Why didn't like you civ5?

[Abegweit]

I understood what you were saying. Civ4 is the pinnacle of the series. On that we agree.

However, IMO, the civ5 interface is every bit as bad as the rest of the game. The civ3 interface, in contrast, is clean and attractive. And the 2 1/2 D display is far more appropriate for this kind of game than the 3D version used in both of the successors.

 

[calibur]

From what I've seen, it looks pretty much the same as civ 4 (the civ 3 graphics), only isometric, and it takes less power.

 

[Bowsling]

It looks much nicer than CivIV, with a few exceptions. It also runs much crisper and smoother. I'm with Abeg here, I'd really like to see a CivIII graphics mod for CivIV.

 

[calibur]

how does it look better?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The objective way to evaluate UI is based on the amount of inputs it takes to access information, and the amount of inputs it takes to be able to do something.

Civ V is easily the worst the series has given us in a long time, which is bad because Civ IV's UI is pretty bad too. I don't remember III's too well.

I'm not going to butt heads over opinions on which pure graphics look nicer, although I will comment that making the game look somewhat better at the expense of MASSIVE slowdown and stomping out some of your target market (people with weaker machines) is probably a bad idea...and it also gets design away from the "strategy" aspect of the game which is its fundamental core attraction...being a strategy title and all.

It's an interesting thing; Firaxis wanted to cater to more casual fans who play games like shooters, so they went for graphics. However, it is just as valid to point out the attention span limitations, and thus making a game run sloooooowly is going to lose you a good portion of the audience you're trying to pull in.

Most people who care about 1+ minute turn times or the fact that you can't order more than 1 unit every 4-5 seconds because the game simply can't handle faster inputs later on (which is ridiculous and an example of why firaxis sucks btw) don't post on these forums, but that doesn't mean they aren't a potentially sizeable portion of the purchasing demographic, had the game's engine actually run decently.

There are neurological/psychological differences in the younger generation such that their demand for fast information and processing is measurably different from people who didn't grow up with nigh-instant response technology. Perhaps despite their age I'm more like these kids than I'd like to admit, but the reality is that people will frequently lose interest in a website or want to open a new one after a couple of seconds - knowing that, slowing the game down to a glacial pace even while playing one's own turn is going to lose that crowd in a hurry. The game didn't HAVE to be designed the way it was, either.

 

[Windsor]

The objective way to evaluate UI is based on the amount of inputs it takes to access information, and the amount of inputs it takes to be able to do something..

That number alone is useless and greatly favors UIs that are messy.

 

[Abegweit]

When discussing a UI, I am more interested in its cleanliness and clarity than I am in its efficiency. Unlike TMIT, I am not a speed civver and an extra click or two does not bother me so long as this follows naturally from the structure of the interface.

Civ5, with its multiple layers of dialog box nesting is infuriating in this regard. Bith Civ3 and Civ4 are much better and there is little to choose between them. Civ3 has some nicer ways of moving from menu to menu (for example, you can move from one diplo screen to the next using arrow keys) while Civ4 has more info on the main screen and more ways of clicking it.

I am a firm believer in 2D displays for this kind of game. It is much easier to absorb the information on the Civ3 main screen despite the 14 year old graphics. For example, resources are placed directly on the map instead of being put in those annoying bubbles used by both successors.

The Civ5 "strategic layer" could have been up to Civ3 standards. Unfortunately no effort was ever put into making it attractive. It is rather clear that this was an early UI that the team built for development purposes and which stayed in the game because they hated the 3D piece of crud which was foisted on the general public.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That number alone is useless and greatly favors UIs that are messy.

True enough, I oversimplified it. The information presented also needs to be relevant.

A really good UI requires a small number of inputs where the inputs can be learned or inferred easily. From a presentation standpoint, it should be extremely easy to switch information on and off in a rapid fashion without taking up gobs of the possible screen space.

That said, it's virtually impossible to claim a UI is good if it takes a large number of steps to accomplish basic tasks, especially if there is delay between inputs to the extent that the user can make an input and have the program not register it as having ever existed.

What's funny about Civ V UI however is that it fails invirtually every single UI consideration. It's slow as all get-out, makes navigating to collect more information a pain, requires a ton of unnecessary inputs, lacks any form of readily available customization, and for all that it gives up it doesn't even manage to be more intuitive than previous iterations. It's pathetic. This is one of those areas I actually agree with Sulla; why use up so much space and then give comically tiny buttons on things like queue?

Unlike TMIT, I am not a speed civver and an extra click or two does not bother me so long as this follows naturally from the structure of the interface.

No matter what, if something requires an extra click or two, there better be a **** good reason to require an extra click or two. Reducing what would otherwise be too much clutter is valid. Accomplishing nothing at all + adding steps is not. Compare queuing a unit in a city in IV and V:

IV:

Click on city, hold shift, click unit

V:

Click on city, click on city again, press excape, click show queue, use a tiny button to add units

Really? Why? What did that add? Nothing. Why did they do it? Only to add a heaping helping of "fail" .

 

[Abegweit]

Not matter what, if something requires an extra click or two, there better be a **** good reason to require an extra click or two.

Agreed totally. I was not suggesting anything different. My point, though, was that I don't use accelerator keys much and so I am more concerned with cleanliness and clarity than I am with raw speed.

Compare queuing a unit in a city in IV and V...

