, here's the thing. I can understand your position, but, I like open space in an interface if it can be managed. Just a matter of preference, ultimately. So the option to minimize things I'm not currently using is nice.

Why I like this approach in particular is because it's almost entirely a user end choice. If you maximize everything, I think this interface has almost every bit of game equivalent information that Civ IV's did. To me that seems like a great middle ground approach. Perhaps they should have it all open from the start rather than largely all closed, as that seems to be a point of contention, whereas I don't care - if I have to click three times more per city in the course of an entire game, I can live with that.

And, I don't criticize people for wanting Civ IV things back - I want corporations and religions back myself. I just don't think Civ V is utter and complete garbage, and has potential to flesh out more.

 

[AfterShafter]

I do acknowledge I did not study the OP's statements -- I read them once the day this thread was started and that's it. And I probably was reacting as much to your attitude as anything else. I apologize.

Fair enough. I apologize as well. I realize I'm often an abrasive poster, and I just run away with myself sometimes.

As for your other quoted contributions in this, which are interesting actually, I still think this is a grey area. Civ V's interface still requires very little clicking to set it to what you want it to be for the rest of the game. You enter a city, expand 3 or 4 menus if you want it all, and you're done with that city for the remainder of the game. As I stated in another post (which came after yours), perhaps they should start with all menus maximized rather than most minimized. I want to be clear though, getting rid of the ability to do a few more clicks and maximize/minimize would be a mistake in my eyes because some gamers, like me, would much prefer to hide our specialists in non-specialist cities, wonder lists, and all that jazz.

I will say, since you're literally 3 or 4 clicks per city per game away from having it all expanded and available, I think this is a big deal being made out of a very small point at absolute worse, and getting rid of any sort of minimize/maximize options for UI segments is a mistake.

 

[Atwork]

I think placing the power of what to show and what to hide in the gamer's hands is an entirely reasonable solution.

I think they chose a very elegant solution - with just a few clicks, I can show everything or nothing, hide things I don't want or show it all.

These two statements are in contradiction. Placing the power in the player's hand, to me, would indicate that the player can set up his own interface so that he can personalize it to his liking -- I think that would be great and solve everything. On the other hand, having to click to hide or show things really puts the power in the hands of the designer who decided which things to show or hide etc.

Am I the only one who looked at the big gray and green circles and just thought it was the most simple and obviously intuitive thing in the world? It did not take me a half second to figure out those big empty grey disks were "click here to work this tile" buttons and the citizen head meant a tile that the governor could relocate, and the lock meant something they could.

I think you're addressing an argument that few would make. I doubt many people would claim that this system is difficult to understand or operate. Most, if not all, of the complaints I've read have stated that it is simply cluttered looking -- that sometimes people click on one "disk" expecting it to be associated with one tile, but it's not, etc. because it's just a very busy design. A bunch of discs hanging above, not on, the associated tile.

Most of the arguments I've read are simply that C4's design was cleaner -- you click on the tile you want worked and it's auto locked -- done. IMO, they should have used the same basic C4 design, but put a green circle around a tile being worked according to governor's preference & slightly grayed out the yields and tiles not being worked. If a tile is not grayed out & there's not a green circle around the tile, then it has been locked. Very easy and much less clutter.

Another complaint I've read is that the yields used to be featured much more prominently as opposed to the microscopic little apple, coin, hammer we have now.

 

[builer680]

Ok, I can do that. Can you stop trying to pass your opinions off as facts? And that's not why I called you that - I called you that because you're claiming some of your opinions are fact to give your list extra weight. Let it stand on its own merits and stop the "it's all pure fact" routine - it's generally a good list, should be in the complete issues thread, and doesn't need to be peddled as something it's not.

Ok, let me take this particular example to a ridiculous extreme in order to clarify what I mean then. All I have to do is ask "Is the UI perfect?"

If the answer is "No", then by definition there are problems with it. The degree to which it is a problem IS a matter of opinion (for me an unnecessarily clunky UI is a huge issue, for you maybe not so much), but the mere statement that it has problems is not opinion, but a fact.

Yes, I agree that it's ridiculous to expect perfection. But it isn't ridiculous to point out areas that can be improved in the hopes that it will eventually add to the game. I think anyone would agree that a UI that can show all necessary information without busy clutter (yes, the City Screen is simple and intuitive... but so many pieces of information and parts of the interface being the same shape, a circle, and the same size, strains my eyes and makes it very difficult for me to quickly assimilate information, for example) AND without hiding things would be an improvement.