It is simply infuriating to see a decent design replaced by something inferior for no reason. There was no justification for this. In a similar vein, it was possible to get from a cities list dialog to the screen from an individual city screen in III. Can't be done in IV. The cities list dialog looked much nicer too.

I can accept the decline in the clarity of the main screen from III to IV. I don't agree with the reasons behind the change but at least there were some (marketing requires 3D...). Degrading the interface for no reason is quite another thing.

 

[lymond]

In a similar vein, it was possible to get from a cities list dialog to the screen from an individual city screen in III.

I may be misreading since the wording here is off, but are you sure about this?

 

[Abegweit]

Yes, the wording is terrible. My apologies.

To the point, in III if you are in cities dialog list and click on a city, the game will take you to that city screen. In IV, it moves the display.

 

[lymond]

To the point, in III if you are in cities dialog list and click on a city, the game will take you to that city screen. In IV, it moves the display.

Assuming you mean the F1 screen, have you tried clicking on the button to the left of the city name

 

[Abegweit]

^^^

I never realized that that was a button. Why should I? What's the point of it? If I click on the city name, it centers the map (that I can't see underneath the dialog). Clicking on the name should perform both actions, eliminating the need for a button. That is exactly the way it worked in III.

Another example of inferior design. If I click on a leader face in the F4 leader screen, it does nothing. It took me years to discover that right-click does what I want. Why? The left button is supposed to be the action button.

A good interface is easy to discover.

 

[Mike.doc]

What I like in the GUI Civ5 is that it looks like a miniature wargame with. Do you think it could be feasible?
(Google translation from french)

 

[lymond]

I never realized that that was a button. Why should I? What's the point of it? If I click on the city name, it centers the map (that I can't see underneath the dialog). Clicking on the name should perform both actions, eliminating the need for a button. That is exactly the way it worked in III.

Sorry, but that is a real stretch as a complaint. First of all, things like that can be read in a manual or figured out easily clicking around a bit. I don't complain about such things as long as the feature works nicely..and this one happens to do just that. It's simply that you are trying hard to find fault where it does not lie...and the old "older is better than newer" mythos.

The button serves a purposes separate than that of clicking on the city name, which does actually have a purpose. It's an improvement to the UI. You have a VERY simple way of click directly into the city screen AND a very simple way of making queue changes to cities without entering the screen, as if you clicked on a city's bar. You can basically make queue changes in a snap for all cities in the F1 screen without having to go in and out of city screens. It's quite nice actually.

Another example of inferior design. If I click on a leader face in the F4 leader screen, it does nothing. It took me years to discover that right-click does what I want. Why? The left button is supposed to be the action button.

You gotta be kidding me. First left clicking on a leaders face does do something. It allows you to gauge attitudes and evaluate relationships between AIs and yourself. And I find it very hard to believe that it took you years to figure out the right-click. It's one of the first things I learned. It's not rocket science.

 

[GKey]

It took me some time to realize that you need to click on left button in F1 screen to get to city screen, but once I got it, it's very nicely implemented future. Most of the time you want edit production queue of the city and you can do it without going to city screen (actually you should if you trying to micro, but oh well).

Right click to contact the leader in diplo screen is counter intuitive for sure, you get used to right click though with some playing, not a big deal.

But how hard was to make resources on map been easy to see without turning these annoying bubbles on? Like how many times I find out say unimproved Sugar yet in 1300 AD, cuz I turned bubbles off, in order to see the map clearly? I do prefer the way it been done in CivIII.

And I gave a try to reminders in my recent game and... nothing happened. There were not any reminders at all. And don't you tell me I just did it wrong, it's counter intuitive too!

Jees, how long would it take to learn all aspects of this game?

 

[lymond]

Right click to contact the leader in diplo screen is counter intuitive for sure, you get used to right click though with some playing, not a big deal.

Thing is, I don't find something necessarily counter-intuitive if a) the main purpose of the screen is not to contact the AI b) left-click has a more apt purpose for the screen (at least before BUG came along c) there's a much much easier and faster way to contact AIs that actually involves the left click. In other words, on F4 right-click is an alternative/secondary approach to contact AIs. The main purpose of those screens is INFO...hence advisor.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not just defending 4 for the sake of it or that I think it is perfect. It certainly has UI flaws, especially without BUG/BULL, but I just hate to see complaints that are just plain wrong or highly subjective or misinformed. Put credit where credit is due, or lack thereof.

 

[GKey]

Dunno... I remember how infuriating was doubleclicking leaders faces in diplo screen with no desired result, till I figured about right click.

Is there "using reminders for dummies" guide?

 

[lymond]

I think it's Alt-M or N. Select number of turns. Put a message in, but you don't have to. It might actually be a BUG feature....not sure though.

edit: GKey...something in my memory caused me to check something out. Not sure if you are using BUFFY at the moment or not or whether there is "vanilla" reminders. However, there is a way to turn them on in BUFFY, and I assume BUG or BULL in general (actually activates a submod). ALT-M turns on reminders. I know HOF mods for vanilla and warlords also have them, but use ALT-N. No clue if reminders exists outside a mod. (If not, then it's another item dropped from the complaints lists, other than the lack of the feature delivered...ha)

oh...check the "Alerts" tab

 

[calibur]

Oh, derp. Late, too.
I thought you were referring to game graphics, not the UI. Hence, isometric.