 

[Atwork]

and you're done with that city for the remainder of the game

I'm a MMer -- I'm in and out of those screens constantly. I'm constantly switching tiles around, adjusting my queues, moving over from tiles to specialists......it's a constant juggling act with me -- and opening and closing several different panels/screens gets really annoying.

all menus maximized rather than most minimized

I wouldn't mind something along these lines. It would be pretty great to be able to customize the UI to a greater degree. But, given how prominent the panels are when they pop open now, and given the size of the font now, I'm not sure how that would work. A scaling tool would be nice.

 

[AfterShafter]

These two statements are in contradiction. Placing the power in the player's hand, to me, would indicate that the player can set up his own interface so that he can personalize it to his liking -- I think that would be great and solve everything. On the other hand, having to click to hide or show things really puts the power in the hands of the designer who decided which things to show or hide etc.

I've got to starkly disagree with this, and I do not, in the slightest, see the contradiction between the bits of mine you quoted...

"I think placing the power of what to show and what to hide in the gamer's hands is an entirely reasonable solution."

VS

"I think they chose a very elegant solution - with just a few clicks, I can show everything or nothing, hide things I don't want or show it all."

Where's the contradiction? The first one is essentially saying "The gamer gets to choose what they hide" and the second one is saying "The gamer gets to choose what to maximize or minimize, and that's an elegant solution (to potential bad computers not having as much room to show things)."

How does giving the gamer a bunch of minimize/maximize options that lets the gamer pick and choose what he wants to show put the power in the hands of the designer, if you don't mind my asking? Don't get me wrong, I could see ways they could give MORE power - dragging menus around to different locations, or something - but this is definitely a step in the "gamers control what the interface shows" direction. If I want to see menu X displayed prominently on the interface, I maximize - if I don't, minimize. I really don't see how you're claiming this puts more in the developers hands than the gamers than just having it in a fixed UI that just outright shows it?

(just for the record, as someone who started playing Civ IV on a crappy old laptop which could play it only on minimum resolution, that big box of an interface was an overbearing oppressive wall at times on that tiny, low res screen - looked MUCH better when I got my better computer).

I think you're addressing an argument that few would make. I doubt many people would claim that this system is difficult to understand or operate. Most, if not all, of the complaints I've read have stated that it is simply cluttered looking -- that sometimes people click on one "disk" expecting it to be associated with one tile, but it's not, etc. because it's just a very busy design. A bunch of discs hanging above, not on, the associated tile.

But here's the thing - I'm responding DIRECTLY to what the original poster said. You say it's an argument "that few would make" - well, here it is in the original post:

"It's harder than before to tell at a glance who is working what, the green citizen circles, gray empty citizen circles, shared tile circles, yield icon circles, and terrain features blend together."

See? He outright says "it's harder" and I didn't find it to be harder at all. Are you being critical of me for bringing it up because few would make the argument? I agree, I think it's a questionable argument and it kind of boggles my mind that people actually push it.

Most of the arguments I've read are simply that C4's design was cleaner -- you click on the tile you want worked and it's auto locked -- done. They could have just used the same old system and put a green circle around the tile being worked according to governor's preference -- if the yields are grayed out, then they're not being worked -- if the tile is not grayed out and there's not a green circle around the tile, then it has been locked. Very easy and much less cluttered.

Another complaint I've read is that the yields used to be featured much more prominently as opposed to the microscopic little apple, coin, hammer we have now.

Hrm... But, isn't that more or less how they've done it? Once you've chosen to show citizen allocation, then you click on a tile you want worked and it's auto-locked - done. If there's a benefit to the big circles, it shows which tiles are locked and which aren't and which are governor choice much more prevalently.

As for the size of tile yields - they do get significantly larger when you zoom, you know. Perhaps you're zoomed out too far? But again, that's a matter of player choice - scope VS magnification. It was a bit of an irritant for me in Civ IV when I would have to leave the city screen to see how the city was situated near other cities and such. Now I can just zoom out in the city menu and see all the nearby cities.

Got to confess, I do like Civ V's city interface.

 

[builer680]

IMO, they should have used the same basic C4 design, but put a green circle around a tile being worked according to governor's preference & slightly grayed out the yields and tiles not being worked. If a tile is not grayed out & there's not a green circle around the tile, then it has been locked. Very easy and much less clutter.

This is almost exactly what I have in mind when I envision simple improvements for better presentation of citizen allocation. Right down to the greying out (but not AS greyed out as the tiles beyond the city's radius) of unworked tiles relative to worked tiles.

 

[AfterShafter]

I'm a MMer -- I'm in and out of those screens constantly. I'm constantly switching tiles around, adjusting my queues, moving over from tiles to specialists......it's a constant juggling act with me -- and opening and closing several different panels/screens gets really annoying.


I wouldn't mind something along these lines. It would be pretty great to be able to customize the UI to a greater degree. But, given how prominent the panels are when they pop open now, and given the size of the font now, I'm not sure how that would work. A scaling tool would be nice.

I tend to be an MM'er too, though more with workers... I actually do miss being able to build tactical road networks without paying out the rear for it.

But, beside the point. You have to open those menus once - period - if you want them open. No need to constantly juggle them after that. You do it when you found the city, you open them, done. If you're trying to make it sound like the current system requires constant micromanagement to combat some grievous attempt at UI streamlining, it's simply not true. Maximize menus, and done, for the rest of the game.

I can't argue with your second point. Font changes, UI menu plasticity, etc... Heck, in Magic the Gathering Online I can't even stack cards how I want them on the playing board - instead it will lay out sixty saproling tokens sprawling across the entire board, forcing a further and further zoomout... Stacking them in groups of five or ten would hit the spot, but, it's not an option. I've often wondered why so few developers allow heavy UI plasticity - is it a particularly tough element to program or something? I guess it took OS's years to streamline...

 

[AfterShafter]

Ok, let me take this particular example to a ridiculous extreme in order to clarify what I mean then. All I have to do is ask "Is the UI perfect?"

If the answer is "No", then by definition there are problems with it. The degree to which it is a problem IS a matter of opinion (for me an unnecessarily clunky UI is a huge issue, for you maybe not so much), but the mere statement that it has problems is not opinion, but a fact.

Yes, I agree that it's ridiculous to expect perfection. But it isn't ridiculous to point out areas that can be improved in the hopes that it will eventually add to the game. I think anyone would agree that a UI that can show all necessary information without busy clutter (yes it's simple and intuitive, but so many pieces of information and parts of the interface being the same shape, a circle, and the same size, makes it very difficult for me to quickly assimilate information, for example) AND without hiding things would be an improvement.

Well, I think you're aware of the issue with arguing from a ridiculous degree - when you start doing so, the argument starts to slide into being ridiculous in general. Ok, so nothing is perfect - dandy. The Civ V interface currently isn't, but neither will whatever proposed solution you have or the devs or modding community be, so why bother? We'll be back at square one again dealing with flaws. And hey, where's my interface button that directly stimulates the pleasure center of my brain? I mean, come on - these incompetent designers!

The issue is, when you're dealing with something like UI, the "flaws" become matter of opinion rather than this is glaringly wrong, and this is PRECISELY the stumbling block here. You look at the minimize issue, and say "the extra click is an error." Now, I don't think the perfect interface is the Civ V one, but the perfect Civ interface, in my eyes and as we know Civ interfaces now (IE - excluding mind-machine interfaces or some such) would included menus that could be minimized. In your opinion, the extra click is a problem. In my opinion, the option to maximize or minimize bits and pieces of it is a spectacular decision which I support 100%, and I hope they include in every future Civ interface. So to be clear, while I do not think Civ V has the perfect interface, the element of it that you want to outright eliminate as an error is something that I consider a potential part of a potential "perfect" Civ interface.

Also, you say...

"I think anyone would agree that a UI that can show all necessary information without busy clutter (yes it's simple and intuitive, but so many pieces of information and parts of the interface being the same shape, a circle, and the same size, makes it very difficult for me to quickly assimilate information, for example) AND without hiding things would be an improvement."

But, something I haven't seen you acknowledge yet is, not all players' playing spaces are created equal. Above I referenced myself playing Civ IV initially on an old laptop that was low specs. Low resolution = smaller playing area. What eventually became a nice roomy, informative Civ IV box-interface with my new machine was a cramped, oppressive wall of information that made me feel like I was trapped in a closet with my city on my old one. Boy what I would have given for the ability to minimize substantial parts of that interface in that playing situation! But it wasn't there. NOW it is. Multiple sized "play spaces" doesn't necessarily work well with fixed sized all-revealing UI's. There's a lot of information available in Civ - sometimes, for some people with some machines, there isn't a lot of space to display it. Those people MUST be considered in UI design. I feel this Civ game has more than previous ones.

So, are you willing to admit we're arguing two differing opinions yet, or are you still "all fact"?

 

[Atwork]

How does giving the gamer a bunch of minimize/maximize options that lets the gamer pick and choose what he wants to show put the power in the hands of the designer, if you don't mind my asking?

I think we're meaning the same thing, but being unclear in what we're saying. But to be sure....

If a designer designs a system in which info A B and C is always displayed, but info X Y and Z is hidden unless maximized, but the player controls when to min/max X Y and Z, then the player merely controls the option of min/maxing. The player does not control the designer's decision to subject X Y and Z to the necessity of min/maxing.

On the other hand, if the designer designs a system in which A B C X Y and Z are always maximized unless the player chooses to minimize certain of the info, X Y and Z for example, & the player can select to have X Y and Z always minimized, then it could be said that the player has the power.

I would support the latter over the former.

But, isn't that more or less how they've done it? Once you've chosen to show citizen allocation, then you click on a tile you want worked and it's auto-locked - done. If there's a benefit to the big circles, it shows which tiles are locked and which aren't and which are governor choice much more prevalently.

It's less how they've done it. Again, the biggest distinction is simply clicking on the tile vs. clicking on some tiny little disk above the tile. The former is as easy as it could possibly be whereas the latter leads to people complaining.

As to the "big" circles around tiles chosen by the governor -- the circle could be made using a very thin line and only as big in circumference as necessary to encircle the tiles info -- obviously smaller than the hex -- so it would not be hard on the eyes.

Also, if a player checked in on his cities after every expansion, as I do, then upon entering the city screen there'd be just one green circle, which would quickly disappear once I locked down the tile, and it would never be seen again.

On the other hand, no matter what actions you take inside your C5 city screen, there's always a bunch of discs hanging above all your tiles -- there's no way to get rid of the clutter. If nothing else, it looks very inorganic.

As for the size of tile yields - they do get significantly larger when you zoom, you know. Perhaps you're zoomed out too far?

It's true -- as my empire grows I find myself playing from a more zoomed out perspective to get a bigger view of things. So, when I enter the city screen it too is zoomed out. But, actually, this is sort of a problem too.

Upon entering the city screen it should zoom you in to a set view which you can then zoom in or out from. It gets old rolling in the zoom to not have to squint at the tile yields. But, the reason why the yields are so small now is because the big ol' disks hanging above every tile. With all the disks hanging and all the microscopic yields -- it really looks cluttered and it isn't the best design.

 

[AfterShafter]

I think we're meaning the same thing, but being unclear in what we're saying. But to be sure....

If a designer designs a system in which info A B and C is always displayed, but info X Y and Z is hidden unless maximized, but the player controls when to min/max X Y and Z, then the player merely controls the option of min/maxing. The player does not control the designer's decision to subject X Y and Z to the necessity of min/maxing.

On the other hand, if the designer designs a system in which A B C X Y and Z are always maximized unless the player chooses to minimize certain of the info, X Y and Z for example, & the player can select to have X Y and Z always minimized, then it could be said that the player has the power.

I would support the latter over the former.

Got to confess, that was a bit confusing. I'm not sure what your issue is with the player not "controlling the designer's decision" here...

You've created a middling and an extreme case. Let's call the first one you mentioned (ABC displayed, XYZ optional hide/non-hide) case B. Let's call your second one (ABCXYZ all optional hide/non-hide) case C. The problem is, you've left out an OBVIOUS case A - which is, ABCXYZ are all displayed, none hideable/non-hideable. I agree, the player has LESS choice in case B relative to case C, but relative to case A, which was more in line with previous Civs, case B is a notable improvement.

The designer in case B (which is, basically, Civ V's situation) gave the player a degree of interface plasticity - not absolute, but definitely there. Not as much as a hypothetical case C where you control everything, but it's undeniable that there is MORE choice than case A. And I submit as fact (a big issue in this thread) the Civ V interface lets you pick and choose what information you display more than previous Civ iterations (discounting mods). This is a step in the direction of increasing user end choice rather than developers simply slapping information there whether you want it or not. I think it's a fact that case B offers more choice case than A, and choice C is a hypothetical "you can change EVERYTHING!" situation.

It's less how they've done it. Again, the biggest distinction is simply clicking on the tile vs. clicking on some tiny little disk above the tile. The former is as easy as it could possibly be whereas the latter leads to people complaining.

As to the "big" circles around tiles chosen by the governor -- the circle could be made using a very thin line and only as big in circumference as necessary to encircle the tiles info -- obviously smaller than the hex -- so it would not be hard on the eyes.

Also, if a player checked in on his cities after every expansion, as I do, then upon entering the city screen there'd be just one green circle, which would quickly disappear once I locked down the tile, and it would never be seen again.

On the other hand, no matter what actions you take inside your C5 city screen, there's always a bunch of discs hanging above all your tiles -- there's now way to get rid of the clutter. If nothing else, it looks very inorganic.

It's true -- as my empire grows I find myself playing from a more zoomed out perspective to get a bigger view of things. So, when I enter the city screen it too is zoomed out. But, actually, this is sort of a problem too.

You know, actually, as I've been participating in this thread I've been carefully examining the Civ V city interface, and I think I know why they went to the disks from selecting tiles. Coincidentally, it seems like it's directly related to the zoom thing. When you zoom out, tiles become very small and you can no longer select them to fiddle with workers and manage your population... But when you zoom out, those discs remain a fairly constant size and are still easy to manipulate. I think I can say with some confidence, they went to the disks to allow for you to still manage your city population distribution even when zooming out to a great degree. Love it or hate it, I think it's a safe bet that's the reason. And since you've admitted you like using the zoom feature...

Upon entering the city screen it should zoom you in to a set view which you can then zoom in or out from. It gets old rolling in the zoom to not have to squint at the tile yields. But, the reason why the yields are so small now is because the big ol' disks hanging above every tile. With all the disks hanging and all the microscopic yields -- it really looks cluttered and it isn't the best design.

Oh, and you should know, I'm testing this as we speak. This is EXACTLY what it does. When you enter a city, it always starts you off at a set mid-distance level of zone, not zoomed out to your previous satellite orbit. So, scratch that problem, eh?

 

[builer680]

Spoiler :

Well, I think you're aware of the issue with arguing from a ridiculous degree - when you start doing so, the argument starts to slide into being ridiculous in general. Ok, so nothing is perfect - dandy. The Civ V interface currently isn't, but neither will whatever proposed solution you have or the devs or modding community be, so why bother? We'll be back at square one again dealing with flaws. And hey, where's my interface button that directly stimulates the pleasure center of my brain? I mean, come on - these incompetent designers!

The issue is, when you're dealing with something like UI, the "flaws" become matter of opinion rather than this is glaringly wrong, and this is PRECISELY the stumbling block here. You look at the minimize issue, and say "the extra click is an error." Now, I don't think the perfect interface is the Civ V one, but the perfect Civ interface, in my eyes and as we know Civ interfaces now (IE - excluding mind-machine interfaces or some such) would included menus that could be minimized. In your opinion, the extra click is a problem. In my opinion, the option to maximize or minimize bits and pieces of it is a spectacular decision which I support 100%, and I hope they include in every future Civ interface. So to be clear, while I do not think Civ V has the perfect interface, the element of it that you want to outright eliminate as an error is something that I consider a potential part of a potential "perfect" Civ interface.

Also, you say...

"I think anyone would agree that a UI that can show all necessary information without busy clutter (yes it's simple and intuitive, but so many pieces of information and parts of the interface being the same shape, a circle, and the same size, makes it very difficult for me to quickly assimilate information, for example) AND without hiding things would be an improvement."

But, something I haven't seen you acknowledge yet is, not all players' playing spaces are created equal. Above I referenced myself playing Civ IV initially on an old laptop that was low specs. Low resolution = smaller playing area. What eventually became a nice roomy, informative Civ IV box-interface with my new machine was a cramped, oppressive wall of information that made me feel like I was trapped in a closet with my city on my old one. Boy what I would have given for the ability to minimize substantial parts of that interface in that playing situation! But it wasn't there. NOW it is. Multiple sized "play spaces" doesn't necessarily work well with fixed sized all-revealing UI's. There's a lot of information available in Civ - sometimes, for some people with some machines, there isn't a lot of space to display it. Those people MUST be considered in UI design. I feel this Civ game has more than previous ones.

So, are you willing to admit we're arguing two differing opinions yet, or are you still "all fact"?

You are essentially arguing what assumptions developers should make about the systems their games are being played on. If you operate from the assumption that any UI has to fit comfortably in both a calculator screen and a 52" LCD monitor, then of course you constrain yourself in the design. I can't really address this process because I have no experience with such matters.

I can say (and have said) that it could have been done without hiding information, making queues take more input than before, and without using the same sizes and shapes dozens of times in the same screen to represent different information. This much is fact, and I'm not sure it's too much of a stretch to make the assumption that most people would find this an improvement.

The only thing I might concede is that I could have added the qualifier "for some players" to the statement about it being harder than before to quickly gather information in such a setup. As I (basically) said a couple posts up, the City Screen IS simple and intuitive, but it is ALSO a visual car wreck that would have well served with better use of different shapes, sizes, and shading. As such, I feel it has a place in a list of problems with the game.

 

[Atwork]

case B is a notable improvement

And there's the rub. I'd prefer option C. But, if not C, then give me option A. I played C4 with the BUG mod with its gobs of info everywhere and loved it. For me, I want the option of having as much of info/options as possible placed right in front of me. I really don't like digging for info/options. I dislike incomplete info even more (a real issue in this game). It takes very little time to train my eyes where to find things and where not to find things and, ultimately, I'd rather not subject my fingers to future arthritis when it simply isn't necessary

This is EXACTLY what it does. When you enter a city, it always starts you off at a set mid-distance level of zone, not zoomed out to your previous satellite orbit. So, scratch that problem, eh?

Was that fixed with the last patch? I remember that not being the case before. But, admittedly, I played the game for about 4 hours after the last patch and before that I hadn't played the game since the first weeks it was released......so I'm sort of relying on memory. Anyways, if that's how it functions now, then kudos to the devs for identifying and correcting the problem.

And since you've admitted you like using the zoom feature

I like the feature outside of the city screen. I mean, I'm not opposed to a zoom feature inside the city screen -- but I think they could have somewhat limited the distance a player can zoom out if it means the difference between a cluttered city screen and a clean/less-cluttered city screen.

I don't see it being necessary to manage one's cities from a greatly zoomed out perspective. But even if it were, I think the design could have accomplished providing that option in the ways described above:

better use of different shapes, sizes, and shading

Or, for another example, in C4 when the 'show resource yields' option was on -- the resources would feature prominently over the tiles of the map even from a zoomed out perspective. By using this hovering tile yield display ability (don't know how else to describe it) in addition to colors and shading, the player should still be able to manage his city from a zoomed out perspective but without the city screen being cluttered with discs etc.

And while we're still on the subject of zoom in/out......No zooming out to a global view of the world -- Are you kidding me?

 

[builer680]

You know, actually, as I've been participating in this thread I've been carefully examining the Civ V city interface, and I think I know why they went to the disks from selecting tiles...

Which is fine. Use discs for the interactive tile selection portion of the screen, that's fine by me. But use other distinguishing shapes, shades, and sizes as well to represent all the other information.

 

[leckig]

I will simply vote with my wallet. Once I read here the game is in a good condition, I will spend that $25 or whatever it will cost at that time.

 

[Flak Fox]

MULTIPLAYER

There are no options for combat animations. Only "off."

Let's not forget the inability to properly save and load games in multiplayer.

These two things especially, right here (though there are a lot more as you've stated), keep me from even using multiplayer. I've always liked civ for the ability to play it online with friends, either as a team or against each other, or with intense diplomacy and what have you.

CiV makes it impossible for me to enjoy any of this (my friends included) because we like a nice slow, relaxing, fun game of Civ. No animations and no proper saving/loading makes this a real disappointment and not even worth playing.

 

[builer680]

Let's not forget the inability to properly save and load games in multiplayer.

These two things especially, right here (though there are a lot more as you've stated), keep me from even using multiplayer. I've always liked civ for the ability to play it online with friends, either as a team or against each other, or with intense diplomacy and what have you.

CiV makes it impossible for me to enjoy any of this (my friends included) because we like a nice slow, relaxing, fun game of Civ. No animations and no proper saving/loading makes this a real disappointment and not even worth playing.

I actually left this one out on purpose, because I've seen detailed descriptions on how to achieve this. It has something to do with renaming and then moving the last autosave (or maybe it was the quicksave Ctrl-S) to another folder (so it doesn't get saved over when you play other saves or use quicksave again). I haven't figured it out myself, but I have seen it done in a game I played that was hosted by another player.

It certainly is, however, much more trouble that it needed to be.

Edit: A quick Google search turned up this. Quite a bit of extra hoop jumping though.